DISMISSED: OUI and Negligent Operation Charges Thrown Out After Officer Fails to Appear — Three Strikes

Today, on Tuesday, July 28, 2026, charges of Operating a Motor Vehicle While Under the Influence of Alcohol (OUI) and Negligent Operation of a Motor Vehicle against my client were DISMISSED in Commonwealth v. Defendant, Docket No. 2457 CR 1835.

The case never went to trial. The Commonwealth lost its chance to prosecute.

The Pattern: An Officer Who Didn’t Show Up

In criminal cases, the arresting officer is often the Commonwealth’s key witness. Without the officer, the Commonwealth typically cannot prove its case. That’s why officers are required to appear when scheduled.

In this case, the officer had already missed a prior court date with no advanced notice to the court or the defense. Then the officer missed another court date — this time with advanced notice that they would not appear.

By the time we arrived for trial, the pattern was clear.

The Argument: Three Strikes — Dismiss for Lack of Prosecution

On the day of trial, I moved to dismiss the case for lack of prosecution. The Commonwealth had multiple opportunities to present its case and failed to do so. My client had appeared as required every single time. The officer had not.

I argued that my client’s constitutional right to a speedy trial and the court’s interest in the efficient administration of justice required dismissal. The Commonwealth had struck out.

The judge agreed.

The Result: Case Dismissed

Both charges — OUI and Negligent Operation — were dismissed. My client walked out of the courthouse without a trial, without a conviction, and without a criminal record for these charges.

No evidence was heard. No verdict was required. The case was over.

Why This Matters: Good Defense Attorneys Watch Everything

Many defendants assume that the only way to beat a criminal charge is to win at trial. That’s not true. Experienced defense attorneys track every continuance, every missed appearance, and every procedural misstep by the prosecution.

When the Commonwealth fails to prosecute its case with diligence, the defense has grounds to move for dismissal. Courts take these failures seriously — defendants have rights, and the system cannot function if witnesses don’t appear.

A skilled Massachusetts OUI defense attorney knows when to fight at trial — and when to win without one.

Facing OUI or Criminal Charges in Massachusetts?

If you have been charged with OUI, Negligent Operation, or any criminal offense, you need an attorney who will fight on every front — at trial and before. Contact Attorney Michael Murray for a free consultation.

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

NOT GUILTY: .13 Breathalyzer Thrown Out After Retainer Discovered During Observation Period — OUI Case Collapses

Today, on Monday, July 27, 2026, Attorney Michael Murray secured a NOT GUILTY verdict after trial in Commonwealth v. Defendant, Docket No. 2567 CR 1852, on a charge of Operating a Motor Vehicle While Under the Influence of Alcohol (OUI) — despite the fact that the defendant had recorded a breathalyzer result of .13, well over the legal limit of .08.

How? The breath test never made it to trial.

The Discovery: A Retainer and a Violation

Prior to trial, I obtained all available video evidence, including the booking video from the police station. This is standard practice — but what I found in that video was anything but routine.

During the fifteen-minute observation period required by Massachusetts law before administering a breath test, my client disclosed to the officer that she was wearing a removable retainer in her mouth.

That disclosure changed everything.

The Law: 501 CMR §2.55 and Commonwealth v. Pierre

Under 501 CMR §2.55, the breathalyzer operator must observe the subject for a continuous fifteen minutes before administering the test. The purpose of this observation period is to ensure that nothing enters the subject’s mouth that could affect the accuracy of the test — including food, drink, regurgitation, or foreign objects.

In Commonwealth v. Pierre, 72 Mass.App.Ct. 230 (2008), the Appeals Court made clear that violations of this observation period can render breath test results inadmissible.

A removable retainer is a foreign object in the mouth. When my client disclosed its presence during the observation period, the officer should have ensured proper protocol was followed. The video showed otherwise.

The Motion: Breath Test Suppressed

I filed a motion to suppress the breath test based on the observation period violation. The court reviewed the evidence, including the booking video.

The motion was ALLOWED. The .13 breath test was excluded from trial.

The Trial: What Remained

Without the breath test, the Commonwealth was left with two field sobriety tests and the officer’s observations. Under cross-examination, the officer testified:

• My client passed one of the two field sobriety tests
• His observations — bloodshot eyes and odor of alcohol — were circumstantial in nature
• Those observations were full of reasonable doubt

The officer testified fairly and honestly. And that honest testimony revealed the weakness of the Commonwealth’s case without the breath test.

The Judgement: NOT GUILTY

After trial, my client was found NOT GUILTY of OUI. No conviction. No license loss. No criminal record for this charge.

Why This Case Matters: The Breath Test Is Not Invincible

Many people assume that a breath test over .08 means automatic conviction. It does not.

Massachusetts has strict regulations governing how breath tests must be administered. Violations of the observation period, improper calibration, operator certification issues, and other procedural failures can all result in suppression of the test.

The key is thorough investigation. In this case, the evidence that won the case was hidden in a booking video that many attorneys might never request — or never watch closely enough to catch the critical moment.

A skilled Massachusetts OUI defense attorney knows where to look, what to look for, and how to use what they find.

Facing OUI Charges with a Breath Test Over .08?

Do not assume your case is hopeless. Breath test results can be challenged. Contact Attorney Michael Murray for a free consultation to discuss whether suppression may be possible in your case.

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

NOT GUILTY: OUI Second Offense Exposed as Circumstantial — Client Acquitted, License Reinstated After 3-Year Suspension

Yesterday, on Friday, July 24, 2026, Attorney Michael Murray secured a NOT GUILTY verdict after trial in Commonwealth v. Defendant, Docket No. 2567 CR 1224, on a charge of Operating a Motor Vehicle While Under the Influence of Alcohol (OUI), Second Offense.

This was not just an acquittal — it was a complete restoration of my client’s life.

Immediately following the judgement, I filed a Motion to Reinstate my client’s driver’s license, which had been suspended for THREE YEARS pending trial. The motion was granted on the spot. My client walked out of the courthouse not only cleared of all charges, but with their license fully restored.

The Stakes: OUI Second Offense Is No Minor Charge

In Massachusetts, an OUI second offense carries severe mandatory penalties upon conviction:

• Minimum 60 days in jail (up to 2.5 years)
• 2-year license suspension (+3 for Chemical Test Refusal (CTR))
• Mandatory installation of an ignition interlock device
• Fines up to $10,000
• Mandatory two-week inpatient alcohol education program

My client faced all of this — plus had already lost their license for three years while awaiting trial. The pressure to plead guilty and ‘get it over with’ is immense in these situations. But my client trusted the process, and that trust was rewarded.

The Stop: Speeding and Marked Lanes Violation

A local police officer stopped my client for speeding and a marked lanes violation. From there, the situation escalated — but not because of any failed tests.

My client refused all field sobriety tests and the breathalyzer. Every single one.

The Arrest: Circumstantial Observations Only

Without any test results, the officer arrested my client based solely on subjective observations:

• An odor of alcohol
• Glassy eyes
• Slightly slurred speech

These observations may sound incriminating to a jury — but they do not prove impairment beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Defense: Reasonable Doubt in Every Observation

At trial, I cross-examined the police officer on the inherently circumstantial nature of each observation. The officer provided fair and honest testimony.

An odor of alcohol proves someone consumed alcohol — not that they are impaired. Glassy eyes can result from fatigue, allergies, contacts, or countless other factors. ‘Slightly slurred speech’ is entirely subjective and depends on the listener’s perception and baseline knowledge of the speaker.

I argued that this case, built on so little concrete evidence, was replete with reasonable doubt. The court agreed.

NOT GUILTY

After trial, my client was found NOT GUILTY of OUI Second Offense. No conviction. No jail time. No criminal record for this charge.

The Reinstatement: License Restored Immediately

But we weren’t done. My client had been without a driver’s license while this case was pending and faced a three-year suspension for a Chemical Test Refusal (CTR). Three years of depending on others for rides. Three years of limited employment opportunities. Three years of waiting.

In Massachusetts “…there [is] be a rebuttable presumption that said license be restored unless the Commonwealth shall establish, by a fair preponderance of the evidence, that restoration of said license would likely endanger the public safety.  In all such instances, the Court shall issue written findings of fact with its decision.

M.G.L. c. 90, §24(f)(1)(iii).

Immediately after the verdict, I filed a Motion to Reinstate based on M.G.L. c. 90, §24(f)(1)(iii). The court granted our Motion.

My client walked out of the courthouse with their freedom AND their license.

Why This Case Matters

OUI second offense cases carry tremendous pressure to plead guilty. Prosecutors know the stakes are high and often push for plea deals. Many defendants, worn down by years of license suspension and the threat of jail time, give in.

But if the Commonwealth’s case is built on circumstantial evidence — and you refuse all tests — there may be far more reasonable doubt than you realize.

A skilled Massachusetts OUI second offense attorney knows how to expose that doubt, challenge the Commonwealth’s evidence, and fight for an acquittal.

Facing OUI Second Offense Charges in Massachusetts?

If you have been charged with OUI second offense, do not assume conviction is inevitable. Contact Attorney Michael Murray for a free consultation to discuss your defense options.

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

NOT GUILTY: OUI Charge Exposed as Circumstantial — Client Acquitted on Massachusetts Turnpike Case

Yesterday on Wednesday, 22 July 2026, In Commonwealth v. Defendant, Docket No. 2564 CR 3044, Attorney Michael Murray secured a NOT GUILTY after trial on a charge of Operating a Motor Vehicle While Under the Influence of Alcohol (OUI).

This case demonstrates a fundamental truth about OUI defense: when the Commonwealth’s evidence consists entirely of circumstantial observations, reasonable doubt is often built into the case itself.

The Stop: A Service Plaza on the Mass Pike

A Massachusetts State Police Trooper approached my client at a service plaza on the Massachusetts Turnpike after concluding that he had been speeding into the plaza. From there, the encounter escalated quickly — but not because of any failed field sobriety tests or breath test results.

My client refused all tests. Every single one.

The Arrest: Built on Observations and Opinions

Without any test results, the Trooper arrested my client based solely on circumstantial factors:

• An odor of alcohol
• Glassy eyes
• Slightly slurred speech

These observations can sound damning — until you examine them closely.

The Defense: Exposing Reasonable Doubt

At trial, I cross-examined the Trooper on the inherently circumstantial nature of each observation. To his credit and as I always see, the Trooper provided fair and honest testimony — and that honesty helped reveal the reasonable doubt that permeated this case.

An odor of alcohol does not prove intoxication. Glassy eyes can result from fatigue, allergies, or dry air. Slightly slurred speech is a subjective observation that depends entirely on the listener’s perception.

I argued to the court that this case, with so little concrete evidence, was replete with reasonable doubt. The court agreed.

The Result: NOT GUILTY

After trial, my client was found NOT GUILTY of OUI. No conviction. No license loss. No criminal record for this charge.

Why Refusal Cases Are Defensible

Many people believe that refusing field sobriety tests and the breathalyzer makes their case hopeless. The opposite is often true. When you refuse, the Commonwealth is left with nothing but the officer’s subjective observations — and those observations must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

A skilled Massachusetts OUI defense attorney knows how to challenge those observations, expose their weaknesses, and hold the Commonwealth to its burden of proof.

Facing OUI Charges in Massachusetts?

If you have been charged with OUI — whether you refused testing or not — do not assume your case is unwinnable. Contact Attorney Michael Murray for a free consultation to discuss your defense options.

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

Client Testimonial: “Professionalism, Communication, and Dedication Were Exceptional”

When you’re facing criminal charges, you need more than just legal knowledge. You need an attorney who will guide you through the process, keep you informed, and take the weight off your shoulders. That’s what we strive to deliver at the Law Office of Michael Patrick Murray, P.C.

Here’s what one recent client had to say:

“Michael Murray was outstanding to work with. He was very cooperative, understanding, and always willing to help throughout the entire process. He took care of all the paperwork and making everything as stress-free as possible. His professionalism, communication, and dedication were exceptional. I highly recommend Michael Murray to anyone looking for a knowledgeable and reliable attorney.”

– Issaih Beatty, Clinton, MA

What We Believe In

Criminal defense is stressful. The uncertainty, the paperwork, the court dates — it can feel overwhelming. Our job is to shoulder that burden so you don’t have to.

Every client deserves:

• Clear, honest communication at every step
• An attorney who handles the details so you can focus on your life
• Respect, understanding, and zero judgment
• A dedicated advocate who fights for the best possible outcome

That’s what Issaih experienced. That’s what we aim to deliver for every client who walks through our door.

Serving Clinton and All of Worcester County

Attorney Michael Murray represents clients throughout Worcester County, including Clinton, Leominster, Fitchburg, Worcester, and the surrounding communities. Whether you’re facing OUI charges, assault allegations, drug offenses, or any other criminal matter, we’re here to help.

Need a Criminal Defense Attorney?

If you or someone you love is facing criminal charges in Massachusetts, contact the Law Office of Michael Patrick Murray, P.C. at (508) 393-4162 for a free consultation. We’ll listen to your situation, explain your options, and fight for you.

NOT GUILTY: .14 Breath Test Suppressed After Booking Video Lost — OUI Charge Defeated

A breath test result of .14 — nearly twice the legal limit — might seem like an insurmountable obstacle in an OUI case. But breath test results are only admissible if the Commonwealth can prove the test was administered properly. When the evidence that would prove proper administration is lost or destroyed, the defendant has a right to challenge that result.

On July 2, 2026, in Commonwealth v. [Defendant], Docket No. 2568 CR 0856, Attorney Michael Murray secured a NOT GUILTY verdict for a client charged with Operating Under the Influence despite a recorded breath test of .14. The key: the booking video that would have shown whether the breath test was administered in compliance with regulations was lost or destroyed and never provided to the defense.

The Lost Booking Video

Breath tests in Massachusetts must be administered according to strict protocols established by the Office of Alcohol Testing. The booking video — recorded at the police station — typically captures the entire breath test process, including the required 15-minute observation period, the verbal instructions given to the defendant, and the defendant’s demeanor during the test.

In this case, that video was lost or destroyed. It was never provided to the defense.

Attorney Murray filed a motion to dismiss the case based on the Commonwealth’s failure to preserve this potentially exculpatory evidence. The judge denied the motion to dismiss but agreed that suppression was the appropriate remedy: the .14 breath test result was excluded from evidence.

Without the breath test, the Commonwealth had to prove impairment through other evidence. They couldn’t.

An Equipment Violation — Not Impaired Driving

My client was stopped for a faulty headlight — an equipment violation. Not for weaving. Not for speeding. Not for running a red light. Not for any driving behavior that would suggest impairment.

This distinction matters. In an OUI case, the Commonwealth must prove that the defendant operated a motor vehicle while their ability to operate safely was impaired by alcohol. A broken headlight tells you nothing about how someone was driving.

Strong Performance on Field Sobriety Tests

At trial, Attorney Murray argued that his client performed well on the field sobriety tests despite extremely difficult conditions:

• Late at night
• Roadside — uneven surface, passing traffic, headlights in face
• In the presence of armed police officers
• Cold weather
• Fatigue

Field sobriety tests are designed to be difficult. They are administered under stressful conditions that would challenge anyone — sober or not. A skilled defense attorney knows how to put the jury in the defendant’s shoes and demonstrate that the so-called “failures” were actually reasonable responses to an unreasonable situation.

The Result: NOT GUILTY

With the breath test suppressed, no evidence of impaired driving, and a client who performed well on field tests under difficult conditions, the Commonwealth could not meet its burden.

What This Case Teaches

A breath test result is not a conviction. It is a piece of evidence — and like all evidence, it can be challenged. When the Commonwealth loses or destroys evidence that could have helped the defense, there are consequences. In this case, suppression of the breath test changed everything.

If you are facing OUI charges in Massachusetts — even with a high breath test result — do not assume your case is hopeless. An experienced OUI defense attorney will examine every piece of evidence, every procedure, and every potential failure by the Commonwealth to preserve your rights.

Facing OUI Charges with a Breath Test Result?

Contact the Law Office of Michael Patrick Murray, P.C. at (508) 393-4162 for a free consultation. A breath test is not the end of the story — it’s the beginning of the fight.

*The defendant’s name has been omitted to protect their privacy. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. Each case is unique and must be evaluated on its own facts.

NOT GUILTY: OUI Charge Dismissed After Single-Car Accident — Head Injury Defense Prevails

When a driver is involved in a serious motor vehicle accident, the physical trauma can produce symptoms that look exactly like alcohol intoxication. Slurred speech. Confusion. Unsteady balance. Difficulty following instructions. These are classic signs of impairment — but they are also classic signs of head injury.

In Commonwealth v. [Defendant], Docket No. 2564 CR 1871, Attorney Michael Murray secured a NOT GUILTY verdict for a client charged with Operating Under the Influence (OUI) after a serious single-car accident. The defense: the symptoms the officer observed were caused by head trauma from the crash, not voluntary intoxication.

A Serious Accident with Serious Injuries

The evidence at trial painted a picture of a violent collision. My client’s vehicle struck a tree. Officers and EMTs who responded to the scene testified under oath about the severity of the impact:

• Airbag deployment
• Evidence that my client was not wearing a seatbelt
• “Starring” of the windshield directly in front of the driver’s seat — indicating a serious head impact with the glass

This was not a fender-bender. This was a crash violent enough to deploy airbags and send an unrestrained driver’s head into the windshield with enough force to create a spider-web pattern in the glass.

Officers and EMTs Testified Honestly

To their credit, the responding officers and emergency medical technicians testified truthfully about a critical fact: physical impacts of this nature — particularly head injuries — routinely produce symptoms that can be confused with voluntary intoxication.

Confusion. Disorientation. Slurred speech. Bloodshot eyes. Poor balance. These are symptoms of traumatic brain injury just as much as they are symptoms of alcohol impairment.

The arresting officer, in what I would describe as perfect execution of his oath to protect and serve, recognized the severity of the accident and immediately had my client transported to the hospital for medical evaluation and treatment. This was the right call. However, my client was later charged with OUI based on observations made at a chaotic accident scene involving a person who had just suffered a significant head impact.

The Defense: Head Trauma, Not Intoxication

At trial, Attorney Murray focused the jury on the physical evidence of head trauma and the honest testimony from first responders acknowledging that accident injuries can mimic intoxication. The Commonwealth could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that my client’s condition was caused by alcohol rather than by a violent collision that sent his head into a windshield.

The jury agreed. Verdict: NOT GUILTY.

Why This Matters for OUI Accident Cases

If you have been charged with OUI after a motor vehicle accident, the circumstances of that accident matter enormously. Head injuries, shock, medication administered by EMTs, and the general chaos of an accident scene can all produce observations that look like intoxication to an officer but have nothing to do with alcohol.

An experienced OUI defense attorney will examine the accident evidence, the medical records, and the testimony of first responders to build a defense that explains your condition without conceding impairment.

Charged with OUI After an Accident?

If you are facing OUI charges stemming from a motor vehicle accident in Massachusetts, contact the Law Office of Michael Patrick Murray, P.C. at (508) 393-4162 for a free consultation. Every case deserves a thorough investigation — and every client deserves a defense built on the facts.

*The defendant’s name has been omitted to protect their privacy. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. Each case is unique and must be evaluated on its own facts.

Client Testimonial: “Nothing Short of Art and Mastery”

What courtroom mastery looks like — and why it matters for your case

Criminal Defense | Attorney Michael P. Murray | Worcester & Middlesex Counties

“There are no accurate words to express the absolute mastery that Attorney Murray has in the courtroom and controlling the legal process. A family member of mine had him represent him, and what Attorney Murray did with the entire process was nothing short of Art and Mastery of the courtroom, the jury, the witnesses and the entire process. I would highly recommend him.”

— Susan Linta, Groton, MA

I’m grateful for this testimonial from Susan Linta, whose family member I had the privilege of representing. Her words capture something I’ve spent my entire career trying to achieve: mastery of the courtroom.

But what does that actually mean? What does “courtroom mastery” look like in practice?

Controlling the Legal Process

Criminal cases are won and lost long before the jury delivers a verdict. They’re won in the preparation — knowing the law cold, anticipating the prosecution’s moves, and having a plan for every contingency.

Controlling the legal process means filing the right motions at the right time. It means knowing which evidence can be excluded and which arguments will resonate with a judge. It means never being surprised, because you’ve already thought three steps ahead.

Mastery of the Jury

Jurors aren’t lawyers. They don’t think in terms of statutes and case citations. They think in terms of stories, fairness, and reasonable doubt.

Mastery of the jury means speaking their language. It means taking complicated legal concepts and making them simple. It means showing — not just telling — why the Commonwealth hasn’t proven its case. And it means doing all of this while remaining credible, trustworthy, and relatable.

Mastery of the Witnesses

Cross-examination is where cases are won. It’s where the prosecution’s story falls apart — if you know how to do it.

Mastery of witnesses means asking questions you already know the answer to. It means locking a witness into their testimony before revealing the contradiction. It means staying calm and controlled even when the witness is hostile, because the jury is watching how you handle pressure.

Why It Matters

When you’re facing criminal charges, the stakes couldn’t be higher. Your freedom, your reputation, your future — all of it hangs on what happens in that courtroom.

You deserve an attorney who has spent years mastering the art of trial work. Someone who knows the judges, knows the prosecutors, knows the law — and knows how to win.

That’s what I bring to every case I handle.

Facing Criminal Charges in Massachusetts?

If you or a family member has been charged with a crime in Worcester County, Middlesex County, Norfolk County or anywhere in Massachusetts, I’m here to help.

Call the Law Office of Michael Patrick Murray, P.C. at (508) 393-4162 for a free consultation.

Attorney Michael P. Murray, defends clients facing criminal charges throughout Massachusetts. Results vary by case. Prior outcomes do not guarantee future results.

NOT GUILTY: OUI Acquittal After Speeding Stop — Jury Deliberates Less Than One Hour

When the only evidence of impairment is an odor from the vehicle — not the driver — reasonable doubt exists

June 16, 2026 | OUI Defense | Attorney Michael P. Murray

Yesterday, a jury in Massachusetts returned a verdict of NOT GUILTY in Commonwealth v. [Defendant], Docket No. 2548 CR 1215. My client had been charged with Operating Under the Influence of Alcohol after being stopped for speeding.

The jury received its instructions at 1:26 PM and broke for lunch. They returned a unanimous verdict of not guilty at 2:15 PM — deliberating for less than one hour.

Here’s why the Commonwealth’s case failed.

The Stop: Speeding Only

My client was stopped for one reason: speeding. That’s it.

There was no swerving. No weaving. No failure to maintain lane. No erratic driving of any kind. The officer observed a motor vehicle traveling above the posted speed limit and initiated a traffic stop.

Speeding is not evidence of impairment. If it were, every driver on Route 128 would be under suspicion.

The Odor: From the Vehicle, Not the Driver

At trial, the officer testified honestly about what he observed. He detected a strong odor of alcohol coming from the vehicle.

But when asked whether he detected any odor of alcohol coming directly from my client — from his breath, from his person — the officer admitted he did not.

This distinction matters. An odor of alcohol in a vehicle could come from anywhere — a spilled drink, a passenger, an open container in the back seat. An odor coming directly from the driver’s breath suggests consumption. The Commonwealth had the former. It did not have the latter.

The Field Sobriety Tests: Passed More Than Failed

The officer testified that, in his opinion, my client failed the roadside field sobriety tests.

But on cross-examination, he acknowledged the truth: my client passed more portions of the tests than he failed.

Field sobriety tests are divided into multiple components. An officer may conclude that a person “failed” based on just a few missed indicators. But when you look at the full picture — when you count every component the person passed — a different story emerges.

In this case, my client completed the majority of the tests correctly. That’s not impairment. That’s reasonable doubt.

The Verdict: Less Than One Hour

The judge finished instructing the jury at 1:26 PM. She told them she would not take a verdict before lunch concluded.

At 2:15 PM, the jury returned with a unanimous verdict: NOT GUILTY.

When a jury deliberates for less than an hour — including the time it takes to organize, select a foreperson, and complete the verdict slip — the message is clear. This was not a close call. The evidence simply was not there.

The Lesson: Speeding Is Not Impairment

The Commonwealth’s case rested on three pillars: speeding, an odor of alcohol from the vehicle, and an officer’s opinion about field sobriety tests.

None of those pillars could bear the weight of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Speeding proves nothing about impairment. An odor from the vehicle — not the driver — proves nothing about impairment. And an officer’s opinion that someone “failed” tests they mostly passed proves nothing about impairment.

The jury saw through it. My client walked out of the courthouse with his freedom and his record intact.

Facing OUI Charges in Massachusetts?

If you’ve been charged with OUI, do not assume the case is unwinnable. The Commonwealth must prove impairment beyond a reasonable doubt — and that burden is higher than most people think.

Call the Law Office of Michael Patrick Murray, P.C. at (508) 393-4162 for a free consultation.

Attorney Michael P. Murray, defends clients facing OUI charges throughout Worcester County and Massachusetts. Results vary by case. Prior outcomes do not guarantee future results.

NOT GUILTY: OUI Second Offense Acquittal Despite .09 Breath Test

How understanding breath test deviation led to a Judgement of not guilty

June 12, 2026 | OUI Defense | Attorney Michael P. Murray

Today, my client was found NOT GUILTY in Commonwealth v. [Defendant], Docket No. 2567 CR 1397. My client had been charged with Operating Under the Influence of Alcohol—Second Offense—after recording a breath test of .09.

A second-offense OUI conviction in Massachusetts carries severe mandatory penalties: a two-year loss of license, a mandatory minimum of two years probation, and a 14-day inpatient program at a state facility—which in practice means 60 days in the House of Correction.

My client left court today with his license reinstated and no sentence at all.

Here’s how we won.

The Traffic Stop: A Hands-Free Violation

My client was stopped for a hands-free violation—using his cell phone while driving. There was no erratic driving, no accident, no swerving between lanes. Just a cell phone.

After the stop, the officer conducted field sobriety tests and ultimately administered a breath test. The result: .09—one hundredth of a percentage point above the legal limit of .08.

For most people, a .09 breath test feels like the end of the road. It’s above the limit. The machine said so. Case closed.

But that’s not how the science works.

The Science: What the Breath Test Actually Measures

At trial, the arresting officer testified honestly about two critical facts that many people do not understand:

First: Breath test machines have an acceptable standard deviation of ± .02.

This means that even a properly calibrated, properly functioning breath test machine can produce a result that is off by as much as .02 in either direction. A reading of .09 could actually represent a true blood alcohol content anywhere from .07 to .11. A .09 reading could mean my client was below the legal limit.

Second: The breath test machine does not measure blood alcohol content—it estimates it.

The machine takes a sample of breath, not blood. It then runs that breath sample through a complex mathematical computation to estimate what the person’s blood alcohol content might be. This estimation process introduces another layer of potential deviation.

When you combine the machine’s inherent margin of error with the uncertainty introduced by the breath-to-blood estimation, a .09 reading is far from conclusive proof that someone was above the legal limit.

The Judgement: Reasonable Doubt

The Commonwealth must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. When the machine itself has a margin of error that could place the defendant below the legal limit, and when the machine is estimating blood alcohol from breath rather than measuring it directly, reasonable doubt exists.

The court understood this.

A Note on Professionalism

I want to acknowledge something that made this verdict possible: the honesty of the arresting officer.

When asked about the breath test machine’s margin of error, the officer testified truthfully. When asked whether the machine measures blood or estimates it from breath, the officer explained the science accurately. The officer did not shade the truth, did not evade, did not advocate.

I am never surprised, but I remain impressed and grateful for the honesty, integrity, and professionalism shown by law enforcement professionals in Massachusetts. They consistently testify under oath and speak the truth without reservation—even when the truth might be inconsistent with their position or the Commonwealth’s pursuit of a conviction.

That is how the adversarial system is supposed to work. And today, it worked.

Facing OUI Charges in Massachusetts?

If you’ve been charged with OUI—especially a second or subsequent offense—do not assume that a breath test result above .08 means automatic conviction. The science behind these machines is more uncertain than most people realize, and that uncertainty creates reasonable doubt.

Call the Law Office of Michael Patrick Murray, P.C. at (508) 393-4162 for a free consultation.

Attorney Michael P. Murray, defends clients facing OUI charges throughout Worcester County and Massachusetts. Results vary by case. Prior outcomes do not guarantee future results.