In handling DUI license suspension appeals and hardship license cases, I have seen firsthand the results of hiring the wrong Sudbury MA DUI lawyer. All too often, unwary clients make the mistake of hiring an attorney who does not specialize in drunk driving defense. The following are just a few examples of mistakes made by lawyers in Massachusetts DUI cases. These mistakes show how important it is to get the right representation.

• Prosecution failed to submit sufficient proof of alcohol impairment and, at trial, the DUI defense lawyer did not take steps to properly present and preserve the issue for examination on appeal.

• DUI client was charged with operating under the influence of drugs and the substance which the prosecution identified as drug was not defined as such by Massachusetts law. During the trial, the lawyer failed present the common sense argument that in order to be convicted of DUI drugs, the law plainly requires that the substance which the driver has taken qualifies as a drug, as defined by the Massachusetts Drug Law, G.L. c. 94C § 1.

• Where the client was charged with DUI as a result of a car accident, the lawyer did not offer evidence regarding the numerous and documented mechanical problems and defects with the car’s braking system which could have caused the accident.

• Lawyer did not challenge a legally improper stop of his client’s vehicle by police.

• Lawyer fails to object to DUI prosecutor’s improper and unfairly predjucial closing argument to the jury.

• Lawyer did not object to and move to strike a police officer’s testimony regarding having found a “marijuana rolling machine” during an inventory search of the DUI defendant’s car after his drunk driving arrest.

• Lawyer failed to object to the use of certain records to prove that his client committed prior DUI offenses and he should, therefore, be subjected to enhanced penalties as a repeat offender.

• Attorney did not object to hearsay statements in a DUI police report and allegedly allowed the judge to consider irrelevant factors when sentencing the DUI defendant.

• Attorney did not object when the arresting police officer testified in a jury trial that, in his opinion, the defendant was “operating under the influence of intoxicating liquor.” Incidentally, the Superior Court held that this omission fell measurably below the standard expected of an ordinary fallible lawyer. The admission of statements by percipient witnesses that touch upon the ultimate guilt of a defendant intrude on the jury's fact-finding function as to proof of elements of a crime. The statement was unfairly prejudicial, and the attorney should have objected. He failed to do so and his client’s license is revoked for life.

• Lawyer failed to object to police officer’s testimony regarding 2 sealed cans of beer found in his DUI client’s car.

• Lawyer failed to point out, in a Massachusetts drunk driving trial, prior inconsistent statements which a witness made.

• A police officer’s answer to a lawyer’s question regarding an OUI defendant’s sobriety exceeded the scope of the question and the lawyer failed to object to the officer’s testimony that he “formed the opinion that the defendant was operating under the influence of alcohol.”

• Defense counsel neglected to file a motion to suppress his client’s incriminating answers to impermissible questions asked by police. In a DUI jury trial, the attorney did not object to a police officer’s testimony that the police had prior dealings with the defendant and his information, including his date of birth and mother’s name, was already in the police department’s booking system.

• Lawyer failed to object and attempt to disqualify a police officer as a witness in a Massachusetts drunk driving case where the arresting officer testified he had no independent memory of the night of the DUI arrest.

• In a DUI trial involving the charge of operating under the influence causing serious bodily injury, the defense lawyer failed to object to the introduction of an unredacted medical record which contained the following entry “pt driver in MVA hit by drunk driver.”

• In a Mass. OUI case, the defense lawyer failed to introduce his client’s medical records to support the client’s claim that diabetes was the cause of what the police perceived as signs and symptoms of alcohol intoxication.In a DUI trial, lawyer failed to provide the jury with information regarding weather and road conditions, which may have accounted for an accident.

• Where the issue of whether or not the defendant drove on a public way was raised, defense counsel failed to offer photographs of the area in a timely fashion.

These are only a few examples of mistakes made by lawyers in DUI trials. These mistakes show how important it is to hire the right Sudbury Mass DUI lawyer and to avoid hiring a lawyer who lacks the required skills to defend you.