Our client, who was a legal resident from Brazil, was stopped for speeding on Route 495 while traveling to work in his capacity as a constable. He had a valid LTC however he had a previous charge for Improper Storage of a Firearm that was dismissed. During the course of the roadside stop, the Trooper alleged that our client appeared nervous and was dressed in a manner similar to that of a police officer. Based upon these factors as well as the prior Improper Storage of a Firearm charge, the Trooper detained our client and began questioning him about firearms, his immigration status and what was inside the vehicle. The Trooper ordered our client to show his waistband, open up the center console and eventually had our client open up the glove compartment which contained a legally issued firearm. The Trooper alleged that the firearm was not in our client’s custody and control and not properly locked and stored. As such our client was charged with Improper Storage of a Firearm. Through the filing of a Motion to Suppress and after an evidentiary hearing in which the Trooper testified, the Court concluded that the Trooper did not have sufficient reasonable suspicion to detain our client beyond the scope of the original stop (speeding). The motion to suppress was allowed thus precluding the introduction of the firearm as well as the observations of the Trooper of the firearm inside the glove compartment. With no evidence to offer at trial, the Commonwealth dismissed the case.
Our client was stopped at approximately 2:45 am for several marked lanes violations while traveling in the town of Northborough. The arresting police officer testified that during the roadside encounter, our client’s eyes were red and glossy, he had slurred speech and emitted a strong odor of alcohol from his breath. He testified that he stumbled out of his motor vehicle and appeared unsteady when at the rear of his vehicle. When questioned, our client admitted consuming 4 beers during the evening. The officer testified that in his opinion our client was drunk. Through the use of photographs of the scene our office was able to raise numerous issues regarding the officer’s testimony related to our client’s operation of the vehicle . The submission of the booking video also brought into question the officer’s opinion regarding the condition of our client while on the side of the road. The jury deliberated for approximately 30 minutes before returning a verdict of Not Guilty.
Our client was charged with Operating Under the Influence of Alcohol stemming from a motor vehicle stop by the State Police at approximately 2 am on Route 495 in Bolton. The stop was initiated when the arresting Trooper came upon a vehicle which was running but parked in the breakdown lane of the highway. Several seconds after pulling behind the vehicle, the Trooper testified that he observed our client exiting the wood line while zipping up his pants and enter the vacant driver’s seat of the vehicle. The Trooper testified that he then approached the vehicle and observed a female who appeared to be heavily intoxicated located in the backseat of the vehicle. He also observed signs of intoxication of our client. An ambulance was eventually called for the female backseat passenger. The Trooper ordered our client out of the vehicle and had him perform field sobriety tests which he failed. He was then placed under arrest and brought back to the barracks where he was observed to have vomited in his cell. Through cross-examination, the Trooper conceded that he never asked our client if he drove the vehicle to the parked location and that he did not know how long the vehicle had been on the side of the road before he came upon. He additionally acknowledged that he did not know who drove the vehicle to the location. And although the Trooper testified that the vehicle was running when our client sat in the driver’s seat, he conceded that our client did not manipulate the vehicle in any way after entering it. Through cross examination and closing argument, we were able to argue that there was reasonable doubt as to who had operated the motor vehicle. The jury deliberated for approximately 1 hour before returning a verdict of Not Guilty.
Our client was arrested and charged with several narcotic offenses stemming from a motor vehicle stop in the City of Worcester. The motor vehicle stop and arrest eventually resulted in our client consenting to the search of his home in Northborough. At the time of the incident, our client maintained a valid license to possess firearms. During the search of his home it was discovered that numerous firearms were unsecured and not locked and stored in accordance with Massachusetts law. In addition to the underlying narcotic offenses, our client was charged with 5 counts of Improper Storage of a Firearm. A motion to suppress was filed in the Worcester District Court and after an evidentiary hearing, it was determined that the underlying stop and arrest of our client was done without the required legal finding of probable cause. Consequently the narcotic offenses in the Worcester District Court were dismissed. Arguing that the ensuing “consent” and search of his home in Northborough was the “fruit of the poisonous tree”, we filed an additional motion to suppress in the Westborough District Court relative to the firearm offenses. The motion to suppress in Westborough was allowed and the firearm offenses were dismissed.
Our client was arrested and charged with 2 counts of Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon. The charges alleged that he committed these offenses against his brother’s former girlfriend and her mother. At the time, his brother’s former girlfriend was living on the third floor of our client’s family home. The arrest was prompted by a 911 call to the police in which the alleged victim (former girlfriend) claimed our client threatened her and suggested he had a gun. When the police arrived, she reported that an argument about parking spaces in the driveway escalated and that our client slammed the door into her body causing her to fall into her mother who was standing behind her. Through the introduction of the 911 call and effective cross examination of both alleged victims, we were able to elicit numerous inconsistencies in the testimonies of both witnesses. A verdict of Not Guilty was returned on both charges
Our client was stopped after failing to use a directional and after being observed traveling considerably under the posted speed limit. The arresting officer reported detecting a strong odor of alcohol coming from the driver along with blood shot and glassy eyes as well as slurred speech. Several field sobriety tests were administered while the client was inside the vehicle including the alphabet and finger dexterity tests. The arresting officer testified that the client failed both of those tests. When asked to exit the vehicle, the officer testified that our client was unsteady on his feet and swayed from side to side. As a result, the officer formed the opinion our client was intoxicated and placed him under arrest. Through effective cross examination of the officer and the production of the booking video, we were able to undermine the credibility and reliability of the Commonwealth’s evidence and the officer’s opinion of intoxication. In addition, our client and witness were well prepared to testify to the events of the evening creating reasonable doubt as to the Commonwealth’s case. The jury deliberated for approximately 30 minutes before returning a verdict of Not Guilty. The case was tried in the Ayer District Court.
Our client was charged with Domestic Assault and Battery against his wife stemming from a dispute at the marital residence. A hang up 911 call to the police resulted in the police responding to the home and interviewing the wife after our client had left the residence. After the interview, our client was arrested in a neighboring town. DCF was contacted and a 51A was filed due to the presence of children in the home when the allegations were made. Our office immediately became involved and accompanied the client to the interview with DCF which ultimately did not support any finding of neglect by our client. Through discovery and negotiations with the District Attorney’s Office, we were able to prevail on the Commonwealth to dismiss the criminal charge against our client less than 90 days after his arraignment.
Our client was served a Restraining Order by his former wife which prohibited him from having any contact with her and the parties’ middle school aged son. The client retained Murray & Murray for representation at the restraining order extension hearing. In preparation for the hearing, our office conducted our own investigation, including meeting with DCF, contacting collateral sources, reviewing probate court filings and conducting numerous client interviews. A full hearing occurred in the Worcester District Court at which point the client’s former wife testified and requested an extension of the restraining order. After cross examination of the former wife, the Court allowed Attorney Murray’s request that the Restraining Order be vacated.
Our client, who was a self employed contractor, was injured when a motor vehicle slid on ice and collided with his truck. The client suffered soft tissue injuries to his neck and back which required physical therapy. The cost of his medical care totaled only $6,300 however his injuries made it difficult for him to perform the physical aspects of his job. After filing suit on the case and filing a 93A claim (unfair and deceptive trade practices) against the insurance company of the Defendant driver, the insurance company finally offered the full $35,000 policy limits of its insured after initially offering $5,000. Our firm then filed an underinsured claim against our client’s own insurance company which refused to make any offer of settlement on the case. The matter went to Arbitration and a full hearing was conducted. After a detailed presentation and analysis of our client’s injuries and loss of earning capacity during his recovery, the Arbitrator awarded an additional $43,000 for our client for a total recover of $78,000.
Our client was charged with 2 Counts of Indecent Assault & Battery stemming from allegations from his former girlfriend. After his arraignment, our firm immediately began working on the case, initiating communication with the District Attorney’s Office and conducting our own internal investigation. Through our efforts and negotiation with the assigned prosecutor, the charges were dismissed within 90 days of the commencement of the case. Our office subsequently brought a Motion to Seal the criminal charges which was allowed.