Recent OUI Offense Case Results
Commonwealth v. J.C. (Wrentham District Court, January, 2019)
JC was charged with OUI and negligent operation of a motor vehicle based on police observations of his operating his vehicle at a high rate of speed. At trial, Attorney Caramanica’s cross-examination of the arresting officer demonstrated that the only operational issues observed were speeding, and that all other operational aspects were normal. Cross-examination of the officer also revealed that JC performed very well on the so-called field sobriety tests. The jury returned verdicts of not guilty in less than 15 minutes.
Commonwealth v. D.W. (Brockton District Court, January, 2019)
DW was charged with OUI and negligent operation of a motor vehicle based on police observations of his operating his vehicle at a high rate of speed and erratically. At trial, the defense was that DW was a diabetic and was in diabetic shock at the time due to high levels of insulin. The evidence at trial was that DW appeared exceptionally well during booking as per the booking video, and sounded normal during booking and responded appropriately in all police interactions. Medical records supported DW’s defense. DW was found not guilty of all charges in a jury waived trial.
Commonwealth v. A.O. (Attleboro District Court,)
AO was charged with OUI 2nd offense, and negligent operation of a motor vehicle after being stopped by the police for crossing the center line with his vehicle on 2 occasions. Attorney Caramanica was able to have the OUI case dismissed for the destruction of evidence when it was demonstrated the police officer shut off his body camera audio recording system during the administration and performance of field sobriety tests. The negligent operation charge was ultimately dismissed after a brief probationary period upon an admission to sufficient facts.
Commonwealth v. R.R., (Fall River District Court, October, 2015)
RR was charged with operating under the influence of alcohol and negligent operation of a motor vehicle. It was alleged that state police officers observed RR travelling at a high rate of speed and crossing over the center line on a number of occasions on a state highway. The defense offered photographic evidence depicting the condition of the roadway in the area of operation, and RR’s medical records showing physical conditions that could have affected his ability to perform roadside field sobriety tests. The jury returned a verdict of not guilty on all charges.
Commonwealth v. H.L. (Attleboro District Court, Oct. 2015)
HL was charged with OUI, second offense, and negligent operation of a motor vehicle, based on his operating his vehicle such that it went off of the road and onto a snow covered yard. The defense was that HL simply went off the road while looking at his phone and that, even according to the property owner who helped HL remove his car from the yard, HL showed no signs of impairment due to alcohol consumption. The jury returned a not guilty verdict on all counts after a 2 day trial.
Commonwealth v. A.J. (Attleboro District Cout, May, 2010)
AJ was charged with OUI and negligent operation of a motor vehicle based on observations of erratic operation. Attorney Caramanica’s cross-examination focused on the administration of the field sobriety tests and the observations of AJ during her interactions with the police. The jury returned a verdict of not guilty on all charges.
Commonwealth v. A.D. (Brockton District Court, May, 2009)
AD was charged with OUI Liquor- 3rd offense and Reckless operation of a motor vehicle. The defense challenged the police characterization of AD’s performance on the field sobriety tests and pointed out the delay in the response time to the location of the accident. After a 2 day jury trial, the jury returned a verdict of not guilty on all charges.
Time Is Of The Essence.
Call Us Now To Get Started