This claim stemmed from an intersection motor vehicle accident in which the client was a seat belted back seat passenger. The client suffered multiple fractures and required hospitalization. Claims were made against the drivers of both motor vehicles involved in the accident as the investigation revealed that both drivers contributed to the accident. After negotiations, the full policy limits of $150,000 from both vehicles were eventually offered. The case was subject to a large lien from the client’s health insurance carrier which was significantly reduced through negotiations with the carrier.
Client was stopped on his motorcycle at approximately 9:00 pm after being observed failing to stop at stop sign. Police officer testified to the odor of alcohol, slurred speech and failure on standard field sobriety tests. Breathalyzer taken at the station produced a reading of .15 which is above the .08 limit. Attorney Murray obtained the booking video taken at the police station in which the client was polite and cooperative through out. Contrast was drawn between the client’s breathalyzer results and his behavior in the video creating reasonable doubt.
The case was presented to a jury in the Worcester District Court. After deliberating for approximately 1 hour, the jury returned a verdict of Not Guilty.
Citizen call of erratic operator prompted the stop of the client by the Spencer Police Department. Odor of alcohol was detected on the client and it was reported that he was unsteady on his feet. A flask with alcohol was discovered in the vehicle. Because the identity of the citizen caller was no disclosed, his 911 call was not introduced at trial and thus there was no evidence of erratic operation. Booking video supported defense that client was not intoxicated as did medical records which indicated leg problems.
Client was found not guilty on both the OUI and Negligent Operation charges. Case was heard in the East Brookfield District Court.
Citizen called 911 to report erratic operator near his home. Police responded and observed client directly outside his vehicle attempting to open a security gate. Citizen caller identified for police the motor vehicle as the same vehicle he observed operating erratically. Police officer detected odor of alcohol and testified client was unsteady on his feet. Client admitted to consumption of alcohol and portable breathalyzer taken on roadway produced reading of .12. Client was arrested.
Case was presented to a jury in the Fitchburg District Court. At the close of Commonwealth’s case, Attorney Murray filed a Motion for Required Finding of Not Guilty for lack of evidence regarding issue of operation and intoxication. Judge allowed motion and directed a verdict of Not Guilty.
Citizen called 911 to report erratic operator on the roadway. Citizen followed client until police arrived and effectuated stop of client’s motor vehicle. Police officer detected odor of alcohol and client admitted to consumption of alcohol. Field sobriety tests were conducted and client was arrested.
Attorney Murray presented medical records revealing client had recent knee surgery as well as other physical conditions that may have interfered with results of field sobriety tests. Client and her adult son testified at trial as to client’s activities in days and hours before her arrest. Client testified that she had worked for 10 consecutive days and was dozing off while driving but was not under the influence of alcohol Son testified to the same. Case was heard in the Fitchburg District Court. Court returned a Not Guilty verdict.
Client was stopped at approximately 12:30 am after being observed by a police officer operating erratically and nearly strike the curbing on the right side of the road. Client admitted consumption of alcohol and performed field sobriety tests on the sidewalk near the roadway. Trooper testified to the performance of field sobriety tests and gave his opinion that client was intoxicated. Trooper was cross examined by Attorney Murray and Client and friend testified. Jury returned Not Guilty verdict on both charges.
Client was approached by police officer after being observed arguing with her friend in parking lot of gas station at approximately 3am. Client was observed driving into the gas station and admitted to operating the motor vehicle. Client admitted to consumption of alcohol and performed field sobriety tests. Client was placed under arrest after officer formed opinion of intoxication. Breathalyzer taken at station produced .22 reading.
Attorney Murray filed pretrial motion to suppress the breathalyzer results based upon officer’s failure to comply with regulatory requirements. After a contested motion hearing, the court allowed the motion and the BT was suppressed. The case was then tried before a jury in the Framingham District Court. Jury returned a not guilty verdict.
Client was approached by police after being observed sleeping in the breakdown lane of his running vehicle at approximately 5am. Field sobriety tests were administered on the roadway and client was arrested. Client presented to police with bruising over his eye and blood on his shirt. Medical records were introduced at trial revealing client had sustained a concussion thus rendering unreliable the results of the field sobriety tests and raising doubt as to the reliability of officer’s opinion regarding intoxication. Case was heard in the Worcester District Court. Client was found not guilty.
Client was charged with assault and battery against her teenage step-son. Case was transferred from the Westborough session to the jury session in the Worcester District Court. After jury waived trial in which alleged victim’s biological mother testified against client, court found client not guilty.
The client was charged with Indecent Exposure and Assault and Battery against his own minor daughter. The charges were brought against the client in the context of a divorce and custody dispute with the client’s wife. Through extensive pre-arraignment efforts and investigatory work, the charges were dismissed prior to the client being arraigned. Consequently, the charges will not appear on the client’s board of probation record.