Massachusetts DUI Lawyers Blog

A new MassINC report by former defense attorneys, prosecutors, and public safety officials calls for changes to Massachusetts "tough on crime" laws by following several other states that focus more on preventing recidivism.

Since the 1980's, the prison population in Massachusetts has tripled. Our current corrections policies cost more than $1 billion this decade and that number is expected to top $2 billion over the next, without any tangible changes in sight.

One of the major changes that the report proposes is following those states that have been able to curb the corrections budget by focusing more on reentry programs and eliminating mandatory minimum sentences. Currently, Massachusetts has one of the highest recidivism rates, as 6 out of every 10 county jail inmates commits a new criminal offense within six years of release.

I have always found certain mandatory minimum sentences, especially those for drug offenses, to be extremely unreasonable. Picture this: A 17 year old boy is sitting in his car with his friend in the high school parking lot. He rolls up a joint, takes a puff, and passes it to his friend. As the law currently stands, he could be charged with distribution of a class D substance in a school zone. Prosecutors will charge him with "distribution" of that joint to his friend, and because he is on school property (or even within 300 feet of school property), he faces a mandatory minimum of 2 years in jail if convicted- the judge would have no discretion whatsoever to reduce the sentence. Is that really the "war on drugs" that our taxpayers support?

If you have been charged with any drug crime or other criminal offense in Massachusetts, contact my office immediately for your free initial consultation:

(617) 878- 2089
www.urbelislaw.com

Driving under the influence of alcohol is illegal in every state. It is a major problem in our country, and law enforcement takes it very seriously. Studies suggest that a person is likely to drive under the influence of alcohol about 87 times before he or she is eventually caught and arrested.

One way to increase your chance of being pulled over and arrested for DUI/ OUI is by driving 111 mph in a 45 mph zone, swerving in between other vehicles, jumping a curb, and then taking down a barb wire fence. That's what Red Sox prospect Drake Britton did over the weekend, according to Estero, FL, where the incident took place. Britton now faces charges of reckless driving, driving under the influence, and property damage.

If you have been arrested for any criminal charge in Massachusetts, please contact my office for your free initial consultation:

(617) 878- 2089
www.urbelislaw.com

On Friday, during the driving ban in which only authorized state officials and snow plow vehicles were allowed to drive, John Douglas Wright was arrested for Operating Under the Influence of Alcohol, Driving with an Open Container, and Driving to Endanger. The arrest came after he was reported to have almost struck another car, admitting to being drunk and an alcoholic, and telling the police that he needed help with his addiction. His level of intoxication was confirmed at the police station where he blew a 0.26 on the breathalyzer, more than three times the legal limit of 0.08.

Mr. Wright pleaded guilty to this offense at his arraignment on Monday. While I can appreciate the fact that Mr. Wright wanted to take responsibility for his actions, I am led to believe that he did not have the advice of counsel before pleading guilty. Most attorneys would advise a defendant not to plead guilty on the first court date. If he was looking to admit to the offense, take responsibility, get the help he needed and move on with his life, right away, I would have done my best to work out a deal which continued the case without a finding of guilt for the one year probationary period. This way, he could avoid a conviction on his record, which with the "guilty" finding is now precluded from being sealed or withheld from potential employers, licensing agencies, etc. for at least five years. This may be a very significant obstacle if Mr. Wright is hoping to better his own life after he gets the help he needs. Additionally, a better deal might have included having the other charges dismissed or Nolle Prosequi'ed, which would minimize the damage to his criminal record and also the hit that he will be taking to his automobile insurance, and possible future license loss consequences, at the end of his 45-day license suspension.

If you have been charged with any criminal offense in Massachusetts, contact my office for your free initial consultation.

(617) 878- 2089
www.urbelislaw.com

A few days ago, 57 year old Michael Sheehan was arrested for operating under the influence of alcohol and trespassing after he drove past two large signs that read "Do Not Enter" and "Police Personnel Only" on the wrong lane of a driveway, straight into a police parking lot. He failed all field sobriety tests and was WALKED right into the station.

While this may seem like an open and shut case, it isn't necessarily that simple. In order to be found guilty of operating under the influence of alcohol in Massachusetts, the prosecution must prove 3 elements beyond all reasonable doubt: 1) The person operated a motor vehicle; 2) while under the influence of alcohol or drugs; 3) on a public way.

Based on this report alone, while Mr. Sheehan may very well have been operating under the influence of alcohol, there is no evidence that anyone saw him do so while on a public way. For purposes of this offense, a public way is defined as any public road or highway, or any place to which the public has a right of access, or any place to which members of the public have access as invitees or licensees. The fact that Sheehan was also charged with trespassing is strong evidence that this area was not a public way, as it permits access to "police personnel only." In order to establish that Mr. Sheehan did, in fact, operate his motor vehicle on a public way at some point while under the influence of alcohol, the prosecution may offer evidence in the form of witnesses or surveillance video of Sheehan entering the parking lot from a public way. If Mr. Sheehan was simply found in the parking lot, and there is no timetable to establish when he arrived there, it would be very difficult to prove guilt. Reasonable doubt could be established by the fact that perhaps Mr. Sheehan had simply been lost and ended up in the parking lot. If he was idle in his car for, say, an hour, then it would be difficult to prove he was intoxicated at the time he was operating on a public way- because there is no way to determine when that might have been without any corroborating witnesses. In the absence of a clear time frame as to when he arrived at the station, I would likely advise Mr. Sheehan to fight the charge of Operating Under the Influence of Alcohol.

If you have been charged with Operating Under the Influence of Alcohol, or any other crime in Massachusetts, contact my office for your free initial consultation.

www.urbelislaw.com
(617) 878- 2089

Recently, Governor Deval Patrick signed a new law that will require all Massachusetts teachers, school employees, child care providers, and school bus drivers to submit their fingerprints prior to starting the September 2013 school year.

Even under the new record sealing laws, these particular entities had access to "sealed records" of potential employees due to their close contact with children. However, only a state background check was issued, unless certain circumstances known to the employer warranted a more comprehensive check of a particular candidate. Now, the FBI-based system will provide a national check of the person's criminal history.

In addition to the background check going to the national level, the FBI-based system is more comprehensive in terms of "hits" on a check. In Massachusetts, even the most comprehensive background check, such as those done for teachers, only results in information generated from official court proceedings, starting with an arraignment. The arraignment date usually takes place on the next business day following an arrest, or on another date in which the defendant is summonsed to appear before the judge. However, there are certain cases in which a person is arrested and the case is disposed of prior to arraignment (for a variety of reasons), so these cases would not show up on a background check. However, these cases WOULD show-up on any FBI-based check, since a suspect's fingerprints are transmitted to the national database at the time he/she is booked at the police station following an arrest. As a result, if you are applying for a job as a school teacher in Massachusetts and have ever been arrested for any reason in the United States of America, you should be prepared for your potential employer to know of the charge(s), regardless of the eventual outcome of the case.

If you have a question relating to Massachusetts Criminal Laws, please contact my office for a free initial phone consultation:

(617) 878- 2089
www.urbelislaw.com

In September, Federal Judge Mark Wolf ruled that the state officials must provide a taxpayer-funded sex change operation for convicted murderer who suffers from a gender identity disorder. The judge ruled that because the sex change had been prescribed by the Department of Corrections doctors as the only adequate treatment, and the only arguments against it were social bias, there was no legitimate penological purpose for denying the procedure. The cost of the surgery may approach $50,000.

"This fact that sex reassignment surgery is for some people medically necessary has recently become more widely recognized," Wolf wrote in a landmark 127-page ruling. "Denying adequate medical care because of a fear of controversy or criticism from politicians, the press, and the public serves no legitimate penological purpose. It is precisely the type of conduct the Eighth Amendment prohibits."

Now, three months later, Judge Wolf is ordering the state to pay more than $700,000 in legal fees to the attorneys who represented Michelle Kosilek, the convicted murderer, throughout this ordeal. He noted that resistance by the Department of Corrections often leads to significant taxpayer-funded attorneys fees in cases where the Department violated prisoners' constitutional rights.

Based on the highly controversial nature of this story, we can expect an appeal by the Department of Corrections, and certainly even more outrage by many of our state's taxpayers.

If you have a legal question, contact my office for a free initial phone consultation:

(617) 878- 2089
www.urbelislaw.com

From now until January 1, more than 50 local law enforcement agencies in Massachusetts, along with the State Police, will beef up their enforcement of Massachusetts drunk driving laws. The enhanced patrol will be paid for by a grant from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration as part of a program called "Drive Sober or Get Pulled Over."

Please be careful this holiday season. If you are going to drink, please do so responsibly. In Massachusetts, the penalties for operating under the influence, even a first offense, are very, very costly. A conviction WILL affect you for the rest of your life.

If you have been arrested for operating under the influence, or any other criminal offense in Massachusetts, contact my office immediately:

(617) 878- 2089
www.urbelislaw.com

On Wednesday, December 5, Kevin Smith was arrested for Operating Under the Influence and Domestic Assault and Battery. Then, on Saturday, December 8, just three days later, he was arrested for Operating Under the Influence; again.

It is likely that Mr. Smith was arraigned in court on Thursday, December 6, for the first set of charges. At a criminal arraignment, the defendant is formally advised of the charges against him. If after being arraigned the court releases him on his personal recognizance (meaning, no monetary bail is set and the defendant is free to go on his way), or if bail is set and the defendant posts that bail and is released, he is advised of the conditions of his release. In a domestic violence case, the defendant is almost always advised that his release is conditioned on a "no-abuse" order of the alleged victim. In an operating under the influence case, the defendant is usually advised that he may not drive until his right to do so has been reinstated by the RMV. And at every criminal arraignment, the defendant is advised that if he is charged with any new criminal offense before the case at bar is resolved, his personal recognizance or bail on the first case may be revoked, and he can be held in jail for up to sixty days for violating the conditions of his release if the court determines that his release may cause a threat to the safety of another person or the community.

In this case, the Court likely determined that based on the fact that Mr. Smith was arrested for the same offense within a three day period, he blatantly disregarded the court's order and put the community at risk of serious danger. Not only was he charged with a new crime, but his license was also almost certainly suspended as a result of the first Operating Under the Influence charge; if he failed the breath test, his license was suspended immediately for 30 days, whereas if he declined to take the breath test, his license would have been suspended for 180 days. Either way, in 19 out of 20 cases, the person is requested to take a breath test, so in all likelihood he was driving with a suspended license when he was arrested for the second time that week. Based on the blatant disregard of the court's warning by not only driving his car without a license, but also doing so while under the influence of alcohol, AGAIN, I am not surprised at all that Mr. Smith was held without bail.

If you have been charged with operation under the influence of alcohol or any other criminal offense in Massachusetts, contact my office:

(617) 878- 2089
www.urbelislaw.com

On Wednesday, December 5, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ruled that police do not necessarily need a search warrant to examine the call log of an arrestee's cell phone to see that person's recent contacts. The case had to do with the search of a person arrested for dealing drugs. The police had seen the man get into the car with a known drug user. Once back at the station, after having already been arrested, the police went through the suspect's call log to find that he had recently been in contact with the known drug user, supporting their belief that the drug deal had been arranged via cell phone. The Court limited the scope of its decision to a simple view of the call log based on the circumstances surrounding the arrest, and did not say that the search would be valid in other circumstances, such as a complicated cell phone that might require a more intrusive search, or the viewing of text messages. The Court made its decision based on the permitted "search incident to arrest", where police officers have long been allowed to perform a very limited search of an arrestee's person and readily-accessible belongings.

As a Massachusetts criminal defense attorney, I am not surprised by the ruling. While Massachusetts generally has more procedural safeguards to protect the civil liberties of its citizens than most other states, the facts surrounding this case seem to have provided strong probable cause for the police to believe that the drug user's phone number would have been listed in the arrestee's recent call history. And with the intrusion being very minimal, as it was just a viewing of the phone numbers rather than any substantive search of texts, emails, or other data, I would have guessed that the SJC would validate this type of search as "incident to arrest." I am, however, concerned that police officers may take this to mean that they can view text messages or more personal information that may be contained within a suspect's cell phone. I anticipate that this is not the last we see of a challenge to this type of search. I believe that anything beyond looking at a "call list" could, and should, be held as beyond the scope of search incident to arrest, and would therefore require a search warrant before police could obtain such personal information.

If you have been arrested for a drug offense or any other crime in Massachusetts, contact my office for your free initial consultation:

(617) 878- 2089
www.urbelislaw.com

One year ago, the Boston Globe's Spotlight Team published several articles that completely misled the public about OUI conviction rates in Massachusetts. It tried to generate outrage by reporting certain conviction statistics without fully investigating how OUI cases are actually prosecuted in Massachusetts. In response to the article, the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) of Massachusetts appointed R.J. Cinguegrana as special counsel to investigate OUI statistics in Massachusetts. Cinguegrana and his team evaluated data of nearly 57,000 OUI cases over a four year period. This much more comprehensive, thorough, and unbiased investigation and subsequent report, which was actually done by highly experienced legal professionals, reveals the truth about how OUI cases are prosecuted and adjudicated in Massachusetts.

Last year's Globe article suggested that because jury-waived trials in front of a single justice result in acquittals 85-90% of the time, whereas jury trials result in acquittals nearly 30% less-often, the judges are too lenient on defendants. There is a very simple explanation for this disparity: the type of case in which criminal defense lawyers advise their clients to waive a jury are usually different from the type of case in which the defendant is advised to put his fate in the hands of his peers. In my experience, when the defense attorney's theory of a case rests mainly on an issue of law rather than particular facts of the case, or where the evidence of one element of the offense is so weak that it's readily recognizable to any lawyer or judge, the attorney will advise his client to waive a jury. Thus, the judges tend to hear weaker cases, resulting in a higher acquittal rate.

In Massachusetts, if you are charged with an OUI, you can rest assured that the prosecution will not be willing to dismiss your case, no matter how weak it may be. The main reason for this practice is that District Attorneys are elected officials, and they want to appear tough on drunk driving. They would rather take a very weak case to trial and lose than dismiss the charge, even when doing so is warranted. This way, they, along with the Boston Globe's spotlight team, can blame the judges for a high acquittal rate, and still appear to be prosecuting these cases to the fullest extent of the law. With weak evidence of guilt, your attorney may file motions to exclude evidence without which the prosecution is UNABLE to legally go forward with the case. However, in most cases, you will have to go to trial with the hopes that a judge or jury finds you "Not Guilty." This is a very different practice from other states, where OUI charges are often dismissed or amended to a less serious offense if the case is weak. In New Hampshire, for example, weaker OUI cases are routinely amended to the charge of "Reckless Driving" as part of a plea bargain. The absence of such a practice in Massachusetts forces you to hire an attorney to defend the case all the way through trial, even when the prosecutor knows that a "Not Guilty" verdict is almost certain.

Mark Leahy, president of the Massachusetts Police Chiefs association was quoted as saying, "We absolutely are not wrong 85 and 90 percent of the time. There are always going to be some lousy cases, but it doesn't begin to approach a majority." I 100% agree with Chief Leahy. The police are not wrong in making an arrest 85- 90% of the time. In fact, far from that. That's why 77% of the time, the case is resolved of adversely for the defendant, with either an admission to the offense of OUI as part of a plea, or a Guilty finding after trial, according to Cinguegrana's report. This number is actually consistent with the national average of 80.5%. Only 23% of OUI cases in Massachusetts result in either a dismissal or a Not Guilty verdict. And even of those 23% of cases with a favorable result for the defendant, the arrest was, in most cases, a good arrest. In order to arrest a person for OUI, the police only need probable cause to believe that the person committed the offense. In order to convict, the prosecution must prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the person is guilty of each element of the offense. Thus, a case in which the police made a legitimate arrest might still not be strong enough for the prosecution to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the person is guilty.

Continue reading "The Truth About Massachusetts Drunk Driving Statistics Are Revealed in Special Counsel's Report" »

It has been quite some time since I've blogged, but a recent Massachusetts article on a drug bust caught my attention. As I read this article, describing the circumstances surrounding a 20 pound marijuana bust by the Massachusetts State Police, I couldn't help but do so through the lens of a criminal defense attorney. By the time I finished reading the article, I thought to myself, "I'd like to have this case." I believe that the search of the suspect's car could be thrown out, which would result in dismissal of the entire case.

It is well-established in Massachusetts that before a police officer can either order a person out of his or her vehicle during a routine traffic stop, there must be a reasonable belief of either ongoing criminal activity or a reasonable concern for the safety of the officer or the public. Up until four years ago, possession of marijuana in any amount was a criminal offense in Massachusetts, therefore a reasonable belief that a person had marijuana in the car was enough to justify either an "exit order" or a search of the vehicle.

In 2008, Massachusetts passed a law to decriminalize possession of less than one ounce of marijuana. (Other circumstances could justify charging a person with intent to distribute, even when less than one ounce is present, such as large amounts of cash, baggies, a scale, or other items associated with drug distribution). Now that possession of less than an ounce of marijuana is, in and of itself, no longer a crime, the Supreme Judicial Court held that the odor of freshly burnt marijuana alone is not enough to justify an "exit order" and courts have ruled that even when such an odor of marijuana is combined with other factors, such as nervousness, these factors alone are not enough to suggest criminal activity to justify a search of the car. Commonwealth v. Cruz, 459 Mass. 459 (2011); Commonwealth v. Damon, 82 Mass.App.Ct. 164 (2012).

In this article, there does not appear to be any justification for a search of the motor vehicle other than the odor of marijuana, some marijuana in the center console, along with drug paraphernalia (which, I would argue, suggests personal use, rather than a criminal quantity of the drug). The mere presence of a noncriminal amount of marijuana is not enough to search a person's vehicle. Courts have held that in general, while the odor of "freshly burnt" marijuana may not give reasonable suspicion to search a car, the odor of "fresh marijuana" may suggest a larger, criminal quantity of the drug so as to justify a search. If there is no distinction in the trooper's police report as to the type of marijuana odor, any "after the fact" characterization at a motion hearing that the odor was "fresh marijuana" as opposed to "freshly burnt marijuana" could easily be attacked by a skilled defense attorney. Without reasonable belief that the suspect was in possession of a criminal amount of the drug, then the prolonged detention (making the suspect remain at the scene while the trooper called and waited for the k-9 unit to arrive) was not justified, and anything discovered from the k-9's "sniff" should be suppressed, or thrown out, resulting in dismissal of the case.

If the driver appeared to be impaired by marijuana, the officer might have reasonable suspicion that he was operating under the influence of drugs, which is a crime that would have justified an exit order and subsequent search. Had the driver made furtive movements that appeared threatening, such as reaching under his seat, possibly for a weapon, then a search might have been justified out of concern for the officer's safety. Of course, if the suspect gave the troopers permission to search his car, then no other justification would be required- but that doesn't appear to be the case. While I have not read the police report, it is my experience that the media (who inevitably obtained a copy of the report) usually picks up on, and reports, every minute detail that appears incriminating. If any other justification to search the car was present, the media would have jumped on it. I believe that if the officers' testimony at a "Motion to Suppress" hearing is consistent with what we see in this news article, then the results of the search, i.e. the 20 pounds of marijuana, and this case, could ultimately be tossed.

How can someone get arrested two times in three hours? Jeffrey Graham of Merrimack, NH found a way to do just that.

At approximately 3:30 in the afternoon, witnesses reported that a motorist was driving in and out of traffic, struck a mailbox, and fled the scene. Police caught up to the motorist, Graham, and pulled him over. He was visibly intoxicated and arrested for Operating Under the Influence of Liquor. He was released on $2,000 bail.

At approximately 6:30, witnesses reported that a motorist later found to be Graham, once again, was back on the road, still intoxicated (or possibly re-intoxicated?), again struck a mailbox, but this time one-upping his earlier performance by driving into a fence. Police made contact with Graham as he was driving near his home, and arrested him for the second time that day. He was subsequently held on $5,000 bail.

If these arrests happened in Massachusetts, a $5,000 bail would be the least of Graham's concerns. The prosecution would probably seek to have him held in custody for up to sixty days. In Massachusetts, if a person is released on bail after being charged with a crime, and is subsequently charged with any new criminal offense before that first charge is resolved, the court can hold the person without bail for up to sixty days if it finds that person to be a danger to any particular person, or the community in general. Based on the fact that Graham was charged with the same offense and each time drove with reckless disregard for the public's safety, fled the scene after striking stationary structures, all within 3 hours, I think the prosecutor would have a pretty strong case for pretrial detention. But, believe it or not, if I were representing Graham in Massachusetts, I think I'd be able to have him out in time for dinner that night.

How? A legal loophole:

If this case happened in Massachusetts, I believe that Graham might actually benefit from the fact that his arrests were only a few hours apart. How does this make sense? In making its determination as to whether Graham should be held for pretrial detention of up to sixty days, the Court must follow M.G.L. c. 276 s. 58, which states, in relevant part:

"The court shall provide as an explicit condition of release for any person admitted to bail pursuant to this section or section fifty-seven that should said person be charged with a crime during the period of his release, his bail may be revoked in accordance with this paragraph and the court shall enter in writing on the court docket that the person was so informed and the docket shall constitute prima facie evidence that the person was so informed. If a person is on release pending the adjudication of a prior charge, and the court before which the person is charged with committing a subsequent offense after a hearing at which the person shall have the right to be represented by counsel, finds probable cause to believe that the person has committed a crime during said period of release, the court shall then determine, in the exercise of its discretion, whether the release of said person will seriously endanger any person or the community.... If the court determines that the release of said person will seriously endanger any person or the community and that the detention of the person is necessary to reasonably assure the safety of any person or the community, the court may revoke bail on the prior charge and may order said person held without bail pending the adjudication of said prior charge, for a period not to exceed sixty days."

Here, because the offenses only happened only 3 hours apart, Graham was never arraigned in court on the first offense. Therefore, he was never informed "by the court" that being arrested while out on bail for his first case could result in his being held up to sixty days in jail under this statute, much less is there even a docket yet for the clerk to show prima facie evidence that he was informed of this risk. If he had waited until the following afternoon to commit his second offense, rather than just a few hours, he would likely be held as a "danger to the community," as he would have already been arraigned and given bail warning pursuant to this statute. But in this case, I believe I'd have him released on a higher cash bail than that set for his first arrest, and if he could post it that day, he'd be a free man (for the time being).

If you have been arrested for any criminal offense in Massachusetts, contact my office:

(617) 878- 2089
www.urbelislaw.com

As a Massachusetts dui/oui defense attorney, the most common question I hear is:

Should I take the breath test?

Unfortunately, there is no one-size-fits-all answer to this question. If you take and fail the breath test (a blood alcohol concentration of .08 or higher), your license will be suspended for 30 days. At the police station, you are informed that refusing to take the breath test will result in an automatic license suspension of 6 months if this is your first offense (or 3 years if under 21 years old), 3 years if this is your second offense, 5 years if this is your third offense, and a lifetime loss of license if this is your fourth offense. The longer license suspension may encourage you to submit to the breathalyzer, which is the intent behind the law. However, what the police do not tell you, is that without a failed breath test to use against you in court, the prosecution might have a very tough time proving that you were actually impaired by alcohol.

In Massachusetts, there are two ways that the prosecution can prove that you were "under the influence of alcohol" while operating a motor vehicle on a public way. This first is the "per se" violation, where the prosecution just needs to prove that your blood alcohol concentration was .08 or higher. A valid breath test makes for a very strong case against you, assuming that it was administered properly and there are no other legitimate factors that would have altered the results. The second way to prove that you were "under the influence" is by testimony of the arresting officer about your demeanor, appearance, and performance on the field sobriety tests, the testimony of and any other percipient witnesses, circumstantial evidence, and physical evidence tending to show that your ability to operate a motor vehicle safely was diminished due to alcohol consumption. However, there are MANY ways that a skilled OUI defense attorney can attack this theory of impairment. Without a breath test, and without any other aggravating factors (car accident, belligerent conduct, incriminating statements, etc.), you probably have a legitimate case worth fighting. If you are found NOT GUILTY, there is also a presumption that your license be reinstated if it is still suspended for refusing the breath test, unless the prosecution can demonstrate that reinstatement would pose a danger to the community.

In my opinion, it is usually not a good idea to take the breath test in Massachusetts. Even just a few drinks can lead to a reading of .08 or higher. It is in your best interest NOT to help the prosecution build their case against you. In fact, if you refuse to take the breath test or field sobriety tests, or if you refuse to do both, the fact that you were asked and subsequently chose to refuse these tests CANNOT BE USED AGAINST YOU IN COURT! As far as the jury is concerned, you were never even offered the chance to take these tests. By helping to set yourself up for an acquittal on an OUI charge, you are helping to avoid the significant consequences of a conviction or a Continuance Without a Finding.

On the other hand, if the only thing that matters to you is your driver's license, and you can live with all of the other consequences of a plea deal or conviction (fines, fees, probation supervision, alcohol education classes, a criminal record, future collateral consequences, etc), then taking the breath test is one way to avoid a minimum 6 month license suspension.

If you have been charge with Operating Under the Influence of Alcohol in Massachusetts, or any other criminal offense, contact my office for your free initial phone consultation:

(617) 878- 2089

SInce Johnnie Cochran's famous phrase, "If the glove don't fit, you must acquit," I've always enjoyed courtroom theatrics. I strongly believe that in certain criminal cases, the defense attorney can gain a significant advantage by pushing the envelope and making a dramatic statement that sticks in the minds of the jury through deliberations. Most recently, while representing State Senator Harri Anne Smith on bribery charges, high-profile Alabama defense attorney Jim Parkman used creative theatrics in order to hammer his point to the jury. During the trial, the prosecution's key witness claimed to have suddenly remembered Smith's role in the bribes while he was eating a chicken sandwich. While delivering his closing argument, Parkman handed the prosecution a chicken salad sandwich, mocking the state's key witness.

If you have been charged with any criminal offense in Massachusetts, contact my office for your free initial consultation. There is no obligation to hire me after the consultation.

As a Massachusetts Criminal Defense attorney, this is a common question I am asked. Here are some basic facts about bail determination in Massachusetts, and the consequences of failing to abide by conditions of bail: http://www.massduidefenselawyer.com/lawyer-attorney-1889023.html