DISMISSED: OUI Charges Dropped on the Day of Trial

Being ready to fight makes all the difference

June 9, 2026 | OUI Defense | Attorney Michael P. Murray

In Commonwealth v. Defendant, Docket No. 2557 CR 1037, my client faced charges of Operating Under the Influence of Alcohol (OUI). On the day of trial, those charges were DISMISSED.

No conviction, no criminal record, and no consequences from the arrest.

Why Day-of-Trial Dismissals Happen

When you’re charged with OUI in Massachusetts, you have a choice: accept whatever deal the Commonwealth offers, or prepare to fight.

Many people assume that fighting means going to trial, sitting through testimony, and waiting for a jury verdict. Sometimes it does. But often, the fight is won before the trial ever begins.

When the defense is prepared — when discovery has been reviewed, motions have been filed, witnesses have been identified, and cross-examination is ready — the Commonwealth knows it. Prosecutors assess their cases. They weigh the likelihood of conviction against the time and resources required to proceed. And sometimes, when they see a defense that’s ready for battle, they make the decision not to fight.

That’s what happened here.

The Value of Being Trial-Ready

There’s no substitute for preparation. An OUI arrest can feel overwhelming — the breath test, the field sobriety tests, the police report full of damaging language. It’s easy to assume the case is unwinnable.

But police reports don’t tell the whole story. Breath tests can be challenged. Field sobriety tests are often administered improperly. And the Commonwealth has the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt — a burden they sometimes cannot meet.

The only way to know if your case can be won is to prepare as if it’s going to trial. Review every piece of evidence. Identify every weakness. File every appropriate motion. And be ready to walk into that courtroom and fight.

When you do that, one of two things happens: you win at trial, or the Commonwealth decides not to proceed. Either way, you win.

Facing OUI Charges in Massachusetts?

If you’ve been charged with OUI, don’t assume you have to plead guilty. Don’t assume the evidence against you is as strong as it looks. And don’t assume that the only path forward is to accept whatever the Commonwealth offers.

Call the Law Office of Michael Patrick Murray, P.C. at (508) 393-4162 for a free consultation. We prepare every case for trial — because that’s how cases are won.

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: Domestic Assault and Battery Acquittal After Victim Recants Under Oath

How cross-examination and evidence exposed the flaws in an excited utterance prosecution

June 9, 2026 | Criminal Defense | Attorney Michael P. Murray

On Monday, June 8, 2026, a Massachusetts jury returned a verdict of NOT GUILTY in Commonwealth v. [Defendant], Docket No. 2448 CR 1524. My client had been charged with Domestic Assault and Battery — a charge that carries serious consequences including potential jail time, a permanent criminal record, and the loss of constitutional rights.

The Commonwealth took this case to trial. The jury heard all the evidence. And they found my client not guilty.

Here’s why.

The Commonwealth’s Strategy: Prosecuting Without a Cooperative Victim

Domestic assault cases present a unique challenge for prosecutors: the alleged victim often does not want to cooperate. Whether due to reconciliation, fear of consequences, or recognition that the original allegations were exaggerated or false, many alleged victims ask prosecutors to drop the charges.

Prosecutors rarely do.

Instead, they rely on exceptions to the hearsay rule — particularly the excited utterance exception — to introduce the alleged victim’s statements to police without requiring her to testify consistently at trial. The theory is that statements made in the immediate aftermath of a traumatic event are inherently reliable because the person has no time to fabricate.

In this case, the Commonwealth proceeded on exactly that theory. They planned to convict my client based on what the alleged victim told responding officers at the scene — regardless of what she might say at trial.

Our Defense: Undermining the Foundation of the Excited Utterance

We attacked the Commonwealth’s case on multiple fronts:

1. The Alleged Victim Was Highly Intoxicated

During cross-examination, we elicited testimony from the responding officers that the alleged victim was highly intoxicated at the time she made her statements. This matters because the excited utterance exception assumes the declarant is reacting to a startling event — not that she is impaired by alcohol to the point where her perceptions and statements are unreliable.

An intoxicated person’s excited utterance is not more reliable than her sober testimony. It’s less reliable.

2. The Photos Showed No Injury

The Commonwealth introduced photographs taken at the scene. They intended these photos to support the allegations. Instead, they supported the defense.

The photos showed no visible injury — no bruising, no redness, no marks of any kind consistent with an assault and battery. If my client had committed the assault described in the original allegations, there would have been evidence of it. There wasn’t.

3. The Alleged Victim Recanted — Sober, Under Oath, Against Her Own Interest

At trial, the alleged victim took the stand and recanted all of her statements to the police.

This was not a reluctant witness mumbling “I don’t remember” to avoid helping either side. She affirmatively testified that her original statements were not accurate. She did so:

Sober — unlike when she made the original statements

Under oath — subject to penalties of perjury

Against her own penal interest — admitting she made false statements to police exposes her to potential criminal liability

Subject to cross-examination — the Commonwealth had every opportunity to challenge her credibility

The jury was left with a choice: believe the intoxicated statements made to police at the scene, or believe the sober, sworn testimony given in open court. They chose correctly.

The Takeaway: Excited Utterance Is Not a Magic Wand

Prosecutors often treat the excited utterance exception as an automatic ticket to conviction in domestic cases. It isn’t.

The exception requires that the statement be made while the declarant is under the stress of the exciting event and before she has time to fabricate. But when the declarant is intoxicated, when the physical evidence contradicts her allegations, and when she recants under oath at trial — the foundation of the exception crumbles.

My client walked out of court a free man with no criminal record because we held the Commonwealth to its burden. Accusations are not evidence. Intoxicated statements are not proof. And a recantation under oath — sober, against penal interest, and subject to cross-examination — is powerful evidence of innocence.

Facing Domestic Assault Charges in Massachusetts?

If you’ve been charged with domestic assault and battery, you need an attorney who understands how to attack the Commonwealth’s case at every level — from the reliability of the original statements to the physical evidence to the credibility of witnesses at trial.

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 domestic violence charges throughout Worcester County and Massachusetts. Results vary by case. Prior outcomes do not guarantee future results.

NOT GUILTY: Second Offense OUI Acquitted After Trial — License Reinstated

Another trial, another NOT GUILTY verdict. In Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Defendant, Docket No. 1467 CR 2100, after trial, my client was found NOT GUILTY of Operating a Motor Vehicle While Under the Influence of Alcohol (OUI, also commonly called DUI or DWI), Second Offense.

This was an acquittal after trial — not a dismissal, not a plea bargain, and not a reduction. The Commonwealth put on its case, we answered it, and the verdict was NOT GUILTY.

What Was at Stake

A Second Offense OUI conviction in Massachusetts carries severe, life-altering consequences. My client was facing:

• A FIVE-YEAR loss of license (a 2-year suspension on conviction, on top of the existing 3-year suspension for chemical test refusal);
• A mandatory minimum of two (2) years of probation;
• A two-week inpatient alcohol treatment program at a state hospital — or, in the alternative, 60 days in the House of Correction.

Instead, my client left the courthouse with no conviction, no sentence at all, and a license on the road to reinstatement.

The Defense: Field Sobriety Tests and Pre-Existing Medical Conditions

The case began with a routine traffic stop for a marked lanes violation. My client submitted to a battery of Standardized Field Sobriety Tests (SFSTs) — the roadside balance and coordination exercises police use to build an OUI case.

Here is what many drivers do not know: SFSTs are divided attention physical agility tests. They measure balance, coordination, and the ability to follow instructions while performing unnatural physical maneuvers on the side of a road. They were never designed for people with injuries, orthopedic conditions, or mobility limitations — and even the officers who administer them are trained to recognize that.

On cross-examination, the officer candidly agreed that, according to his own training and experience, pre-existing medical conditions can often affect an individual’s ability to successfully perform these tests.

We then presented certified medical records establishing that my client had:

• Back surgery for arthritis and spinal stenosis;
• Arthritis in his hip; and
• A broken ankle requiring medical treatment — immobilization and a walking boot — just three (3) days before the field sobriety tests were administered.

A man three days removed from treatment for a broken ankle, with a surgically repaired back and an arthritic hip, was asked to stand on one leg and walk heel-to-toe on the roadside at night. The poor performance the Commonwealth relied upon as evidence of impairment was far better explained by documented medical conditions than by alcohol. The verdict: NOT GUILTY.

After the Verdict: Motion to Reinstate License — ALLOWED

The win did not stop at the verdict. My client’s license had been suspended for three years. Following the acquittal, we immediately filed a Motion to Reinstate License based upon the NOT GUILTY verdict — and that motion was ALLOWED.

This is a critical and often-overlooked piece of OUI defense in Massachusetts. Under G.L. c. 90, §24(f)(1)(iii), a defendant found not guilty is entitled to seek restoration of his or her license, and a prompt post-verdict motion can put a client back on the road. Winning the trial is only part of the job; restoring the client’s life is the rest of it.

A Word About the Police Officers in This Case

I am never surprised, but I am still impressed by and grateful for the honesty, integrity, and professionalism consistently shown by the local law enforcement professionals in Massachusetts whom I am often tasked to work against in this adversarial system. They testify under oath and speak the truth without reservation — even when the truth is inconsistent with their position or with the opinion offered in support of a conviction. That candor is what makes our system work, and it is truly admirable.

Charged With OUI Second Offense in Massachusetts?

Field sobriety tests are not infallible, and a poor performance is not proof of impairment — especially for drivers with back problems, joint conditions, injuries, or other medical issues. A Second Offense OUI carries mandatory minimum penalties and a long license loss, but these cases can be won at trial.

If you or a loved one has been charged with OUI/DUI in Worcester County or anywhere in Massachusetts, call the Law Office of Michael Patrick Murray, P.C. at (508) 393-4162 for a free consultation. Every case deserves a real defense.

* Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Every case is different and must be evaluated on its own facts.

Massachusetts OUI Breath Test Suppressed: .12 BAC Result Thrown Out Due to Retainer in Client’s Mouth

A breath test result of .12—above the legal limit of .08—might seem like an open-and-shut case for the prosecution. But in Massachusetts, the admissibility of breath test evidence depends on strict compliance with statutory and regulatory requirements. When those requirements aren’t followed, the evidence can be suppressed—and that’s exactly what happened in a recent case.

The Case: OUI Breath Test Suppressed Due to Retainer

In Commonwealth v. Defendant, Docket No. 2567 CR 1852, my client was charged with Operating Under the Influence (OUI). She submitted to a breath test on the Dräger Alcotest 9510 and registered a .12 BAC—well above the .08 legal limit.

But there was a problem with how the test was administered. My client was wearing a removable retainer, and she told the officer it was in her mouth before the breath test was conducted.

I filed a Motion to Suppress the breath test results, arguing that the presence of the retainer—and the officer’s failure to address it—violated Massachusetts law. The judge agreed. The .12 breath test result was SUPPRESSED and ruled inadmissible at trial.*

Why Foreign Objects in the Mouth Matter in the Breathalyzer

The science behind breath testing requires that the sample comes from deep lung air—what’s called “alveolar air.” When a foreign object is present in the mouth, it can trap alcohol and create what’s known as “mouth alcohol.” This residual alcohol can artificially inflate the breath test reading, producing a result that doesn’t accurately reflect the person’s true blood alcohol content.

That’s why Massachusetts law and regulations impose strict requirements on how breath tests must be administered.

The Legal Framework: G.L. c. 90, § 24K and 501 CMR § 2.55

Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 90, Section 24K governs the admissibility of breath test evidence in OUI cases. For a breath test result to be admissible, the Commonwealth must prove that the test was conducted in compliance with the regulations promulgated by the Office of Alcohol Testing (OAT).

501 Code of Massachusetts Regulations Section 2.55 sets forth the specific requirements for administering breath tests. Among these requirements is a mandatory observation period before the test. The purpose of this observation period is to ensure that the subject has not ingested anything, vomited, or had anything in their mouth that could affect the accuracy of the test.

When a subject has a foreign object in their mouth—such as a retainer, dentures, tongue piercing, or other dental appliance—the officer must have the subject remove it and restart the observation period. Failure to do so compromises the integrity of the test.

Commonwealth v. Pierre: The Controlling Case

The Massachusetts Appeals Court addressed this issue in Commonwealth v. Pierre, 72 Mass. App. Ct. 230, 890 N.E.2d 152 (2008). In Pierre, the court emphasized the importance of strict compliance with breath test protocols and the scientific rationale behind those requirements.

The Pierre decision makes clear that when officers fail to follow the required procedures, the breath test results are not reliable and should not be admitted against the defendant.

What This Means for Your OUI Case

If you’ve been charged with OUI and submitted to a breath test, you might assume that the number on the machine is the end of the story. It’s not.

Breath test results can be challenged on multiple grounds:

• Foreign objects in the mouth (retainers, dentures, piercings, gum, tobacco)
• Failure to conduct a proper observation period
• Improper calibration of the Dräger Alcotest 9510
• Operator certification issues
• Chain of custody problems
• Medical conditions that affect breath test accuracy (GERD, diabetes, certain diets)

The key is having an attorney who understands both the science behind breath testing and the legal requirements for admissibility. Not every OUI lawyer has the technical knowledge to identify these issues and litigate them effectively.

The Dräger Alcotest 9510: Know the Machine

Massachusetts uses the Dräger Alcotest 9510 for evidentiary breath testing. This machine uses infrared spectroscopy and electrochemical fuel cell technology to measure blood alcohol content. While it’s a sophisticated instrument, it’s only as reliable as the procedures used to operate it.

An experienced OUI defense attorney will know:

• How the Dräger Alcotest 9510 works
• What can cause inaccurate readings
• How to obtain and analyze calibration records
• How to challenge operator compliance with OAT protocols
• When and how to file a motion to suppress

Charged with OUI in Massachusetts? Fight Back.

A breath test result is not a conviction. It’s evidence—and evidence can be challenged. If you were wearing a retainer, dentures, or any dental appliance during your breath test, or if you believe the test was administered improperly, you may have grounds to suppress the results.

Contact the Law Office of Michael Patrick Murray today at (508) 393-4162 for a consultation. I defend OUI cases throughout Worcester County, Middlesex County, and across Massachusetts, and I have the technical knowledge and courtroom experience to fight breath test evidence.

*Disclaimer: The outcome of any case depends on its unique facts and circumstances. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. This case summary is provided for informational purposes only and should not be construed as a prediction or guarantee of any particular result.

Massachusetts Assault Charges Dismissed: Two More Wins for the Defense

When you’re facing assault charges in Massachusetts, the stakes couldn’t be higher. A conviction can mean jail time, a permanent criminal record, loss of employment, and lasting damage to your reputation and relationships. That’s why the outcome of your case often depends on one critical factor: the quality of your defense.

I’m pleased to announce two recent case dismissals that demonstrate what’s possible when an experienced criminal defense attorney fights aggressively on your behalf.

Assault with a Dangerous Weapon: Dismissed on the Day of Trial

In Commonwealth v. Defendant, Docket No. 2521 CR 1174, my client faced serious felony charges: Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon and Assault with a Dangerous Weapon. These charges carry the potential for state prison time and a felony record that would follow my client for life.

On the day of trial, both charges were DISMISSED.*

This result didn’t happen by accident. It was the product of thorough investigation, careful preparation, and an unwavering commitment to holding the Commonwealth to its burden of proof. When prosecutors know that defense counsel is ready, willing, and able to try the case, it changes the calculus. Weaknesses in the Commonwealth’s case become harder to ignore. Witnesses who seemed solid on paper look less reliable under scrutiny. And sometimes, the right outcome is for the charges to go away entirely.

Domestic Assault Charges: Dismissed

In a separate matter, Commonwealth v. Defendant, Docket No. 2657 CR 0056, my client was charged with Assault and Battery on a Family or Household Member—commonly known as domestic assault and battery.

Domestic violence charges carry unique consequences beyond the criminal penalties. A conviction can affect custody arrangements, result in a restraining order, and trigger mandatory batterer’s intervention programs. For immigrants, a domestic violence conviction can have devastating immigration consequences, including deportation.

This case was also DISMISSED.*

What These Dismissals Mean

A dismissal is the best possible outcome in a criminal case. It means:

• No conviction on your record
• No jail or prison time
• No probation
• No court-ordered programs
• Eligibility to seal the record

For my clients, these dismissals mean they can move forward with their lives without the burden of a criminal conviction hanging over them.

Understanding Assault Charges in Massachusetts

Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon (G.L. c. 265, § 15A) is a felony punishable by up to 10 years in state prison. The “dangerous weapon” doesn’t have to be a gun or knife—it can be any object used in a way that’s capable of causing serious injury.

Assault with a Dangerous Weapon (G.L. c. 265, § 15B) is also a felony, punishable by up to 5 years in state prison. This charge applies when someone attempts to commit a battery or puts another person in fear of imminent harm using a dangerous weapon.

Assault and Battery on a Family or Household Member (G.L. c. 265, § 13M) is a domestic violence offense that applies to assaults against spouses, former spouses, household members, or people in dating relationships. Even a first offense can result in up to 2.5 years in jail.

Why Experience Matters

Assault cases often come down to credibility—the alleged victim’s word against the defendant’s. But credibility isn’t just about who seems more believable. It’s about whether the Commonwealth can prove every element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.

An experienced criminal defense attorney knows how to:

• Identify inconsistencies in witness statements
• Challenge the sufficiency of the evidence
• Investigate alternative explanations
• File appropriate pretrial motions
• Negotiate from a position of strength
• Take the case to trial when necessary

The dismissals in these two cases reflect that approach. When prosecutors see that the defense is prepared to fight, they’re forced to take a hard look at whether their case can survive the crucible of trial.

Facing Assault Charges in Massachusetts?

If you or someone you love is facing assault charges—whether simple assault, assault with a dangerous weapon, or domestic violence—you need an attorney who will fight for you. Don’t assume the worst. Cases can be won. Charges can be dismissed.

Contact the Law Office of Michael Patrick Murray today at (508) 393-4162 for a consultation. I defend clients throughout Worcester County, Middlesex County, and across Massachusetts.

*Disclaimer: The outcome of any case depends on its unique facts and circumstances. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. These case summaries are provided for informational purposes only and should not be construed as a prediction or guarantee of any particular result.

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

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

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 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 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.