Federal OUI Lawyer Massachusetts Motor Vehicle Gen. 90, 24
Federal OUI Lawyer Massachusetts Motor Vehicle Gen. 90, 24
Smith v United States
Facts:
Defendant appealed his conviction by the Massachusetts court for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor (OUI) in violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 90, § 24(1)(a)(1) and leaving the scene after an accident in violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 90, § 24(2)(a). He claimed, inter alia, that certain testimony involving deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) testing violated his confrontation rights.
If you are facing a Federal case in Massachusetts, contact a SRIS Law Group lawyer for help. You can reach us at 888-437-7747
Federal OUI Lawyer Massachusetts
Holdings:
The Massachusetts Court made the following holding:
- If a defendant did not object to the admission of evidence at trial, the appellate court reviews the matter under the standard of a substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice. In examining whether an unpreserved error created a substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice, the appellate court considers the totality of evidence admitted at trial.
- When reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress, the appellate court accepts the judge’s findings of fact and will not disturb them absent clear error. The appellate court makes an independent determination of the correctness of the judge’s application of constitutional principles to the facts as found.
The SRIS Law Group Massachusetts lawyers will do their best to help you with your criminal case. Contact a Massachusetts lawyer from our firm to discuss your criminal case
Our Massachusetts lawyers defend clients charged with a criminal federal charge before the following federal courts:
Boston, Massachusetts 02210
(617) 748-9152
Worcester
Worcester, Massachusetts 01608
(508) 929-9900
Springfield
300 State Street
Springfield, Massachusetts 01105
(413) 785-6800
Our Massachusetts lawyers have a thorough understanding of the Federal Rules of Evidence, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and the Federal Criminal Laws.
Our client meeting location in Cambridge, MA. Our firm has over 5 experienced federal criminal defense attorneys to defend you if you are charged with a federal crime. Contact us to help you through every phase of representation, starting from a Rule 5 hearing, to a detention hearing, to an arraignment, to a plea negotiation and all the way up to a jury trial if necessary.
Article written by A Sris
Disclaimer:
These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.
Federal Lawyer Massachusetts OUI Breath Test Violation 36 C.F.R. 4.23
Federal Lawyer Massachusetts OUI Breath Test Violation 36 C.F.R. 4.23
United States v. Victor
Facts:
Defendant was charged in two violation notices with operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol and refusal to take a breath test in violation of 36 C.F.R. § 4.23(a)(1) and (c)(2). After a nonjury trial, the court found defendant guilty of both charges. Defendant filed a motion for a required finding of not guilty on the charge of refusing the breath test.
Federal Lawyer Massachusetts OUI Breath
Issue:
- Whether the defendant’s motion of finding not guilty should be granted?
Discussion:
Defendant’s motion was based on the fact that the park ranger had given defendant incorrect legal advice as to the consequences which would flow if he took the breath test and scored a particular result. The park ranger confused criminal penalties with the administrative penalties of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 90, § 24(1)(f)(2). In the circumstances of the case, the court ruled that the park ranger’s error was not a defense to the charge. The crucial point was that under the regulations, refusal to submit to a breath test was itself a criminal act. In such circumstances, the only advice required was the fact that the act of refusal was a crime and the maximum punishment which could be imposed upon conviction of that crime. There was no question that such advice was given. Beyond that, the fact that the park ranger gave misleading advice as to what had to be proven in order for a person under twenty-one to be charged with operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol was simply not a defense. The court denied defendant’s motion for a required finding of not guilty.
The SRIS Law Group Massachusetts lawyers will do their best to help you with your criminal case. Contact a Massachusetts lawyer from our firm to discuss your criminal case
Our Massachusetts lawyers defend clients charged with a criminal federal charge before the following federal courts:
Boston
Boston, Massachusetts 02210
(617) 748-9152
Worcester
Worcester, Massachusetts 01608
(508) 929-9900
Springfield
300 State Street
Springfield, Massachusetts 01105
(413) 785-6800
Our Massachusetts lawyers have a thorough understanding of the Federal Rules of Evidence, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and the Federal Criminal Laws.
Our client meeting location in Cambridge, MA. Our firm has over 5 experienced federal criminal defense attorneys to defend you if you are charged with a federal crime. Contact us to help you through every phase of representation, starting from a Rule 5 hearing, to a detention hearing, to an arraignment, to a plea negotiation and all the way up to a jury trial if necessary.
Article written by A Sris
Disclaimer:
These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.
Federal Lawyer Massachusetts DUI Excessive Force Arrest
Federal Lawyer Massachusetts DUI Excessive Force Arrest
Johnson v. United States
Facts:
Plaintiff arrestee filed an action against defendant officer asserting claims for assault and battery in connection with an arrest for driving under the influence of alcohol.
Federal Lawyer Massachusetts DUI
Issue:
- Whether the officer used excessive force in arresting defendant?
Discussion:
The officer stopped the arrestee’s vehicle and charged him with driving while under the influence of liquor and other motor vehicle offenses. The arrestee claimed that the officer used excessive force in arresting him. The officer claimed that the arrestee resisted arrest and attempted to escape and that the force used was reasonably necessary to restrain him. The court charged the jury that (1) the arrestee had the burden of proving that he was injured, (2) the officer had the burden of proving that he was privileged to use force because the arrestee resisted and attempted to escape, and (3) the arrestee had the burden of proving that, notwithstanding any privilege the officer may have had, the force used was excessive. The trial judge submitted the case to the jury.
The SRIS Law Group Massachusetts lawyers will do their best to help you with your criminal case. Contact a Massachusetts lawyer from our firm to discuss your criminal case
Our Massachusetts lawyers defend clients charged with a criminal federal charge before the following federal courts:
Boston
Boston, Massachusetts 02210
(617) 748-9152
Worcester
Worcester, Massachusetts 01608
(508) 929-9900
Springfield
300 State Street
Springfield, Massachusetts 01105
(413) 785-6800
Our Massachusetts lawyers have a thorough understanding of the Federal Rules of Evidence, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and the Federal Criminal Laws.
Our client meeting location in Cambridge, MA. Our firm has over 5 experienced federal criminal defense attorneys to defend you if you are charged with a federal crime. Contact us to help you through every phase of representation, starting from a Rule 5 hearing, to a detention hearing, to an arraignment, to a plea negotiation and all the way up to a jury trial if necessary.
Article written by A Sris
Disclaimer:
These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.
Federal Lawyer Massachusetts OUI Failed Sobriety Tests Alcohol Influence
Federal Lawyer Massachusetts OUI Failed Sobriety Tests Alcohol Influence
United States v. Stephen
Facts:
Defendant appealed a magistrate’s judgment, which convicted him of the misdemeanor charge of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence under 36 C.F.R. § 4.23(a)(1).
Federal Lawyer Massachusetts OUI
Issue:
- Whether the trial court erred in convicting the defendant for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence?
Discussion:
The police found defendant slumped over the wheel of a stationary truck. Defendant smelled of alcohol, failed sobriety tests, and had a blood-alcohol level of .31 percent. Defendant appealed his conviction for knowingly and willfully being in actual physical control of a motor vehicle in a national park area while he had a blood alcohol level in excess of 0.08 percent and was under the influence of alcohol to a degree that rendered him incapable of safe operation. The court affirmed the conviction, which was not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. The court held that the magistrate’s finding that defendant was in actual physical control of the vehicle under § 4.23(a)(1) was supported by the totality of the evidence that defendant appeared to be asleep, was behind the wheel of his own vehicle, the keys were in the ignition, the hood was warm, and no one else was around. The court concluded that § 4.23(a)(1) was not unconstitutional because the phrase “actual physical control” put defendant was on fair notice that his actions could constitute criminal conduct. The court affirmed.
The SRIS Law Group Massachusetts lawyers will do their best to help you with your criminal case. Contact a Massachusetts lawyer from our firm to discuss your criminal case
Our Massachusetts lawyers defend clients charged with a criminal federal charge before the following federal courts:
Boston
Boston, Massachusetts 02210
(617) 748-9152
Worcester
Worcester, Massachusetts 01608
(508) 929-9900
Springfield
300 State Street
Springfield, Massachusetts 01105
(413) 785-6800
Our Massachusetts lawyers have a thorough understanding of the Federal Rules of Evidence, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and the Federal Criminal Laws.
Our client meeting location in Cambridge, MA. Our firm has over 5 experienced federal criminal defense attorneys to defend you if you are charged with a federal crime. Contact us to help you through every phase of representation, starting from a Rule 5 hearing, to a detention hearing, to an arraignment, to a plea negotiation and all the way up to a jury trial if necessary.
Article written by A Sris
Disclaimer:
These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.
Federal Lawyer Massachusetts OUI False Statement Flight Controller
Federal Lawyer Massachusetts OUI False Statement Flight Controller
United States v. Charles
Facts:
Defendant, a flight controller, answered “no change” to questions regarding operating a vehicle under the influence of alcohol (OUI) convictions on forms submitted to the FAA. Although defendant reported his 1978 OUI conviction, he never reported his subsequent 1983 and 1995 OUI convictions. Defendant argued that the form was fundamentally ambiguous and that the statement “NO CHANGE” was literally true since he had not included his 1983 and 1995 OUI convictions on previous forms. Defendant appealed an order of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, which denied his motion, pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 29, for a judgment of acquittal for his convictions of five counts of making a false statement to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in violation of 18 U.S.C.S. § 1001.
Federal Lawyer Massachusetts OUI
Issue:
- Whether the district court erred in denying defendant’s motion for a judgment of acquittal?
Discussion:
The court held that the district court did not err in denying defendant’s motion for a judgment of acquittal. The form was not fundamentally ambiguous: defendant was required to disclose any and all OUI convictions. Defendant knew that his answer was false and that his other two OUI convictions had to have been included on the form. The government proved, and a rational jury found beyond a reasonable doubt, that the only sensible reading of the form demanded that defendant report his entire OUI history. Defendant’s answer was false because his OUI history had changed. His “NO CHANGE” answer would only have been true if he had disclosed the change in his OUI conviction history on prior forms. The court affirmed defendant’s conviction
The SRIS Law Group Massachusetts lawyers will do their best to help you with your criminal case. Contact a Massachusetts lawyer from our firm to discuss your criminal case
Our Massachusetts lawyers defend clients charged with a criminal federal charge before the following federal courts:
Boston
Boston, Massachusetts 02210
(617) 748-9152
Worcester
Worcester, Massachusetts 01608
(508) 929-9900
Springfield
300 State Street
Springfield, Massachusetts 01105
(413) 785-6800
Our Massachusetts lawyers have a thorough understanding of the Federal Rules of Evidence, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and the Federal Criminal Laws.
Our client meeting location in Cambridge, MA. Our firm has over 5 experienced federal criminal defense attorneys to defend you if you are charged with a federal crime. Contact us to help you through every phase of representation, starting from a Rule 5 hearing, to a detention hearing, to an arraignment, to a plea negotiation and all the way up to a jury trial if necessary.
Article written by A Sris
Disclaimer:
These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.
Federal Lawyer Massachusetts Child Pornography Sexual Exploitation Downward Departure
Federal Lawyer Massachusetts Child Pornography Sexual Exploitation Downward Departure
United States v. Francis
Facts:
Defendant, a paraplegic, pled guilty to child pornography and gun charges. The United States District Court sentenced him to 135 months. Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court erroneously applied a five-level enhancement for engaging in a pattern of sexual exploitation, and had misunderstood the scope of its authority to grant a downward departure based on his extraordinary physical impairments.
Federal Lawyer Massachusetts Child Pornography
Issue:
- Whether the district court erroneously applied a five-level enhancement for engaging in a pattern of sexual exploitation, and had misunderstood the scope of its authority to grant a downward departure based on his extraordinary physical impairments?
Discussion:
On review, the court found that in addition to defendant’s 1979 conviction on two counts of rape and two counts of posing or exhibiting a child, which (as defendant conceded) involved more than one victim, the sentencing court had before it pleas of guilty to state charges of two counts of unnatural acts with a child and one count of indecent assault and battery on a child under 14. Moreover, it had the undisputed statement of the presentence report that defendant had sexually abused between 12 and 15 children in his neighborhood between 1974 and 1978. The court concluded that the sentencing court had ample evidence of repeated sexual abuse or exploitation to find a pattern under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual 2G2.2(b)(4). Also, because the sentencing judge did not misunderstand his legal authority to depart downward, or otherwise err, the court found that it lacked jurisdiction to review the sentencing court’s decision not to depart downward. Defendant’s sentence was affirmed.
The SRIS Law Group Massachusetts lawyers will do their best to help you with your criminal case. Contact a Massachusetts lawyer from our firm to discuss your criminal case
Our Massachusetts lawyers defend clients charged with a criminal federal charge before the following federal courts:
Boston
Boston, Massachusetts 02210
(617) 748-9152
Worcester
Worcester, Massachusetts 01608
(508) 929-9900
Springfield
300 State Street
Springfield, Massachusetts 01105
(413) 785-6800
Our Massachusetts lawyers have a thorough understanding of the Federal Rules of Evidence, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and the Federal Criminal Laws.
Our client meeting location in Cambridge, MA. Our firm has over 5 experienced federal criminal defense attorneys to defend you if you are charged with a federal crime. Contact us to help you through every phase of representation, starting from a Rule 5 hearing, to a detention hearing, to an arraignment, to a plea negotiation and all the way up to a jury trial if necessary.
Article written by A Sris
Disclaimer:
These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.
Aggravated Felony Massachusetts Lawyer Warrant Arrest Due Process Violation
Aggravated Felony Massachusetts Lawyer Warrant Arrest Due Process Violation
United States v. Jenkins
Facts:
The defendant moved to dismiss for an alleged violation of Fed. R. Crim. P. 5(a), which requires that a person arrested without a warrant for a federal criminal offense be taken to appear before a federal magistrate judge without unnecessary delay.
Aggravated Felony Massachusetts Lawyer
Issue:
- Whether the defendant’s right to substantive due process was violated?
Discussion:
Defendant’s arrest for reentering the country without the Attorney General’s approval after having been deported for having committed an aggravated felony constituted a federal felony offense under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1326(a)(2), and was also a basis for a warrantless civil arrest under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1357(a)(2), and for deportation pursuant to 8 U.S.C.S. § 1227(a)(1)(b). The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) treated the criminal arrest as a civil arrest, as a means of detaining the defendant until criminal charges were brought. The defendant’s rights under Fed. R. Crim. P. 5(a) and 8 U.S.C.S. § 1357(a)(4) were violated. The violations did not justify dismissal as the defendant suffered no prejudice, the unlawful conduct did not “shock the conscience” and, therefore, did not violate the defendant’s right to substantive due process. The detention that INS denominated as civil, pending deportation, was really detention, pending prosecution; this conduct generated the Speedy Trial Act violations. Motion to dismiss denied; although defendant’s rights were violated, the violations did not justify dismissal as the defendant suffered no prejudice, the unlawful conduct did not “shock the conscience” and, therefore, did not violate the defendant’s right to substantive due process.
The SRIS Law Group Massachusetts lawyers will do their best to help you with your criminal case. Contact a Massachusetts lawyer from our firm to discuss your criminal case
Our Massachusetts lawyers defend clients charged with a criminal federal charge before the following federal courts:
Boston
Boston, Massachusetts 02210
(617) 748-9152
Worcester
Worcester, Massachusetts 01608
(508) 929-9900
Springfield
300 State Street
Springfield, Massachusetts 01105
(413) 785-6800
Our Massachusetts lawyers have a thorough understanding of the Federal Rules of Evidence, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and the Federal Criminal Laws.
Our client meeting location in Cambridge, MA. Our firm has over 5 experienced federal criminal defense attorneys to defend you if you are charged with a federal crime. Contact us to help you through every phase of representation, starting from a Rule 5 hearing, to a detention hearing, to an arraignment, to a plea negotiation and all the way up to a jury trial if necessary.
Article written by A Sris
Disclaimer:
These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.
Federal Lawyer Massachusetts Boston OUI Subsequent Offense Relevant Proceedings
Federal Lawyer Massachusetts Boston OUI Subsequent Offense Relevant Proceedings
John Carter v. Commonwealth
Facts:
Defendant pled guilty to a charge of operating while under the influence, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 90, § 24, but no plea was taken on the subsequent offense portion of the charge. The Commonwealth filed a Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, § 3, petition, a single justice of the state supreme court remanded the case for further proceedings relevant to sentencing, and defendant appealed. Defendant was charged with operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, third offense, pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 90, § 24(1)(a)(1).
Federal Lawyer Massachusetts Boston OUI
Issue:
- Whether the trial Judge properly charged the defendant for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, third offense, pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 90, § 24(1)(a)(1)?
Discussion:
The Court found that at the hearing in the instant case, the prosecutor set forth only those facts relevant to the underlying offense, apparently believing that after defendant entered a plea on that offense, the second step of the bifurcated procedure would take place. The Supreme Court found that the trial judge’s actions were at best an abuse of discretion and at worst an unconstitutional intrusion into powers accorded the Executive rather than the Judicial branch. The judgment of the single justice remanding the matter to the trial court for further proceedings on the subsequent offense portion of the complaint was affirmed.
The SRIS Law Group Massachusetts lawyers will do their best to help you with your criminal case. Contact a Massachusetts lawyer from our firm to discuss your criminal case
Our Massachusetts lawyers defend clients charged with a criminal federal charge before the following federal courts:
Boston
Boston, Massachusetts 02210
(617) 748-9152
Worcester
Worcester, Massachusetts 01608
(508) 929-9900
Springfield
300 State Street
Springfield, Massachusetts 01105
(413) 785-6800
Disclaimer:
These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions. The Original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.
Federal Lawyer Massachusetts Quincy OUI Expert Testimony Breathalyzer Test
Federal Lawyer Massachusetts Quincy OUI Expert Testimony Breathalyzer Test
Bowden v. Commonwealth
Facts:
Defendant was charged with operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor (OUI). The Orange Division of the District Court Department (Massachusetts) ruled that as a breathalyzer test was given more than one hour after defendant last drove, the Commonwealth had to introduce expert testimony on retrograde extrapolation as a prerequisite to the admission of the test results. The Commonwealth appealed.
Federal Lawyer Massachusetts Quincy
Issue:
- Whether, or on what conditions, the result of a breathalyzer test is admissible in a criminal trial on a charge of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor (OUI), in violation of G. L. c. 90, § 24 (1) (a) (1), as amended through St. 2003, c. 28, § 1 (OUI statute)?
Discussion:
The high court held that retrograde extrapolation was not a prerequisite to the admission of the results of a breathalyzer test due to amendments to § 24 if the test was conducted within a reasonable period of time (i.e., three hours or less) after the driver’s last operation of the vehicle. If the prosecution proceeded only on an impaired ability theory and offered evidence of a breathalyzer result of .08 or above, it had to offer expert testimony on the significance of that level as it pertained to impairment. The trial court’s holding that in a “per se” OUI case, expert retrograde extrapolation testimony was required for admission of a breathalyzer test performed more than one hour after defendant last drove, was reversed and the case was remanded for further proceedings
The SRIS Law Group Massachusetts lawyers will do their best to help you with your criminal case. Contact a Massachusetts lawyer from our firm to discuss your criminal case
Our Massachusetts lawyers defend clients charged with a criminal federal charge before the following federal courts:
Boston
Boston, Massachusetts 02210
(617) 748-9152
Worcester
Worcester, Massachusetts 01608
(508) 929-9900
Springfield
300 State Street
Springfield, Massachusetts 01105
(413) 785-6800
Disclaimer:
These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions. The Original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.
Criminal Indictment Massachusetts Lawyer Corporation Personal Jurisdiction
Criminal Indictment Massachusetts Lawyer Corporation Personal Jurisdiction
United States v. John
Facts:
Defendant corporation moved to dismiss criminal the indictment against the corporation that charged that the corporation violated section 1 of the Sherman Act (Sherman Act), 15 U.S.C.S. §1 on the grounds that: (1) the court lacked personal jurisdiction over the corporation; (2) the indictment failed to state an offense under the Sherman Act; and (3) the indictment failed to adequately plead successor liability.
Criminal Indictment Massachusetts Lawyer
Issue:
- Whether the court had personal jurisdiction over the corporation?
Discussion:
The United States commenced a criminal action against the corporation on the grounds that its predecessor conspired to fix the prices of jumbo roll thermal facsimile paper sold in the United States, in violation of the Sherman Act. The corporation moved to dismiss the indictment. The court granted the motion. The court held that: (1) court had personal jurisdiction over the corporation because the corporation had continuous and systematic activity in the United States and nationwide service of process upon an officer was permitted by § 12 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C.S. § 22; (2) the United States did not satisfy its burden of pleading with requisite particularity the existence of a vertical agreement for purposes of the Sherman Act; and (3) the criminal provision of the Sherman Act did not apply to foreign extraterritorial conduct under the Sherman Act; thus, the criminal provisions of the Sherman Act did not apply to conspiratorial conduct where none of the overt acts took place in the United States. The court dismissed the criminal antitrust indictment against the corporation for the indictment’s failure to state a claim under the antitrust laws.
The SRIS Law Group Massachusetts lawyers will do their best to help you with your criminal case. Contact a Massachusetts lawyer from our firm to discuss your criminal case
Boston, Massachusetts 02210
(617) 748-9152
Worcester
Worcester, Massachusetts 01608
(508) 929-9900
Springfield
300 State Street
Springfield, Massachusetts 01105
(413) 785-6800
Disclaimer:
These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions. The Original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.
8:00 AM – 12:00 AM Midnight
Massachusetts Federal Criminal Lawyer
