Archives

Domestic Assault Charges Dismissed on Day of Trial | Massachusetts Criminal Defense

Domestic Assault Charges Dismissed on the Day of Trial

Result: DISMISSED

Charge: Assault and Battery on a Family or Household Member

Date: April 27, 2026

Docket: 2567 CR 1767

On Monday, April 27, 2026, Attorney Michael Murray secured the dismissal of Assault and Battery on a Family or Household Member charges against his client on the day of trial. The case was dismissed before a jury was ever seated.

What Is Assault and Battery on a Family or Household Member?

Under Massachusetts General Law Chapter 265, Section 13M, Assault and Battery on a Family or Household Member is a specific domestic violence charge that applies when the alleged victim is a spouse, former spouse, person sharing a child, person in a dating relationship, or person residing in the same household. A conviction carries up to two and a half years in the House of Correction, probation, mandatory anger management classes, a permanent criminal record, and a restraining order that can affect custody, housing, and employment.

For many people, a domestic assault charge is the most serious legal situation they have ever faced. Beyond the criminal penalties, a conviction can result in the loss of firearms rights under both state and federal law, immigration consequences for non-citizens, and lasting damage to professional licenses and employment opportunities.

Why Cases Get Dismissed on the Day of Trial

A dismissal on the day of trial does not happen by accident. It is the result of months of preparation — investigating the facts, identifying weaknesses in the Commonwealth’s case, filing motions, and building a defense strategy that forces the prosecution to reassess whether they can prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

In domestic assault cases, common reasons for dismissal include problems with witness availability or testimony, inconsistencies between the initial report and subsequent statements, lack of physical evidence supporting the allegations, self-defense, and constitutional issues with the investigation or arrest.

Whatever the specific circumstances, the lesson is always the same: preparation wins cases. When the Commonwealth knows that the defense is fully prepared for trial, the calculus changes. A prosecutor who is uncertain about a conviction may choose to dismiss rather than risk a not-guilty verdict that they cannot appeal.

If You Are Facing Domestic Assault Charges in Massachusetts

A charge is not a conviction. The fact that you have been arrested or charged with domestic assault does not mean you will be convicted. With experienced legal representation, charges can be dismissed, reduced, or result in a not-guilty verdict at trial.

Attorney Michael Murray has been defending clients in Massachusetts courts for over 35 years, with an 85% trial success rate. If you are facing domestic assault charges, contact the Law Office of Michael Patrick Murray, P.C. for a free consultation.

Call (508) 393-4162 or visit mpmdefense.com

*The client’s name has been withheld to protect their privacy. Case results depend on the specific facts and circumstances of each case. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.

OUI Dismissed: .27 Breath Test Excluded After 13-Year-Old Conviction Vacated Under Commonwealth v. Hallinan

OUI Dismissed: .27 Breath Test Excluded After 13-Year-Old Conviction Vacated Under Commonwealth v. Hallinan

By Attorney Michael Patrick Murray | April 15, 2026

On Wednesday, April 15, 2026, charges of Operating a Motor Vehicle While Under the Influence of Alcohol (OUI) against my client were dismissed on the day of trial in Commonwealth v. Defendant, Docket No. 1362 CR 9187 — despite a recorded breath test result of .27, more than three times the legal limit.

This case was thirteen years old. My client had been living with this conviction for over a decade. But a landmark 2023 decision from the Supreme Judicial Court changed everything — and gave my client a second chance that did not exist when the original plea was entered.

Commonwealth v. Hallinan and the Alcotest 9510 Scandal

This dismissal was secured through a Motion to Withdraw Plea and for a New Trial filed pursuant to Commonwealth v. Hallinan, 491 Mass. 730 (2023). In Hallinan, the Supreme Judicial Court held that individuals who “pleaded guilty or who were convicted after trial, and the evidence against whom included breath test results from an Alcotest 9510 device last calibrated and certified prior to April 18, 2019,” are “entitled to a conclusive presumption of egregious government misconduct.”

What this means in plain terms: if your OUI conviction was based on a breath test from one of these devices, the court will vacate your prior judgment and grant you a new trial. In the new trial, the breath test result is excluded. And critically, you face no additional penalty.

What Happened in This Case

My client was originally convicted of OUI based on a .27 breath test result from an Alcotest 9510 device. The conviction had been on my client’s record for thirteen years. We filed the Hallinan motion, the court vacated the original plea, and a new trial was ordered with the breath test excluded.

On the day of the new trial, the Commonwealth was unable to proceed. After thirteen years, the passage of time had made it impossible to produce witnesses. The case was dismissed.

This is not unusual in Hallinan cases. The decision creates a pathway for defendants to reopen convictions that are years or even decades old. In many of these older cases, the Commonwealth simply cannot retry the case because witnesses have moved, retired, or are otherwise unavailable. The result is a dismissal — and a conviction that disappears from the defendant’s record.

The Real-World Impact: From a Five-Year License Loss to Forty-Five Days

The stakes in this case went far beyond the thirteen-year-old conviction itself. My client was facing a separate, subsequent OUI charge. Under Massachusetts law, a second-offense OUI carries dramatically harsher penalties than a first offense — including a mandatory minimum five-year loss of license.

By vacating and dismissing the prior conviction under Hallinan, the subsequent charge was no longer a “second offense.” It became a first offense. The penalty exposure dropped from a mandatory minimum five-year license suspension to a forty-five-day license loss. That is the difference between losing your ability to drive for five years and being back on the road in six weeks.

This is why Hallinan matters so much to anyone facing second or subsequent offense OUI charges. If the prior conviction can be vacated, the entire penalty structure changes. Mandatory minimums disappear. Jail exposure drops. License suspensions shrink. The case transforms from a catastrophic outcome to a manageable one.

Two Hallinan Wins in One Week

This was the second Hallinan-based dismissal I secured for this same client in a single week. On April 15, 2026, Docket No. 1362 CR 9187 (.27 breath test) was dismissed. On April 17, 2026, Docket No. 1167 CR 0971 (.21 breath test, second offense) was also dismissed. Together, these two dismissals eliminated the prior conviction that was driving the enhanced penalties and restored my client’s driving privileges.

Does Hallinan Apply to Your Case?

If you were convicted of OUI in Massachusetts — whether by guilty plea or after trial — and the evidence against you included a breath test from an Alcotest 9510 device that was last calibrated before April 18, 2019, you may be entitled to have your conviction vacated and a new trial ordered. This is true regardless of how long ago the conviction occurred.

This becomes especially critical if you are currently facing a second or subsequent offense OUI charge. A prior conviction that can be vacated under Hallinan may be the difference between a mandatory minimum prison sentence and a manageable outcome. You face no additional penalty for reopening the prior case — there is no risk, only opportunity.

About Attorney Michael Patrick Murray

Attorney Michael Patrick Murray is a Massachusetts criminal defense attorney with over 30 years of experience and an 80% trial success rate. He has handled thousands of OUI cases across the Commonwealth and has successfully filed multiple Hallinan motions to vacate prior convictions and reduce penalty exposure for his clients.

If you have a prior OUI conviction that may be eligible for relief under Hallinan, or if you are facing second or subsequent offense OUI charges, contact the Law Office of Michael Patrick Murray, P.C. at (508) 393-4162 for a consultation.

 

The Law Office of Michael Patrick Murray, P.C. is located in Northborough, Massachusetts and represents clients in OUI and criminal defense matters throughout Worcester County, Middlesex County, Norfolk County, Essex County, and across the Commonwealth.

Not Guilty: OUI Acquittal After Massachusetts State Police Sobriety Checkpoint Stop

Not Guilty: OUI Acquittal After Massachusetts State Police Sobriety Checkpoint Stop

By Attorney Michael Patrick Murray | April 17, 2026

Today, April 17, 2026, my client was found Not Guilty of Operating a Motor Vehicle While Under the Influence of Alcohol (OUI) after trial in Commonwealth v. Defendant, Docket No. 2562 CR 2358. The charge arose from a stop at a Massachusetts State Police Sobriety Checkpoint Saturation Initiative — commonly referred to as a roadblock.

OUI roadblock cases present unique challenges for both the defense and the prosecution. Unlike a standard traffic stop, which requires reasonable suspicion of a motor vehicle violation, a sobriety checkpoint operates under a different legal framework. Every vehicle passing through the checkpoint is stopped. Every driver is observed. The interaction is brief by design, and the officers conducting the screening are trained to make rapid assessments about whether a driver may be impaired. That compressed timeline — a matter of seconds in most cases — can work for or against either side at trial.

The question in every OUI trial is whether the Commonwealth can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant operated a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. A checkpoint stop, an odor of alcohol, even poor performance on field sobriety tests does not automatically answer that question. The details matter. The observations matter. And the credibility of the witnesses matters most of all.

A Word About the Massachusetts State Police

I want to take a moment to say something that criminal defense attorneys do not say often enough.

I am never surprised, but I remain impressed and grateful for the honesty, integrity, and professionalism shown by the Massachusetts State Police and other law enforcement professionals in Massachusetts whom I am often tasked to work against in this adversarial system. In this case, as in many others, the troopers testified under oath and spoke the truth without reservation — even when the truth was inconsistent with their position or opinion seeking a conviction.

That is not a small thing. The adversarial system works only when both sides operate with integrity. A prosecutor who overcharges undermines justice. A defense attorney who misleads the court undermines justice. And a police officer who shades testimony to secure a conviction undermines justice. What I have seen consistently from the Massachusetts State Police and local police departments is the opposite: officers who take the stand, answer the questions put to them, and tell the truth. When the evidence supports a conviction, their testimony reflects that. When the evidence does not, their testimony reflects that too. They let the facts speak and trust the system to reach the right result.

That is truly admirable, and it deserves to be acknowledged publicly.

What This Means If You Were Stopped at a Sobriety Checkpoint

If you have been charged with OUI after being stopped at a sobriety checkpoint in Massachusetts, you should know that a checkpoint stop is not a conviction. The Commonwealth must still prove every element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. There are legal challenges available to the checkpoint itself — including whether it complied with the constitutional requirements set forth in Commonwealth v. McGeoghegan, 389 Mass. 137 (1983), and its progeny — as well as challenges to the field sobriety tests, the officer’s observations, and the sufficiency of the evidence as a whole.

Every case is different. The facts of your stop, the observations of the officers, your performance on any field sobriety tests, and whether you submitted to or refused a breath test all factor into the analysis. An experienced Massachusetts OUI defense attorney can evaluate the specific circumstances of your case and advise you on the strength of the Commonwealth’s evidence and the defenses available to you.

About Attorney Michael Patrick Murray

Attorney Michael Patrick Murray is a Massachusetts criminal defense attorney whose practice focuses on OUI defense, drug crimes, and serious felony matters. He has tried OUI cases in courts across the Commonwealth and is admitted to practice before all Massachusetts courts and the federal courts.

If you have been charged with OUI in Massachusetts — whether after a traffic stop, a sobriety checkpoint, or an accident — contact the Law Office of Michael Patrick Murray, P.C. at (508) 393-4162 for a consultation.

 

The Law Office of Michael Patrick Murray, P.C. is located in Northborough, Massachusetts and represents clients in OUI and criminal defense matters throughout Worcester County, Middlesex County, Norfolk County, Essex County, and across the Commonwealth.

OUI Dismissed: .21 Breath Test Excluded Under Commonwealth v. Hallinan

OUI Charges Dismissed on Day of Trial: .21 Breath Test Excluded Under Commonwealth v. Hallinan

By Attorney Michael Patrick Murray | April 16, 2026

On April 15, 2026, charges of Operating a Motor Vehicle While Under the Influence of Alcohol (OUI) against my client were dismissed on the day of trial in Commonwealth v. Defendant, Docket No. 1167 CR 0971, in the Trial Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. My client had recorded a breath test result of .21 — nearly three times the legal limit — and was facing mandatory minimum penalties including six months in jail and a thirteen-year loss of license as a subsequent offender.

As a result of this dismissal, my client received no jail time and no additional penalties whatsoever.

This result was made possible by the Supreme Judicial Court’s landmark decision in Commonwealth v. Hallinan, 491 Mass. 730 (2023), and the ongoing fallout from the breathalyzer scandal that has shaken OUI prosecutions across Massachusetts.

What Is the Hallinan Decision?

In Commonwealth v. Hallinan, the Supreme Judicial Court addressed the systemic failures in the calibration and certification of the Alcotest 9510 breathalyzer devices used across Massachusetts. The Court held that defendants who pleaded guilty or were convicted after trial — where the evidence against them included breath test results from an Alcotest 9510 device last calibrated and certified prior to April 18, 2019 — are entitled to a conclusive presumption of egregious government misconduct.

This is not a technicality. The Office of Alcohol Testing (OAT), which was responsible for certifying the accuracy and reliability of every breathalyzer device used in Massachusetts OUI prosecutions, engaged in widespread misconduct that compromised the integrity of breath test results statewide. The SJC’s remedy was sweeping and deliberate: if your conviction or guilty plea relied on breath test evidence from a device tainted by this misconduct, you are entitled to relief.

What This Means in Practice

Under the Hallinan framework, a defendant whose prior OUI conviction or guilty plea was obtained using a compromised Alcotest 9510 result can file a Motion to Withdraw Plea and for New Trial. When that motion is allowed, the court vacates the prior judgment and grants a new trial.

At the new trial, the breath test result is excluded from evidence. The Commonwealth must then prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt — without the breath test.

Here is where time becomes the defendant’s greatest ally. Many of these cases are ten, fifteen, or even twenty years old. Witnesses retire, relocate, or simply cannot be located. Arresting officers leave the department. Memories fade. Video evidence may not exist or may have been destroyed pursuant to routine retention policies. The practical reality is that when the Commonwealth is unable to produce a witness — a consequence of the passage of time, not any improper conduct by the defense — the case cannot proceed to trial. Dismissal follows.

And critically: you face no additional penalty. The Hallinan framework does not expose you to harsher sentencing or new charges. The worst-case scenario is that the Commonwealth retries the case without the breath test. The best-case scenario — as happened here — is a complete dismissal.

Why This Matters for Second and Subsequent Offense OUI Charges

This result carries enormous implications for anyone currently facing a second, third, or subsequent offense OUI charge in Massachusetts.

Massachusetts OUI penalties escalate dramatically with each prior offense. A second offense OUI carries a mandatory minimum sentence that includes sixty days in jail (or a 14-day inpatient treatment program under a Cahill disposition), a two-year license suspension, and mandatory installation of an ignition interlock device. A third offense is a felony carrying a mandatory minimum 150 days in jail and an eight-year license loss.

But these enhanced penalties depend entirely on the existence of valid prior convictions. If a prior OUI conviction is vacated under Hallinan and subsequently dismissed, that prior no longer counts. A defendant facing a second offense OUI may suddenly be facing only a first offense. A defendant charged with a third offense may be reduced to a second. The difference is often the difference between incarceration and probation, between years without a license and months.

In my client’s case, the stakes could not have been higher. Facing a mandatory minimum of six months in jail and a thirteen-year loss of license, my client walked out of the courthouse on April 15, 2026 with the case dismissed and no penalties imposed.

Does This Apply to Your Case?

If you meet the following criteria, you may be eligible for relief under Hallinan:

You pleaded guilty to or were convicted of OUI in Massachusetts. The evidence against you included a breath test result from an Alcotest 9510 breathalyzer. The device used in your case was last calibrated and certified prior to April 18, 2019.

If you are uncertain whether your case qualifies, the answer is straightforward: call a Massachusetts OUI defense attorney who understands the Hallinan decision and can review your case. The potential benefit — vacating a prior conviction, reducing the severity of a pending charge, or eliminating a criminal record entirely — is too significant to leave unexamined.

About Attorney Michael Patrick Murray

Attorney Michael Patrick Murray is a Massachusetts criminal defense attorney who has tried OUI cases across the Commonwealth. His practice focuses on drunk driving defense, drug crimes, and serious felony matters. He is admitted to practice before all Massachusetts courts and the federal courts.

If you or someone you know may be eligible for relief under Commonwealth v. Hallinan, contact the Law Office of Michael Patrick Murray, P.C. at (508) 393-4162 for a consultation.

 

The Law Office of Michael Patrick Murray, P.C. is located in Northborough, Massachusetts and represents clients in OUI and criminal defense matters throughout Worcester County, Middlesex County, Norfolk County, Essex County, and across the Commonwealth.

Assault and Battery on Family or Household Member Charges Dismissed – April 2026

Assault and Battery on Family or Household Member Charges Dismissed on Day of Trial – April 2025

On Friday, April 3, 2026, charges of Assault and Battery on a Family or Household Member against my client were dismissed in Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Defendant, Docket No. 2567 CR 1952. The dismissal came on the day of trial—the result of thorough preparation and a prosecution that could not meet its burden.

Call a Top Massachusetts Assault and Battery Attorney Now at: (508) 393-4162.

Top Assault and Battery Defense Attorney

Why Assault and Battery on a Family or Household Member Is a Serious Charge

Under Massachusetts law, Assault and Battery on a Family or Household Member (G.L. c. 265, § 13M) carries consequences that extend far beyond the potential jail time. A conviction triggers:

Mandatory completion of a certified batterer’s intervention program – a 40-week program that cannot be waived by the court.

Loss of firearms rights – under both federal law (the Lautenberg Amendment) and Massachusetts law, a conviction for a domestic violence offense results in a lifetime prohibition on possessing firearms or ammunition.

Immigration consequences – for non-citizens, a domestic violence conviction can trigger deportation, denial of naturalization, or inadmissibility.

Impact on custody and family court proceedings – a conviction becomes a factor in any ongoing or future custody dispute, often with devastating consequences for parental rights.

A permanent criminal record – unlike some offenses, domestic assault and battery convictions are not eligible for sealing for significant periods, and the stigma follows defendants in employment, housing, and professional licensing contexts.

Because of these stakes, defending against domestic assault charges requires an attorney who understands both the criminal case and its collateral consequences.

What This Dismissal Means

A dismissal is not an acquittal, but it means the Commonwealth has declined or been unable to proceed with prosecution. My client walks away without a conviction, without a batterer’s program requirement, without losing Second Amendment rights, and without a domestic violence conviction on their record.

For anyone facing similar charges, this outcome demonstrates that these cases can be successfully defended. The Commonwealth must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and when the evidence doesn’t support the charges, the right defense strategy makes all the difference.

Defending Against Domestic Assault Charges in Massachusetts

Every domestic assault case presents unique challenges. Alleged victims may be uncooperative with prosecution, recant, or refuse to testify—but Massachusetts prosecutors routinely proceed with “victimless” prosecutions using 911 calls, excited utterances, police observations, and other evidence.

Effective defense requires examining every piece of evidence: the circumstances of the alleged incident, the credibility of witnesses, the defendant’s own account, and any physical evidence or lack thereof. It also requires understanding the procedural landscape, including the availability of pretrial motions, the Commonwealth’s disclosure obligations, and the strategic considerations that arise as trial approaches.

This dismissal reflects what happens when the defense is prepared to go to trial and the prosecution recognizes it cannot prove its case.

Facing Domestic Assault Charges?

If you or someone you know is facing charges of Assault and Battery on a Family or Household Member in Massachusetts, the stakes are too high to leave your defense to chance. An experienced criminal defense attorney can evaluate the evidence, identify weaknesses in the Commonwealth’s case, and fight for the best possible outcome.

I have been defending those accused of Assault and Battery in Massachusetts for over Thirty (30) years.  I have been named a “Top 100 Trial Lawyer” by The National Trial Lawyers, I have earned the “Clients’ Choice Award” by AVVO, the Client Champion Platinum Award by Martindale-Hubbell, I have been named a “Top Tier Lawyer” by the American Trial Academy and I have won over Ninety Percent (90%) of my trials.*

Call a Top Massachusetts Assault and Battery Attorney Now at: (508) 393-4162.

This blog is not intended to be legal advice, if you have been charged with Assault and Battery or Domestic Assault and Battery (A&B, Domestic A&B, Domestic Violence) or any other crime in Massachusetts you should call an experienced and successful Defense lawyer immediately.

Top Assault and Battery Defense Attorney

*The outcome of any case depends on its specific facts and circumstances. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.

NOT GUILTY: Massachusetts OUI NOT GUILTY Despite Head-On Collision with Telephone Pole

NOT GUILTY: Massachusetts OUI Acquittal Despite Head-On Collision with Telephone Pole

How understanding police training on accident trauma lead to a Not Guilty

March 26, 2026 | OUI Defense | Attorney Michael P. Murray

On Tuesday, March 24, 2026, a verdict of NOT GUILTY in Commonwealth v. [Defendant], Docket No. 2564 CR 1248. My client had been charged with Operating Under the Influence of Alcohol (OUI) after a head-on collision with a telephone pole that destroyed both the pole and the vehicle.

On paper, this looked like a difficult case. A totaled car. A downed utility pole, empty “nip” bottles. A driver showing what police described as “signs of intoxication.”

The Commonwealth brought its case to trial. The court heard all the evidence. And found my client not guilty.

Here’s why.

The Critical Insight Police Are Trained to Recognize — But Often Forget

Officers who complete standardized field sobriety training learn a fact that rarely makes it into their arrest reports: the physical signs of intoxication are nearly identical to the physical signs of someone who has just been involved in a serious motor vehicle accident.

Consider what happens to a person moments after a violent collision:

  • Unsteady balance — from shock, adrenaline dump, and possible injury
  • Slurred or slow speech — from disorientation and head trauma
  • Bloodshot, watery eyes — from airbag deployment, smoke from airbag deployment typically a sodium azide (NaN3) igniter, dust, debris, or crying
  • Confusion and delayed responses — from the neurological impact of sudden deceleration and impact
  • Difficulty following instructions — from sensory overload and panic and the neurological impact of sudden deceleration and impact
  • Flushed face — from elevated blood pressure, adrenaline and stress response

Every single one of these indicators appears on the list of “signs of intoxication” that officers are trained to look for. And every single one of them is equally consistent with being the victim of a traumatic car accident.

What This Means for Your OUI Defense

When police arrive at an accident scene, they often begin building an OUI case before they’ve even spoken to the driver. They observe physical symptoms, smell the interior of the vehicle, and start asking questions designed to elicit incriminating responses.

But observation is not the same as investigation. And correlation is not causation.

In this case, we took the case to trial and demonstrated that the Commonwealth’s evidence of “intoxication” was equally — if not more — consistent with the trauma of a serious accident. The Commonwealth had its opportunity to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It failed.

The Takeaway

An OUI charge following a car accident is not automatic proof of guilt. The Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant operated a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol. When the only evidence of impairment consists of symptoms that are indistinguishable from accident trauma, reasonable doubt exists.

If you or someone you know has been charged with OUI following a motor vehicle accident in Massachusetts, it is critical to work with an attorney who understands both the law and the science — and who is prepared to take your case to trial if necessary. These cases are often winnable.

About Attorney Michael P. Murray

Michael P. Murray is a Massachusetts criminal defense attorney focusing on OUI/DUI defense and serious criminal matters throughout Worcester County and beyond. He has successfully defended clients in cases ranging from first-offense OUI to complex felony matters.

Attorney Murray has been providing Operating Under the Influence (OUI and OUI Drugs, DUI and DWI) defense services in Massachusetts for over Thirty (30) years.  He has been named a “Superior DUI Attorney” by the National Advocacy for DUI Defense, one of the “Ten best attorneys for Massachusetts”, by the American institute of DUI/DWI attorneys, a “Top 100 Trial Lawyer” by The National Trial Lawyers, he has earned the “Clients’ Choice Award” by AVVO, the Client Champion Platinum Award by Martindale-Hubbell and has won over Ninety Percent (90%) of my trials.*

Call a Top 10 Massachusetts OUI Attorney Now at: (508) 393-4162.

This blog is not intended to be legal advice, if you have been charged with Operating Under the Influence (OUI, DUI, DWI all common acronyms varying by state for “Drunk Driving”) or any other crime in Massachusetts you should call an experienced and successful Drunk Driving lawyer immediately.

In this Blog OUI (Operating Under the Influence) and DUI (Driving Under the Influence) or DWI (Driving While Intoxicated) will be used interchangeably as synonymous acronyms for the same crime know colloquially as “drunk driving”. However, in Massachusetts the crime is referred to as Operating Under the Influence (OUI).

 

Contact: (508) 393-4162 | mpmdefense.com

*Results in this case do not guarantee similar outcomes in other matters. Each case is unique and must be evaluated on its own facts.

Massachusetts OUI Breath Test .08 – Can You Still Be Found Not Guilty?

Can You Be Found Not Guilty of OUI in Massachusetts With a .08 Breath Test?

Many people assume that if a breathalyzer shows .08, a conviction for Operating Under the Influence (OUI) in Massachusetts is inevitable. That assumption is incorrect.

Under Massachusetts law, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the driver was operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. A breath test result alone does not always meet that burden.

Recently, Attorney Michael Murray successfully defended a client charged with OUI and child endangerment despite the Commonwealth presenting a .08 breath test result. After trial, the jury returned a not guilty verdict on all charges.

You can read more about that case here:
NOT GUILTY Verdict in Massachusetts OUI and Child Endangerment Case.

Understanding the .08 Legal Limit

Massachusetts sets the legal limit for blood alcohol concentration at 0.08% for drivers over 21. However, the number itself is only one piece of evidence in an OUI case.

Jurors must evaluate:

  • Police observations of impairment

  • Driving behavior

  • Field sobriety tests

  • Breath test procedures

  • Reliability of the testing equipment

If reasonable doubt exists, a jury must return a not guilty verdict.

Breath Tests Are Not Perfect

Breath testing devices can be challenged in several ways.

Potential issues may include:

  • Improper device calibration

  • Failure to follow testing protocols

  • Mouth alcohol contamination

  • Medical conditions affecting breath samples

  • Environmental interference

Even a small error can affect the reliability of the result.

Field Sobriety Tests Are Subjective

Police officers often rely heavily on field sobriety tests. However, these tests are not scientific and are subject to interpretation.

Factors that can affect performance include:

  • Nervousness

  • Uneven pavement

  • Weather conditions

  • Fatigue or injury

  • Poor instructions from the officer

A driver may perform imperfectly on these tests without actually being impaired.

Every OUI Case Must Be Proven

In Massachusetts criminal trials, the burden of proof always rests with the prosecution.

If the Commonwealth cannot prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant must be found not guilty.

That is why experienced legal representation is critical when facing an OUI charge.

Charged With OUI in Massachusetts?

If you have been charged with Operating Under the Influence, it is important to consult an experienced defense attorney immediately.

An OUI charge does not automatically mean a conviction, even when a breath test is involved.

I have been providing Operating Under the Influence (OUI and OUI Drugs, DUI and DWI) defense services in Massachusetts for over Thirty (30) years.  I have been named a “Superior DUI Attorney” by the National Advocacy for DUI Defense, one of the “Ten best attorneys for Massachusetts”, by the American institute of DUI/DWI attorneys, a “Top 100 Trial Lawyer” by The National Trial Lawyers, I have earned the “Clients’ Choice Award” by AVVO, the Client Champion Platinum Award by Martindale-Hubbell and I have won over Ninety Percent (90%) of my trials.*

 

Call a Top 10 Massachusetts OUI Attorney Now at: (508) 393-4162.

 

This blog is not intended to be legal advice, if you have been charged with Operating Under the Influence (OUI, DUI, DWI all common acronyms varying by state for “Drunk Driving”) or any other crime in Massachusetts you should call an experienced and successful Drunk Driving lawyer immediately.

 

In this Blog OUI (Operating Under the Influence) and DUI (Driving Under the Influence) or DWI (Driving While Intoxicated) will be used interchangeably as synonymous acronyms for the same crime know colloquially as “drunk driving”. However, in Massachusetts the crime is referred to as Operating Under the Influence (OUI).

NOT GUILTY Verdict in Massachusetts OUI and Child Endangerment Case (Breath Test .08)

NOT GUILTY Verdict in Massachusetts OUI and Child Endangerment Case (Breath Test .08)

Last week, on Tuesday, March 3, 2026, Attorney Michael Murray secured a NOT GUILTY verdict for a client charged with Operating Under the Influence of Alcohol (OUI) and Child Endangerment While OUI in the case of Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Defendant, Docket No. 2567 CR 1007.

The jury returned a verdict of NOT GUILTY on all charges, despite the prosecution presenting evidence that the defendant had recorded a breath alcohol test of .08.

This case highlights an important reality of Massachusetts OUI law: a breath test at or near the legal limit does not automatically mean someone is guilty.

Charges the Client Faced

The client was charged with two serious offenses:

  • Operating a Motor Vehicle While Under the Influence of Alcohol (OUI)

  • Child Endangerment While OUI

Under Massachusetts law, both charges can carry severe penalties, including:

  • License suspension

  • Substantial fines

  • Mandatory alcohol education programs

  • Possible jail time

  • A permanent criminal record

A child endangerment charge dramatically increases the seriousness of an OUI case and exposes defendants to additional penalties and stigma.

The Breath Test: Exactly .08

In this case, the Commonwealth presented a breath test result of .08, which is the legal limit in Massachusetts.

However, judges and juries must consider much more than a single number.

Breath tests can raise important questions, including:

  • Whether the testing device was properly calibrated

  • Whether the officer administered the test correctly

  • Whether medical conditions or environmental factors affected the result

  • Whether the driver actually appeared impaired

A breath test reading alone does not prove impairment beyond a reasonable doubt.

Why OUI Cases Are Often Defensible

Many people assume that if they are charged with OUI, a conviction is inevitable. That is simply not true.

OUI cases frequently involve issues such as:

  • Questionable field sobriety testing

  • Unreliable breathalyzer results

  • Improper police procedures

  • Weak observations of impairment

Every case requires a careful analysis of the evidence, including police reports, body camera footage, breath test procedures, and witness testimony.

When the evidence does not meet the high burden required in a criminal trial, a jury can and should return a not guilty verdict.

That is exactly what happened here.

The Importance of Trial Experience

Many OUI cases resolve through negotiations or pretrial dispositions. However, when the evidence does not support a conviction, taking the case to trial can be the best defense strategy.

A successful trial outcome requires:

  • Thorough investigation

  • Strategic cross-examination of police witnesses

  • Effective presentation of the defense theory

  • Clear explanation of reasonable doubt to the jury

In this case, the jury carefully evaluated the evidence and ultimately concluded that the Commonwealth had not proven the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

Charged With OUI in Massachusetts?

If you have been charged with OUI, DUI, or drunk driving in Massachusetts, it is critical to speak with an experienced defense attorney as soon as possible.

Even cases involving breath tests at or above the legal limit can have significant legal defenses.

An experienced lawyer can evaluate:

  • Whether the traffic stop was lawful

  • Whether field sobriety tests were properly administered

  • Whether breath test procedures were followed correctly

  • Whether the prosecution’s evidence actually proves impairment

Every case is unique, and the right defense strategy can make a substantial difference.

Contact an Experienced Massachusetts OUI Defense Lawyer

If you or someone you know is facing an OUI charge in Massachusetts, you should speak with a qualified defense attorney immediately.

Attorney Michael Murray represents clients throughout Worcester County and Central Massachusetts and has extensive experience defending OUI cases at trial.

Early legal representation can help protect your license, record, and future.

I have been providing Operating Under the Influence (OUI and OUI Drugs, DUI and DWI) defense services in Massachusetts for over Thirty (30) years.  I have been named a “Superior DUI Attorney” by the National Advocacy for DUI Defense, one of the “Ten best attorneys for Massachusetts”, by the American institute of DUI/DWI attorneys, a “Top 100 Trial Lawyer” by The National Trial Lawyers, I have earned the “Clients’ Choice Award” by AVVO, the Client Champion Platinum Award by Martindale-Hubbell and I have won over Ninety Percent (90%) of my trials.*

Call a Top 10 Massachusetts OUI Attorney Now at: (508) 393-4162.

This blog is not intended to be legal advice, if you have been charged with Operating Under the Influence (OUI, DUI, DWI all common acronyms varying by state for “Drunk Driving”) or any other crime in Massachusetts you should call an experienced and successful Drunk Driving lawyer immediately.

In this Blog OUI (Operating Under the Influence) and DUI (Driving Under the Influence) or DWI (Driving While Intoxicated) will be used interchangeably as synonymous acronyms for the same crime know colloquially as “drunk driving”. However, in Massachusetts the crime is referred to as Operating Under the Influence (OUI).

Commonwealth v. Hallinan a Second Chance for Those Charged with OUI in Massachusetts

Need and OUI Lawyer this Weekend?

Find one who wins.

This week on Monday, 2 March 2026, DISMISSED:  In Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Defendant, Docket No. 1669 CR 1072, Charges of Operating a Motor Vehicle While Under the Influence of Alcohol (OUI, DUI or DWI) against my client were DISMISSED on the day of trial despite recording a breath test of .12 .*

In this matter we filed a Motion to Withdraw Plea and a New Trail pursuant to Commonwealth v. Hallinan, 491 Mass. 730 (SJC 13301) (2023) for this ten (10) year old case. Pursuant to the new court decision in Hallinan if you:  “pleaded guilty or who were convicted after trial, and the evidence against whom included breath test results from an Alcotest 9510 device last calibrated and certified prior to April 18, 2019, [you are] entitled to a conclusive presumption of egregious government misconduct.”

What this decision means to you: in most instances the court will vacate your prior judgement and grant you a new trial.  In the new trial the breath test will be excluded AND YOU FACE NO ADDITIONAL PENALTY.  Often times the Commonwealth is unable to produce a witness for these older cases as a result of the passage of time. Thus, the prior OUI conviction disappears with no risk to the defendant. This becomes especially important to individuals charged with Second or Subsequent Offense Operating a Motor Vehicle While Under the Influence of Alcohol (OUI, DUI or DWI) who are faced with much harsher penalties UNLESS the prior OUI convictions are overturned.

I have been providing Operating Under the Influence (OUI and OUI Drugs, DUI and DWI) defense services in Massachusetts for over Thirty (30) years.  I have been named a “Superior DUI Attorney” by the National Advocacy for DUI Defense, one of the “Ten best attorneys for Massachusetts”, by the American institute of DUI/DWI attorneys, a “Top 100 Trial Lawyer” by The National Trial Lawyers, I have earned the “Clients’ Choice Award” by AVVO, the Client Champion Platinum Award by Martindale-Hubbell and I have won over Ninety Percent (90%) of my trials.*

Call a Top 10 Massachusetts OUI Attorney Now at: (508) 393-4162.

In this Blog OUI (Operating Under the Influence) and DUI (Driving Under the Influence) or DWI (Driving While Intoxicated) will be used interchangeably as synonymous acronyms for the same crime know colloquially as “drunk driving”. However, in Massachusetts the crime is referred to as Operating Under the Influence (OUI).

This blog is not intended to be legal advice, if you have been charged with Operating Under the Influence (OUI, DUI, DWI all common acronyms varying by state for “Drunk Driving”) or any other crime in Massachusetts you should call an experienced and successful Drunk Driving lawyer immediately.

 

What to Do After a Weekend OUI Arrest in Worcester County, MA

What to Do After a Weekend OUI Arrest in Worcester County, MA

Being arrested for OUI on a weekend can feel overwhelming. Courts are closed, you may not be able to contact a lawyer immediately, and you’re left wondering what happens next. The first 48 hours after an arrest are critical to protecting your rights and building a defense.

Step 1 — Stay Silent

The Police in Massachusetts are overwhelmingly intelligent and compassionate professionals.  You tell them courteously that you do not wish to speak to them and they will stop asking questions.  Do not explain, justify, or apologize to police. Statements made during or after arrest are often used as evidence.

They will continue to ask booking questions but should not ask you any fact questions about your OUI.

Step 2 — Document Everything

As soon as possible, write down:

  • Where you were stopped

  • What the officer said

  • What tests you performed

  • Weather and road conditions

  • Witnesses present

Details fade quickly. Your memory could become key evidence.

Step 3 — Understand License Risks

In Massachusetts, license consequences can begin before your case is resolved. Depending on the circumstances, you could face administrative suspension issues separate from the criminal charge.

Early legal intervention can sometimes reduce or prevent these penalties.

Step 4 — Contact an OUI Defense Attorney Immediately

The earlier a defense lawyer gets involved, the more options you may have, including:

  • Investigating the stop

  • Securing video footage

  • Reviewing police reports

  • Preparing motions before your first court date

Waiting can mean losing valuable defense opportunities.

Why Weekend Arrests Are Often Defensible

Weekend OUI arrests frequently rely on subjective observations rather than objective proof. Fatigue, nerves, medical conditions, lighting, footwear, and road surface can all affect field sobriety tests.

An experienced defense strategy focuses on exposing those weaknesses.

Final Advice

If you were arrested for OUI over the weekend in Worcester County, the most important thing you can do is act quickly and strategically. Early legal guidance can dramatically affect your outcome.

Call (508) 393-4162 to speak with a defense attorney about your case.