Massachusetts OUI / DUI Lawyer Tag Archives

Ambulance or EMT Records Ruled Admissible in Massachusetts OUI/DUI Trials

Published on: December 16, 2016 | by Lefteris K. Travayiakis, Esq.

The defendant in Commonwealth v. Palacios claimed that the ambulance records should not have been admitted against her at his OUI/DUI trial and that references to her intoxication should have been redacted. The Massachusetts Appeals Court, however, concluded that the ambulance records were properly admitted as records of medical services.

This case began when the defendant ran a stop sign and crashed into another car. The police officer who responded to the accident scene observed the defendant to have glassy eyes and be unsteady on her feet. She admitted to having ben drinking, stating she had 2-3 drinks. She was not arrested at the scene because she claimed to be injured and an ambulance was called to take her to the hospital. Continue Reading ›

Massachusetts State Police To Conduct DUI Roadblock in Bristol County

Published on: December 9, 2014 | by Lefteris K. Travayiakis, Esq.

The Massachusetts State Police announced that troopers will be conducting a DUI / OUI Sobriety Checkpoint at “an undisclosed location” in Bristol County on the evening of December 12, 2014. Bristol County includes the towns of Dartmouth; Easton; Mansfield; North Attleborough; Norton; Raynham; Rehoboth; Seekonk; Swansea; and Westport, et.al.

What are your rights when it comes to a OUI / DUI roadblock or, as the police like to call them, ‘sobriety checkpoints’? Under Massachusetts law, the police are entitled to conduct drunk driving roadblocks, but they must abide by certain rules and procedures… Continue Reading ›

Massachusetts DUI Conviction Overturned For Lawyer Failing in Defense

Published on: November 20, 2014 | by Lefteris K. Travayiakis, Esq.

In a recent unpublished decision, the Massachusetts Appeals Court reversed the conviction of a man who was found guilty of Operating Under the Influence of Alcohol because his lawyer failed to introduce to the jury evidence that he had an attention deficit disorder and a learning disability. The Appeals Court agreed that his lawyer failing to introduce this evidence in his defense prejudiced him at trial, as the evidence would have explained to the jury why the defendant was not able to satisfactorily perform field sobriety tests when he was pulled over.

At trial, the Massachusetts State Police Trooper testified that after he pulled the defendant over for speeding at 94 miles per hour, he administered several field sobriety tests, and that the defendant failed them all. As a result, the trooper concluded that he was operating while under the influence of alcohol and placed him under arrest. The defendant also submitted to a breathalyzer test which yielded a reading of 0.06%.