Worcester, MA
Criminal defense Lawyer at Worcester, MA
Practice Areas: Criminal Defense, DUI & DWI
OUTCOME: N ot Guilty
Client charged with violation of Ch 90 Sec 24V Child Endangerment while OUI. This charge occurs if you are OUI and have a child in the cat 14 or younger. The penalty is harsh, 90 days to 2 1/2 yrs in ... jail. We were successful in defeating the OUI, thereby causing the Not Guilty under the serious 90-24V charge.
OUTCOME: Not Guilty
Client charged with OUI Boat Causing Serious Bodily Injury. http://worcestertelegram.ma.newsmemory.com/publink.php?shareid=18fc76fd1
OUTCOME: NOT GUILTY
Worcester: A Leicester man was arrested by Northborough police after an incident at Wegman's Market. Our client had decided to park his new Harley Davidson motor cycle on the sidewalk in front of ... the store. Management and the client got into a heated argument which resulted in management calling the police. The client had left prior to the arrival of the police. A BOLO was put out for the motor cyclist. Police located the client a short distance away after he decided to pull over and wait for the police. He was administered a series of Field Sobriety Test (FST) and subsequently arrested. During the jury trial we introduced evidence that our client merely wanted to protect his new bike and that management was rather aggressive. The client made the mistake of taking the FST but correctly declined a Breath Test. Through video evidence we obtained and provided to the jury, we were able to establish his "normal" movements were fine as opposed to the unusual movements of the FST. Remember cameras are everywhere. The prosecution could not convince the jury after the admission of this evidence, and as a result, our client was found Not Guilty.14CR001357 Real Cases, Real People, Real Results
OUTCOME: Not Guilty
Worcester: Our client was recently arrested at a road block or what is referred to by prosecutors, as a "Sobriety Checkpoint". Police directed him into a parking lot where he was further examined ... by additional troopers. He preformed field sobriety test (FST) and took a portable breath test. The client did not fail the portable breath test but was still arrested based upon the FST. He was brought into the mobile police station set up at the roadblock, where he took a breath test on the bigger machine and failed. At trial we attacked the validity of the bigger machine and were successful in keeping the those failed test results out of evidence. The portable test, which he took right at his car, is not admissible in Massachusetts Courts, so that helpful evidence did not come in. We highlighted for the jury how well he drove throughout the entire time he was observed approaching the roadblock and inside the observation area. Our client weight 300 lbs., so that his performance on the FST were put at issue. What made this case even more interesting was that the trial judge after each witness finished testifying, allowed the jury to ask questions of the witnesses. In 28 years of trying cases, this was the first time I had ever experienced jurors questioning of witnesses. In the end the jurors answered the ultimate question rather quick: Not Guilty. What can been learned here is that you may want to consider not taking a portable breath test at the scene in addition to refusing the FST and breath test back at the station, as this evidence will surely be used in the case against you. 14CR00724 Real Cases, Real People, Real Results --
OUTCOME: All Charges Dismissed
Auburn: A Worcester man was a passenger in a car followed by police. Police allege the car, crossed over the white dash lines between the lanes, on the same side of the road. Police followed th ... e car running a registration check which revealed the owner had an outstanding warrant for his arrest. The police continued to followed the car into a parking lot where it had came to a stop. The officer positioned his cruiser behind the car so that it could not move. As the men emerged from the car and began to walk toward a building. Police subsequently determined that none of the men were the owner who was wanted. The officer continue to detain the men until other officers arrived. There after the officer went over to the car and search it. He located cocaine on the floor where our client had been seated. The passenger, our client, was arrested and charged with the serious drug offenses. Prior to trial, we filed a motion to suppress the search of the car. The controlling law in Massachusetts prevents warrantless searches without exigent circumstances. The police must have probable cause to believe a crime was committed, ongoing or about to occur and all of this must be at a time and place that does not allow for a search warrant to be obtained. We demonstrated to the court that the police did not have any specific articulable facts to support probable cause that a crime was committed in the car. When the officer had his initial contact with all the occupants, they had just exited the car. He further learned that none of them were the wanted owner, hence no crime and no reason to detain. Additionally, even if he had some probable cause to search the car, he had every opportunity to secure the car there and seek a search warrant before going through the car. The Court agreed and suppressed the illegally obtained evidence. With no evidence that could be used at trial, the case was Dismissed. 13CR4740. Real Cases, Real People, Real Results
OUTCOME: All Charges Dismissed
Westboro: Last May, police observed two cars parked to the left of a restaurant after hours. As the officer approached the vehicle he detected a smell of marijuana. The officer questioned the oc ... cupants subsequently having our client step from the rear seat. The officer patted down our client without finding anything illegal. The officer then searched the car locating in the back seat, brass knuckles, a baggie containing 6 clear rocks. Additionally. the officer located a backpack in the car which yielded more drugs. Our client was arrested and charged with a series of serious drug offenses. We filed a motion to suppress the illegal search and seizure as it related to our client. The Court allowed our motion to suppress the evidence thereby causing the case against our client to be dismissed. We successfully argued to the Court that under Massachusetts law, ( Commonwealth v. Cruz), the odor of marijuana cannot give rise to probable cause for police to believe a crime is being commit. Without the adequate probable cause, all evidence taken thereafter was deemed illegally seized and could not be used in the case against our client. 13CR000787 REAL CASES, REAL PEOPLE, REAL RESULTS --
OUTCOME: NOT GUILTY
Spencer: A 60 year old women crashed her SUV into construction equipment parked on the side of the road. When police arrived at the scene, the client was still behind the wheel of her SUV. The o ... fficer testified that when he questioned her as to the cause of the accident, the client had no explanation. The police officer further testified that our client had an odor of alcohol on her breath, glassy eyes and slurred speech. During cross examination we were able to highlight that the air bags had deployed and the powder like substance could have been the reason for "red blood shot glassy eyes". Additionally our client's statement to the officer that she had consumed a1/2 bottle of Bacardi was put at issue. We questioned the officer's testimony in that he never ascertained the size of the bottle, when she may have consumed it and with whom. This all had a "watering down" effect on the prosecutions case. Because our client was just involve in a crash, and had suffered some minor injuries, the field sobriety tests issue was mitigated. NOT GUILTY 13CR1374 Real Cases, Real People, Real Results.
OUTCOME: NOT GUILTY
Worcester: A Country Fest fan was arrested and charged with Operating Under The Influence, Negligent Operation, Marked Lanes Violation and Speeding, after a night at Gillette. The client had dri ... ven all the way back from Foxboro, dropped off his friends and was heading home to Oxford when State Police arrested him on Route 290 in Auburn. The police testified that he followed the client and clocked him on radar doing 78 MPH. Additionally, the police said he drifted 1/2 way into the breakdown lane then cut across 3 lanes, nearly striking another car before being stopped. The police testified that he observed 3 empty 30 racks along with a cooler and grill in the back of the pickup. On cross examination we succeeded in establishing evidence that our client reacted appropriately to the emergency lights of the cruiser. His everyday movements were uneventful and consistent. The officer insisted that our client had a strong odor of booze on his breath at the time of the stop. He also testified that the odor remained at the same intensity for the next 4 hours. we confronted the officer during cross examination as to his inventory sheet which is used to show what evidence is taken from the scene (vehicle). There was no entries. No mention of the 30 racks etc. In our closing argument, we told the jury that "something stinks" about this case, but nothing can stink for 4 1/2 hours without losing some of its smell. The jury agreed and obviously felt something was fishy about the evidence or lack thereof. NOT GUILTY 13CR7206. Don't Forget to Download our latest APP "Worcester BAC" Free in APP Store or Google Play. It calculates your Blood Alcohol Level for you. --
OUTCOME: NOT GUILTY
East Brookfield: A Charlton man was arrested and charged with Operating Under The Influence, 2nd Offense. State Police were driving down southbound while the client was traveling northbound. The ... trooper testified that as he approached the client's pickup he observed the pickup cross over the fog line and continue there for a 100 feet. The trooper reversed direction and followed the client for a distance again observing the pickup cross over the fog line. The purpose of this testimony was to show the client could not keep his truck within his lanes and therefore intoxicated. The trooper stopped the client and had him exit his truck. Initially, the client agreed to take the Field Sobriety Tests, then changed his mind refusing all tests. He was arrested. At the station, the client again refused all breath test requests. At trial we employed technology to aid in our defense. The courthouses do not have wifi available in the courtrooms. Using an iPhone to create a hotspot, we connected to an Apple TV unit along with our iPad. We used these devices to project Google earth onto the big screen. When we cross examined the trooper we utilized an aerial view of the scene. Once we locked the witness into the location we dropped down into a street view. The ground level imaged clearly depicted that the road was narrow with only one lane in each direction. The fog line that our client may have crossed over only had a two foot wide breakdown lane adjacent to it. The road itself was very winding and not lighted. Almost impossible to stay within the lanes. Additionally, we brought out during questioning of the police witness that the cruiser he was in was an unmarked car, yet our client reacted immediately once the light s came on. He pulled over properly and without any difficulty. These facts along with the Google Earth images undercut the prosecution's case. Score one for technology and one for a smart defendant who knew to refuse all tests. Not Guilty. 14CR2162 Real Cases, Real People & Real Results.
OUTCOME: CHARGES DISMISSED
East Brookfield: A Spencer man was charged by police with, Operating Under The Influence Of Alcohol, Operating To Endanger, Unlicensed Operation of a Motor Vehicle, Stop Sign Violation, Defective ... Equipment, Speeding and driving with an Open Container of Alcohol. Police responded to a call for an accident. Upon arrival, police located our client a short distance from the cars involved. It was alleged that our client had left the roadway and struck two parked cars in a driveway, knocking one of them up onto a stone wall. Police located in the car a Mason Jar with some homemade "Moonshine" in it. Police questioned our client at the scene before he was taken to the hospital. At court we established that police never asked our client at the scene or thereafter, if he was the actual driver. (Always consider refusing to answer questions till you have received legal advice, which you have a right to do). Operation is an essential element in this type of case. If they can not prove our client operated the vehicle, they can not convict him. Massachusetts law allows for circumstantial evidence to establish the necessary proof. However, the prosecution must establish beyond a reasonable doubt that no one else had the opportunity to commit the crime, before a person charged can be convicted. We were successful in creating enough doubt as to our client being the operator so that none of the charges could stick. Additionally, as to the "Moonshine", police failed to have the liquid properly analyzed so as to be proper evidence. CHARGES DISMISSED. 13CR1601 Real Cases, Real People, Real Results
Ad
Transform legal challenges into solutions.
Connect now to review your situation.
