With a lengthy record, this 2nd offender motorcyclist was likely facing 180 days in jail plus a 2 year license loss. The officer made him walk an ?imaginary line? without stepping off. At trial, I asked the officer, ?Exactly how wide was that imaginary line?? As he stammered to answer, the jury got the point. They found him not guilty in 15 minutes.

An international oil trader had been driving 88 mph in a 45 mph zone and failed four roadside field sobriety tests. I prepared a chart for trial, met with the Judge in his chambers and made our case. Result: we waived the jury and obtained a not guilty.

Retaining me on the last day of his temporary license, I decided to attack my client's looming 90-day Registry suspension for Breathalyzer failure. I had the Police fax me 21 pages of documents which I scrutinized over the weekend, discovering the test machine's calibration was wrong. We went back to Court immediately and the DA didn't even try to oppose my Motion. The Judge signed a Court Order restoring his license that same day.

My client faced a 3 year license loss. Under the new law, anyone with a prior OUI over 10 years old may be treated as a 1st offender again once in a lifetime.. Although his record revealed 3 prior OUIs, I submitted a multi-page Memorandum to the Judge stressing how he stood to lose the 1-man plumbing business he had operated his entire adult life. After a 20 minute argument, I convinced the Judge that 2 of the prior OUIs should not count against him. RESULT: The Judge treated him as a 1st offender, making him eligible for an immediate work license.

When an Immigration lawyer was arrested for the first time in his life and unjustly charged with OUI, I achieved a not guilty after a two-day trial despite damaging testimony from not one - but TWO police officers - one of them a Sergeant.

Mass. Police have received all new computerized Breathalyzers and each operator must use a ?swipe? card identifying them. My client?s arresting officer forgot his card and used another officer?s, then wrote his name in by hand on the computer printout. I submitted a Motion to Dismiss. Result: the DA dropped the OUI charges on the very next Court date.

A Nurse ran a red light, narrowly missed hitting the cop in the intersection by ?inches" then fled instead of stopping. After registering a .19 on the Breathalyzer, they ?threw the book? at her, hitting her with six different charges. I prepared a Memorandum for the Judge, met with the DA, stressed her otherwise completely clean record and convinced them both to dismiss five of the six charges on the very first Court date.

My client?s Breathalyzer and was three times the legal limit. Although his prior offense was just over the ten year "lookback" period, I convinced the Judge to give him a chance to be treated as a first offender. Result: rather than a full 2 year license loss, he got a work license and kept his job.

A client faced an operating under the influence of drugs charge, second offense. I found the one and only Massachusetts case correctly addressing the crucial, complex pharmacological issue. When I presented it to the Judge, the case was thrown out of Court.

My client?s girlfriend had been driving the truck and got out after an argument, leaving it in the middle of the road. My client moved over to the driver?s seat and promptly fell asleep. On cross examination, I made all 3 officers admit they never actually saw him drive. The Judge had read the police report and said the case was ?not triable? due to my client?s extreme intoxication. The jury didn?t agree: they acquitted him after deliberating less than 15 minutes

Westborough Police radioed that my client was driving into Marlborough possibly intoxicated. A Marlborough cop received the call, followed my client?s car 1/4 mile, then stopped and arrested him. At my Motion to Suppress, I cross examined the officer who admitted my client had not committed a single traffic infraction, had signaled a turn properly and shown no evidence of erratic driving whatever. The (prosecution oriented) Judge suppressed the entire motor vehicle stop and all evidence obtained thereafter including three field sobriety tests, observations of the officer and all statements my client made ? in other words: their entire case.

My 18 year old client was charged with possession of an open container of alcohol and pot on the passenger side of her car under her boyfriend?s seat. I went sidebar with the Judge at arraignment and detailed her bad choice in boyfriends. The Judge agreed with me saying he?d recently sent her boyfriend to jail. He dismissed both criminal charges, saving her a 15 month license loss and a criminal record.

An out of state resident volunteered to take the Breathalyzer but, due to her asthma, could not produce enough air to get a reading. The police called it a refusal, resulting in a 180 day suspension in Mass. (and an even longer one in her home state). I asked her doctor to write a letter, presented it with my 10-page petition to the RMV and, after a 30 second Hearing, her right to drive was reinstated.

My client needed a "Hardship License" for work and had tried, unsuccessfully, to obtain one by representing himself first before the Registry and then the Board of Appeals. After he retained me, I organized all the required documents into one easy-to-read Memorandum addressing sequentially each of the nine points I know the Registry will scrutinize. When the Hearing Officer saw it, he said, "If everyone did this, it would make my job much easier." He then granted my client's work license.

In a case originally tried by another attorney, I prepared an appellate brief. I argued that my client was denied an otherwise substantial available ground of defense when the trial attorney failed to object to hearsay evidence concerning the operation of the car. The conviction was reversed on my brief alone.

In a federal drug case involving seventeen defendants and twenty one days of trial, my client had received a 25 year sentence as a 'kingpin.' Representing him on appeal, we argued that the Spanish transcripts of tapped telephone conversations had never been translated into English and were thus unreviewable by the English language appellate Courts. Result: 25 year sentence vacated.