Massachusetts DUI Attorney Blog

As an OUI lawyer in Massachusetts, Super Bowl Sunday is a day where police have extra patrol on the road and generally make a high number of arrests after the game. Super Bowl Sunday has become a national holiday as the Super Bowl is an event for everyone, including non-football fans. This year with the New England Patriots playing in the game, Massachusetts OUI patrol is likely to receive even greater enforcement in this area, in anticipation of the celebration of the team's fourth Super Bowl trophy.

News reports have well documented that police around the country, including in Massachusetts will be on heightened patrol. While it is not illegal to consume alcohol and drive, Massachusetts OUI law not only preclude someone from driving drunk, but whenever their ability to operate a motor vehicle safely is diminished or reduced by alcohol. While this is a difficult standard to satisfy at trial and to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, it takes very little for the police to have probable cause to make an arrest.

Accordingly, it is important if you drink to have a designated driver, walk or take a taxi cab to avoid facing a Massachusetts drunk driving charge.

When faced with a Massachusetts OUI Charge, a defendant has the right to choose between having a bench trial or a jury trial. If a defendant selects a trial by jury the outcome of the case will be decided by 6 jurors. The jurors will be the sole arbiters of the defendant's guilt or innocence. A person who is charged with an OUI can also choose to request a bench trial. In this case, there is no jury. The judge is the one who decides the case and it sometimes is referred to as a "jury waive" trial. In both the bench and jury trials, the judge would impose a sentence if the defendant is found guilty.

According to ABC news reports, Rima Fakih, former Miss America from Michigan, will stand trial in March on a drunken-driving charge unless a plea deal is reached. DUI plea bargains are rare for DUI cases. However, plea bargains offer DUI offenders a lighter sentence in return for a guilty plea. In Fakih's case, two police breath tests put her blood alcohol content over twice the legal limit. She claims she was not drinking and driving despite she was pulled over for weaving in and out of traffic. The officers also found an open bottle of champagne behind the driver's seat.

Fakih has been charged in Michigan with drunk driving, careless driving, and having an open container of alcohol, all misdemeanors. Lawyers carefully look over and study the facts of the case before they decide to recommend a bench or jury trial. For example, a bench trial may be suggested if the judge is known to be a good judge for the defendants or in a case where a not guilty verdict rests on a specific legal point that a judge would be more likely to recognize than a jury. In Massachusetts where a defendant may have multiple OUI charges, a bench trial would be less inclined to be recommended. In these cases, the judges would know that it was a multiple offense, where as a jury would not be told this. A judge in Massachusetts is not legally allowed to consider the fact of past multiple offenses, but this may still cloud his/her judgement.

Bench trials are most common in first or second offenses of OUI charges. Generally speaking, if a person is charged with a third offense or greater, the case would best be heard by a jury. The judge is not known until the case is set down for trial. The DUI Attorney and the motorist would discuss the advantages and disadvantages of a bench and jury trial largely on the attorney's experience with the judge that has been assigned.

Continue reading "Bench or Jury Trial- For the Former Miss America Who has Been Charged With A DUI Offense? " »

A state police captain charged with OUI in Massachusetts recently had the charge dismissed by a clerk magistrate, My Fox Boston reports.

While Massachusetts OUI defense lawyers like to see a person found not guilty of an OUI charge based on the facts of the case, seeing that a police officer has had charges dismissed sometimes can be controversial.

In this case, according to Fox News, 47-year-old Thomas McCarthy was arrested in November by Saugus police after they chased him. Police said that the trooper captain smelled of alcohol and had an open container in his car, which was state-owned.

Once an officer smells what they believe to be alcohol, they typically will start an OUI investigation on the spot.

That's going to include asking the driver to take a breathalyzer test , as well as adhering to field sobriety tests, which include walking in a straight line, heel-to-toe, standing on one foot without falling and following an object that moves side to side.

But did that happen in this case? According to Fox News it did not and that is why the charges were eventually dismissed. The news station reports that police did not make the trooper submit a breath test or do field sobriety tests, giving him an opportunity to get out of the charge.

The Daily Item reports that the trooper pleaded innocent to a charge of negligent operation of a motor vehicle after the first-offense OUI charge was dropped due to insufficient evidence. He also faces charges of failing to stop and marked lane violations.

Certainly, an experienced Massachusetts OUI defense lawyer is going to look at every aspect of the case to ensure that policies and procedures were followed and that the defendant's rights were upheld. A lawyer will also take time to look at all the actions of the law enforcement officers who made the arrest.

If officers' only "evidence" is the smell of alcohol, but there is no proof of a field sobriety test or a breathalyzer test reading, motions will be filed with the court to dismiss the charges and there will be very little proof at trial. Motorists need to beware however, that refusing the submit to a breathalyzer test carries with it separate penalties.

Continue reading "Trooper Beats Massachusetts First-Offense OUI Charge After Poor Police Work" »

The While House has declared December National Impaired Driving Prevention Month; there is some irony given the fact that the President's uncle being arrested in Framingham this year and charged with first offense OUI in Massachusetts, as we previously reported on our blog.

As the Buffalo True Crime Examiner reports, there is a full-court press underway nationwide to try to cut down on drunken driving, despite statistics showing that numbers are significantly down from the past few decades.

Massachusetts OUI lawyers know such enforcement efforts increase the risk of marginal and unfair arrests. There will be an increased presence of law enforcement officers -- both local and state -- attempting to make as many OUI arrests in Massachusetts as possible in the coming weeks.

As we head into the holiday season, this is a busy time for police officers anyway. There will be nearly 92 million people traveling this holiday season, Providence Business News reports, based on AAA travel predictions. That equals about 30 percent of the U.S. population who will travel 50 miles or more from home this year, a 1.4 percent increase from last year's estimation.

About 91 percent of those travelers will be moving by vehicle, so the number of people on the highways will be staggering.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has also thrown in its two cents, saying that it is conduction a nationwide enforcement of OUI laws. The agency is spending $7 million of taxpayer dollars on a "Drive Sober or Get Pulled Over" advertisement campaign that is expected to run during the last two weeks of the year and into the New Year.

In 2010, overall rates of drunken driving declined, however. Statistics released this December show that nationwide, there were more than 500 fewer alcohol-related traffic deaths in 2010 compared to 2009, good for a 5 percent drop.

Despite this, authorities still try to dig up statistics to try to justify the emphasis on pulling people over and trying to charge them with OUI. Operating a vehicle under the influence in Massachusetts is a serious offense and while it is still the most commonly charged crime in the state, the penalties continue increasing.

A person who faces a first-time offense with no prior criminal history can be subjected to major sanctions, including jail time, a one year driver's license suspension, fines and fees, possible alcohol education program and the possibility of probation in lieu of, or in addition to, jail time.

Those are major penalties for a one-time mistake. That's why it is important to fight the charges and look at all possible avenues of defense. A skilled Massachusetts OUI lawyer will examine all aspects of the case, but pay particularly close attention to the breath testing equipment and procedures used by law enforcement and the field sobriety test results.

It is sometimes possible to show that either the equipment used by police was faulty or the officer's observations during field sobriety testing -- walking heel-to-toe, maintaining balance on one leg or following an object with one's eyes -- contradict with what actually happened.

Continue reading "Nationwide Crackdown on Drunken Driving Leads to More Massachusetts First Offense OUI Arrests" »

A first offense Massachusetts OUI charge and child endangerment charge was brought after a mother from Somerset was allegedly found drunk in her car with her child, The Herald News reports.

Being charged with OUI in Rehoboth is a serious, and potentially life-changing, event. Having additional charges levied by police and prosecutors can make a bad situation worse.

But it doesn't mean you are powerless. Hiring an experienced Massachusetts OUI lawyer can have a positive impact on the outcome of your case.

In some cases, evidence seized by police can be tossed out of an OUI case if procedures weren't followed. And individual pieces of evidence, such as breath test results and field sobriety testing, may be inadmissible in some cases. A lawyer is the best way to address those facts and whether or not they belong in an OUI case.

Rehoboth police allegedly found the woman inside an unlocked vehicle in a parking lot. Police said her 3-year-old son was inside the vehicle as well.

According to a police report, the woman was passed out with blood on her face and hands, the newspaper is reporting. The car had minor front-end damage, police said, opining that the vehicle may have hit a tree or stump. The vehicle was found in a parking lot at the edge of Middlebrook Country Club's parking lot on Pleasant Street.

When police awoke the woman, she allegedly displayed signs of intoxication. Officers spotted a bottle of vodka in the car's front seat. Officers said it was half-empty. The woman was taken to the hospital and treated and the boy's father was called to pick him up.

After being arraigned, Roberts was released on $2,500 cash bail and is scheduled to appear back in court in mid-December.

A child endangerment conviction can lead to a driver's license loss for one year. In some cases, that charge and other related charges can be dropped if the defendant agrees to enter a plea to the OUI charge. But that may not be the best plan of action and taking the prosecutor's first plea offer may not serve the defendant well, either.

In Massachusetts, in order to be found guilty of OUI, the prosecution must prove the three elements of the crime -- that the defendant operated the vehicle, that the defendant did so in a public place and that while operating the person was under the influence or their blood-alcohol level was above 0.08.

Proving that a person was "operating" a vehicle can be difficult sometimes, if the person isn't pulled over by police while driving. But the state has made it easier for the state to prove because even people whose cars are parked can be considered to be operating the vehicle.

Continue reading "Mom Charged With Rehoboth First Offense OUI After Vodka, Toddler Found in Car" »

The Washington Post is reporting that more woman are being arrested for drunk driving.

Yet the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported this fall that men were responsible for 81 percent of drinking and driving incidents in 2010.

Some of these statistics can be unreliable. For instance, law enforcement runs public relations and media campaigns trying to get people to think that OUI in Massachusetts and nationwide is on the rise.

But, studies have shown that the number of OUI incidents in Fall River, Framingham, Boston and elsewhere are actually on the decline. So, what do you believe?

Our Westborough OUI lawyers recognize that law enforcement will believe the statistics that justify their DUI road blocks and saturation patrols -- DUI is a moneymaker and they are looking to make as many OUI arrests as possible. Whether numbers are up or not, police will be out in full force.

The CDC reports that adults drank and drove 112 million times in 2010 according to the agency's survey. Men ages 21 to 34 made up 32 percent of all drunken driving episodes, but make up only 11 percent of the population. Eighty-five percent of drinking and driving involved binge drinking -- 5 or more drinks for men or 4 or more drinks for women in a short period.

A study by The Century Council, as reported by The Washington Post, suggests that mothers have been drinking and driving with their children more often lately. A study found that the average female drunk driver is older and more educated than their male counterparts.

The profile of a typical female drunken driver didn't surprise researchers, who put together the study after the 2009 accident of a mother in New York who was under the influence of drugs and alcohol and caused a wrong-way crash that killed her, her daughter, three nieces and three men in another vehicle.

The article suggests that some parents, especially mothers, may have a glass of wine or two with friends while caring for their children. This may be a more common situation than we might realize.

But like any OUI case, the charges must be proven. Even a person arrested can't be considered guilty until it is proven in court, despite the court of public opinion. That's what trials are for. And women may face additional charges, most commonly child endangerment, which can increase the potential penalties for a conviction.

The Commonwealth has a great burden in proving someone committed a crime and simply going on the word of the officer who pulled the vehicle over is not enough. More must be proven.

If field sobriety tests were conducted, they must have been conducted appropriately, with consideration taken for weather conditions and possibly the person's physical ailments, could have affected the outcome. If there were witnesses and dash cam surveillance, that, too, should be a factor.

If a driver consents to a breath test machine sample, the reading should be challenged. These machines have been known to be faulty, as thousands of cases have been dismissed because the machines either weren't properly calibrated or maintained or they weren't manufactured correctly.

All of these are factors in a Massachusetts OUI case. Whether you're a woman or a man, it's no matter. An experienced Massachusetts OUI lawyer can help.

Continue reading "More Women Being Arrested for Drunk Driving in Massachusetts" »

A Cohasset, Massachusetts mother faces a Massachusetts OUI charge as well as a charge of child endangerment as police claim, the Cohasset mother was driving under the influence of alcohol according to a report in the Patriot Ledger. The Patriot Ledger reports that an OUI child endangerment charge comes with stricter sentencing guidelines. A child endangerment charge cannot be continued without a finding, but mandates that the court impose upon conviction a ninety day jail sentence. The statute would allow for that sentence to be suspended, meaning that a motorist would not actually have to serve ninety days. The OUI child endangerment statute was added to Massachusetts DUI laws as part of Melanie's Law and can be found at Chapter 90 Section 24V of the General Laws.

The child endangerment charge makes the decision whether to elect a trial or resolve the case more complex. Upon conviction of child endangerment, there is a one year license loss. In some cases, a prosecutor may agree to drop the endangerment charge in exchange for a plea to the OUI offense.

This case may present strong defenses. The observations reported in the Patriot Ledger all appear to be observations that can be minimized at trial. No driver drives perfectly straight down the road at all times; in fact it is common to see drivers make errors and correct their steering. In this case, it appears that the car drifted over the double yellow line. It is likely that after the officer put his blue lights on, the driving was normal and appropriately. This can be used to argue that the drifting resulted from inattention to the road rather than alcohol consumption.

Additionally, the news account claims that the motorist had trouble finding the registration and handed the officer a pile of papers. In many police reports, the officer will claim almost any action is a sign of someone under the influence; either the motorist took too long looking for the correct document or being nervous gave the officer several documents to find the registration.

In some cases, police reports can appear extremely negative to someone charged with a Massachusetts OUI offense. However, I have met with many motorists and explained what appeared to be a very negative report presents some important defenses in the case. If you have any questions about the significance of any observations made by an officer in your police report, feel free to call me at 781-686-5924 or send an email through this website addressing your question.

The Massachusetts OUI lawyer for President Obama's uncle is challenging the stop as being unconstitutional. This was reported by Norman Miller of the Metro Daily News.

The Boston Herald reported that the basis of the motion is that the police officer could not see Obama's uncle proceed through the stop sign. The defense claims that a building would have blocked the officer's view and apparently plans to call an expert witness to testify on this topic. Typically in a motion to suppress, the defense would not disclose the basis of the motion but file a generic motion challenging the stop; the reason is that the prosecutor would likely tailor the testimony to attack the defense theory if it was disclosed.

A motion to suppress challenging the legal basis of a stop is a very common motion in a Massachusetts drunk driving case. If successful, a motion to suppress would result in the entire case being dismissed as if there was not a lawful basis for the stop, under the exclusionary rule, the court would suppress all observations of the officer, results of field sobriety tests and any breathalyzer test results.

Even if a motion to suppress is unsuccessful, the motion can be beneficial in defending an OUI charge as it sets forth the testimony of the officer regarding the stop. In some cases, this testimony may reveal that the driving infraction was not as serious as indicated in the police report or it could reveal that at trial the officer will claim additional traffic infractions that were not mentioned in the police report. While an officer can be impeached if testimony differs from the police report, the impact of this impeachment would vary depending on how substantial the omission from the police report.

Other types of motion in a Massachusetts drunk driving arrests would include motion to suppress statements, challenges to the order to get out of the car and searches of the interior of the vehicle after a motorist has been arrested.

Continue reading "Massachusetts OUI lawyer for Obama's Uncle challenge stop as unconstitutional" »

The Boston Globe published its second of three installments on drunk driving bench trials in Massachusetts. The Globe claimed to have researched the number of not guilty verdicts from selected judges that were targeted by prosecutors and published statistics of their rate of not guilty verdicts. Click here to read Part II of the Globe's special report. This special report focused primarily on Plymouth County OUI cases but also targeted many of the same judges criticized in the first part of its report. To read my Blog regarding Part I of the special report, you can click here.

The Globe's article is clearly motivated to further the political agenda of prosecutors. An example of this is that the Globe was critical of one Taunton District Court judge who finds that the lack of video tape evidence can be used against the Commonwealth when determining whether the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt is satisfied. Instead, the Globe purports to adopt the reasoning of the State police that video is not used because it does not show the subtle signs of someone under the influence of alcohol.

While the Globe compared Massachusetts to other States in its rate of bench trial not guilty verdicts, the Globe did not consider that other police departments around the country routinely record not only the booking but have police cruiser camera. The suggestion that video should not be used because it may not be incriminating as the State police would like is clearly an attempt to keep relevant evidence from a judge or jury and keep control of the evidence in the hands of police officers. With video in OUI cases, there would be objective evidence, precluding officers from overstating and exaggerating conclusions that a motorist is under the influence of alcohol. Instead, without video, the only method to challenge an officer's opinion is through cross examination.

Judges are clearly entitled to consider lack of evidence in determining proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The Globe article overlooks the fact that the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held in the confession context that it favors the recording of confessions and would allow a jury instruction, telling the jury they can view an unrecorded confession with skepticism, in a case where the police fail to record an alleged confession. Clearly, there is a preference to have the most reliable evidence brought to the attention of a judge or jury and by not recording the booking, the State police is depriving the court of reliable evidence that could be easily made available.

As a Massachusetts OUI lawyer, the idea that judges will be monitored by the press or judiciary with some statistic regarding OUI conviction rates may force more attorney to elect jury trials in drunk driving cases. This week the Massachusetts SJC announced that it would also undertake an investigation into the Globe report.

The decision whether to elect a bench or jury trial is always a difficult decision. The Globe special report may not only influence how judges rule in bench trials, but could influence potential jurors and attorney will have to seek more questioning during jury selection regarding a juror's views on the Boston Globe report and their knowledge of it and views on the accuracy of the content.

Mother's Against Drunk Driving has urged Massachusetts legislatures to enact legislation that would require anyone convicted of even a First Offense Massachusetts OUI charge to have the ignition interlock device installed in their vehicle. This was according to a Patriot Ledger news report by Christian Schiavone.

Under the current version of Massachusetts OUI laws only a Second Offense requires an individual to have the ignition interlock device installed.

The legislation is being pushed by the family of Melanie Powell who pushed for more stringent penalties in the 2004 revisions to Massachusetts OUI laws now referred to as Melanie's Law. Ron Personi the grandfather of Melanie spoke about the proposed changes on the Sixth Anniversary of Melanie's Law.

Statistics show that since the passage of Melanie's law OUI fatalities in Massachusetts have decreased by 24%. Ignition Interlock legislation is a priority for Mother's Against Drunk Driving. Currently 27 States have an ignition interlock requirement for first time offenders.

The threat of ignition interlock legislation would make it more imperative for anyone charged with a Massachusetts OUI offense to hire an experienced attorney to ensure that there case can be proven by the Commonwealth.

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.

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.

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" »

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" »