Home5 Star Client Reviews Avvo Rated Attoreney Jay Milligan

To view this, you need to install the Flash Player 6. Please go to here and download it.






BOARD CERTIFIED DUI DEFENSE ATTORNEY
306 WASHINGTON STREET, 2ND FLOOR
NORWELL, MA 02061
PHONE: (617) 851-7155
FAX: (781) 878-6550

Attorney Representation in Massachusetts since 1998

Case Results

Commonwealth v. B.H. – Hingham DC (Rockland Police)
Charge(s) - OUI and Negligent operation of a motor vehicle
Result: OUI – Not Guilty

Client was involved in a motor vehicle accident where he rear ended another vehicle while eating. Police arrived and began investigation. The officer observed the client to have and odor of alcohol, red glassy eyes and his speech to be slurred. The officer observed the client to have trouble with his balance at times. The officer administered a series of field sobriety tests. The officer administered an alphabet test, walk and turn and a one leg stand test. The officer testified that the client did not complete any of the exercises satisfactorily.

At trial, the officer was cross examined about various aspects of his report and some inconsistencies in the report regarding how well he performed on aspects of the field sobriety tests. Additionally, despite the severe nature of the accident no EMT’s even examined the client before conducting the field Sobriety tests. Based upon the cross-examination the jury found doubt and acquitted the client.

Commonwealth v. J.B. - Quincy DC (Quincy Police)
Charge(s) - OUI and Leaving the scene after Causing Property Damage
Result: OUI-Not Guilty

Client was alleged to have struck a telephone pole near home. Police followed a trial of liquid from the vehicle to the house. There they encountered the client who was asked about the accident. The officer observed an odor of alcohol, red glassy eyes and the client’s speech to be slurred. There were no filed sobriety tests admitted at the trial.

After cross-examination, many of the positive aspects of the case were brought out that were not addressed in the police report. As a result, the defendant was acquitted of the OUI charge and elected to admit that he committed the offense of hitting the telephone pole.

Commonwealth v. S.B. - Cambridge DC (Cambridge Police)
Charge(s) - OUI
Result: OUI - Dismissed; Cop did not show up

Client was stopped after running a stop sign. The officer detected an odor of alcohol on the client’s breath along with bloodshot eyes and slurred speech. Client originally stated he had not consumed any alcoholic beverages, but later admitted to having consumed 2 beers upon further prompting. The officer administered a series of field sobriety tests including: one leg stand exercise, horizontal gaze nystagmus, and the 9 step walk and turn. The officer determined the client to be impaired and placed him under arrest. Client then admitted to having consumed 7-8 drinks that night.  This client submitted to a breath test with a result of .18.

This client came to my office and wanted me to explore every option for him before he took a plea.  After a few court hearings, motions and trial dates, the officer failed to appear on the case and it was dismissed.  This is a prime example of a case where good things can happen with time. 

Commonwealth v. J.S. - Haverhill DC (Newbury State Police)
Charge(s) - OUI, Marked Lanes Violation
Result: OUI - Not Guilty

Officer responded to a motor vehicle off of the roadway and found Client walking unsteadily out of the tree line and into the breakdown lane upon arrival. Client stated he was cut off by another vehicle and was driven off the road. The officer detected a moderate odor of alcohol on the client’s breath and observed red/glossy eyes and thick-tongued speech. There were no tire tracks observed to be going into the woods, however there were tire tracks going parallel to the roadway and the tree line for approximately 200 yards. Client’s vehicle was located further up the roadway. The officer administered the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN) test and administered a breath test to which the client produced a .22 reading. Client was placed under arrest.

At trial, the breath test was excluded the machine did not register a one of the sample due to an error.  Also, the HGN test was excluded because the trooper was determined not to be qualified. The manner in which the trooper testified on cross-examination led the jury to question his observations.  Moreover, the trooper could not testify as to when the accident occurred in order to prove that at the time the client was impaired by alcohol.  The jury found this client Not Guilty.

Commonwealth v. R.C. - Brockton DC (Whitman Police)
Charge(s) - OUI, Speeding in Viol Special Regulation
Result: OUI - Not Guilty

Client was stopped for speeding. Officer detected a strong odor of alcohol on Client’s breath and observed that his eyes were blood shot and glassy and his speech was slurred. Client admitted to having consumed several alcoholic beverages The officer administered a series of field sobriety tests. Client had difficulty completing all assessments and was placed under arrest. Client refused breath test during booking.

This client after interviewing him just after the date of arrest informed me that he had 2 witnesses who were with him all day.  They played golf during the day and consumed no alcohol.  In fact, one of witnesses did not drink alcohol.  They left golf and went to one of their houses for a small barbecue where the client consumed 2 beers.  The witnesses were very credible and provided a solid timeline of the day and their whereabouts.  The client did not do perfectly on the field tests but he did some aspect of them very well.  The jury found the client Not Guilty based upon all the evidence presented. My guess is that they found the witnesses very credible. 

Commonwealth v. R.B. - Concord DC (Concord Police)
Charge(s) - OUI, Marked Lanes Violation, Speeding in Viol Special Regulation
Result: OUI - Not Guilty

Client was stopped for speeding and crossing over the solid white line multiple times. The client was unable to produce a registration when asked, and appeared to have trouble with dexterity. The officer detected an odor of alcohol from inside the car, and he admitted to having consumed two drinks with dinner about an hour prior. Client was asked to perform a series of field sobriety tests including the alphabet and heel to toe walk test. Client refused both but was observed to be swaying back and forth. A second officer arrived on scene to conduct a PBT Test. Client consented to test with a .095 reading. Client was placed under arrest.

This was a case where preparation and familiarity with the area at trial paid off.  After cross-examination of the officer with photos of the scene, the driving behavior the officer observed was not as erratic as initially indicated.   Moreover, after cross-examination it was revealed that the client performed many activities in a normal way calling into question the officers other observations.  The jury agreed that there was reasonable doubt and found the client Not Guilty.

Commonwealth v. J.L. - Taunton DC (Rockland Police)
Charge(s) - OUI
Result: OUI - Not Guilty

Client was stopped at a sobriety checkpoint and stated he was coming from a holiday party. The officer detected a moderate odor of alcohol coming from inside the vehicle and observed the Client’s eyes to be glassy and blood shot. A series of field sobriety tests were administered including: the horizontal gaze nystagmus test, one leg stand exercise, 9 step walk and turn, and the alphabet test. Client passed all tests. The officer performed a Preliminary Breath Test to which the Client produced a .082 reading. Client was placed under arrest.

Sobriety checkpoint cases are generally the stronger cases to defend because there is typically no form of erratic driving behavior and in order to bolster statistics a lot of questionable arrests are made.  In this case, the client performed very well on the field sobriety tests but because he blew a .08 on the portable breath test unfortunately he was arrested.  Portable breath tests are not admissible, so the Government was left with a case with no erratic driving and a an individual that performed very well on the field sobriety tests which resulted in a Not Guilty.

Commonwealth v. S.M. - Hingham DC (Rockland Police)
Charge(s) - OUI, Marked Lanes Violation, Signal Fail to Use, Open Container Violation, Operating to Endanger, Red Light Violation, License not in Possession
Result: OUI - Dismissed

Client was stopped after running a red light and failing to use the turn signal while making a right turn. When asked for his license the Client stated that he did not have it with him. The officer observed an open beer can on the floor behind the driver’s seat and detected a strong odor of alcohol on the Client’s breath, as well as glassy/blood shot eyes. The client admitted to having consumed two beers when asked. The officer administered a series of field sobriety tests including: the alphabet test, 9 step walk and turn, one leg stand exercise, and the index finger to nose test. The Client had difficulty completing the tests and was given a portable PBT, which produced a .234 reading. The client was placed under arrest and refused to submit the breath test during booking.

This case was Dismissed for failure of the officer to appear in Court for the Trial date.

Commonwealth v. G.G. - Dedham DC (State Police)
Charge(s) - OUI and Negligent Operation of Motor Vehicle
Result: OUI - Not Guilty

Client’s vehicle was spotted traveling at over 90 mph in a posted 65 mph zone, and making rapid and unsafe lane changes. Officer attempted to pull the Client’s vehicle over, but was forced to drive along side the vehicle and motion for the client to pull over. The client pulled into the breakdown lane at an angle. The officer detected a strong odor of alcohol on the Client’s breath, as well as red/glassy eyes. The Client had difficulty producing his license and registration, and handed the officer incorrect forms of documentation. Client was unsteady upon exiting his vehicle and had to hold on to his vehicle to avoid falling. The officer administered a series of field sobriety tests, bur before taking them indicated that he really did not want to take them given his medical issues.  The trooper indicated that he would be placed under arrest if he refused. The client failed all assessments and was placed under arrest.

This client suffered from a variety of medical ailments, including Diabetes which resulted in neuropathy in his legs resulting in the client being unbalanced.  The client was also released from the hospital for pneumonia a week prior to his arrest.  The field sobriety tests were excluded at trial because the client did initially refuse to take them thus the court determined that the field sobriety tests were not voluntary.  Given the medical records and the absence of field sobriety tests the client was found Not Guilty, he did however receive a Continuance without a finding (CWOF) on the negligent operation of a motor vehicle charge which did not result in any license loss.

Commonwealth v. M.T. - Taunton DC (Seekonk PD)
Charge(s) - OUI, Negligent Operation of Motor Vehicle, and Marked Lanes Violation
Result: OUI - Not Guilty

Client was stopped by police as a result of having crossed over the white fog line multiple times and then proceeding to make a left turn at a posted no turn sign. The officer detected a strong odor of alcohol, glossy/blood shot eyes, and slow/delayed movements. The client admitted to having consumed two drinks a few hours prior. The officer administered a series of field sobriety tests including: the alphabet test, 9 step walk and turn, one leg stand exercise, and the horizontal gaze. The client failed all assessments and was placed under arrest. She consented to the breath test with .17 and .16 readings.

At trial, the breath test was excluded due to failure to comply with procedures associated with the administration of the breath test.  The case was tried before a jury and based upon the cross examination of the officer regarding her performance on the field sobriety tests, the jury had a reasonable doubt as to her Guilt and she was found Not Guilty.

Commonwealth v. J.M.  – Boston Municipal Court (2012) – State Police
Charge:   Operating Under the Influence
Result:  Dismissed

Client was observed by a civilian to have struck a jersey barrier.  Civilian took the keys from client and called the police.  The police responded and observed client outside of the vehicle.  Trooper arrested client with no field tests because of her level of intoxication.
At trial, the civilian did not appear, therefore, the government could not prove the client was operating the vehicle so the case was dismissed. 

Commonwealth v. I.A.  – Framingham District Court (2012) – Sherborn
Charge:   Operating Under the Influence
Result:  Not Guilty

Client’s vehicle was observed to be disabled on the side of the rod.  The officer stopped his cruiser behind the client and the client approached and told the officer that AAA was in route because he had a flat tire.  Officer says he smelled an odor of an alcoholic beverage and asked the client about drinking.  Client responded that he/she had 3 glasses of wine and was coming from a local restaurant.  Client was asked to perform field tests and according to the officer was not able to perform them to his satisfaction.  During the tests the officer noted that it appeared as though the client went the bathroom in his pants. 
At trial, multiple officers testified and their memory of the stop was different in many respects.  Furthermore, the Client had a medical issue that caused client to lose control of his bowels, which was significant because the officers just assumed the client was drink and never asked the client about any medical issues to explain this observation.  Finally, client testified about his location, food consumption and amount of alcohol, which was a reasonable amount.  The Jury agreed that client was not impaired by alcohol and acquitted the client.


Commonwealth v. R.V.  – Eastern Hampshire District Court (2012) – Amherst Police
Charge:   Operating Under the Influence
Result:  Dismissal on OUI

Client was observed speeding and crossing over marked lanes.  Client was stopped and observed an odor of alcohol, red/glassy and bloodshot eyes and a slight slur to his speech.  The officer asked client to exit the vehicle and perform 4 field tests: 1) The horizontal gaze nystagmus test (Not admissible in court); 2) The 9 step walk and turn (performed well on this test); 3) One Leg stand (completed to 30 seconds but used arms for balance and miscounted on 2 occasions); and 4) Alphabet test from A-Z (Passed).  Client was arrested and submitted to the breath test with a reading of .07.   There was also a booking video of the client and did not appear to be under the influence of alcohol
At trial, the government agreed to dismiss the OUI case because of the performance on the field tests, the .07 breath test being under the legal limit and more importantly the client looked fine on the booking video. 

Commonwealth v. B.C.  – Barnstable District Court (2012) – Yarmouth Police
Charge:   Operating Under the Influence
Result:  Not Guilty on OUI

Police were dispatched to a disabled motor vehicle.  Upon arrival they observed client’s vehicle with damage to it consistent with striking a nearby telephone pole.  Police searched the area and found client outside of a nearby restaurant/bar.  Client was identified and admitted that his vehicle was on the side of the road.  Client was administered field tests and did not perform well on the tests.
At trial, the issue was whether the government could show that client was under the influence of alcohol at the time of operation.  The government did not know what time client had operated the vehicle or whether client had consumed alcohol after operation.  Therefore, the government could not prove the elements of operating under the influence and the client was acquitted on that offense. 

Commonwealth v. L.M.  – Dedham District Court (2012) – Dover Police
Charge:   Operating Under the Influence/A & B on a Police Officer (2 Counts)/ Disorderly Conduct
Result:  Not Guilty on all Counts

Client was observed speeding and crossing over marked lanes on a rural road in Dover.  Client was stopped and observed an odor of alcohol, red/glassy and bloodshot eyes and slurred speech.  The officer indicated in his report that client was belligerent and uncooperative.  The officer also attributed several statement to the client that were never made as well as field tests that were never done with the client.  The officer asked client to exit the vehicle and perform 2 more field tests: 1) The 9 step walk and turn and 2) One Leg stand.  Client was told to put hands behind the back as the officer grabbed the wrist and twisted it causing client to pull away. Three police officers then forced client face first into the pavement.  Client was also assaulted by one of the officer at the police station
At trial, numerous officers testified and the disparity in their testimony was shocking.  The jury acquitted client on all counts because of the credibility issues with the police officers.  The client testified and provided her version of the events, which was more credible than the police officers.

Commonwealth v. C.N.  – Quincy District Court (2012) – Weymouth Police
Charge:   Operating Under the Influence
Result:  Not Guilty on OUI

Police were dispatched to a motor vehicle accident where they observed the client outside of her car.  The officer approached and observed an odor of alcohol, red/glassy and bloodshot eyes, unsteady and a slight slur to his speech.  The officer asked client to perform field tests: 1) Count backward from 47-31(counted 47 -30 without flaw); 2) The 9 step walk and turn (performed reasonable well); 3) One Leg stand (got to 7-8 and almost fell over); and 4) Alphabet test from A-Z (Passed).  Client was upset and crying during most of the encounter.  Client arrested and submitted to the breath test with a reading of .18.
At trial, the breath test was excluded due to issues with the documents required for the introduction into evidence. Because of the client’s decent performance on the field tests there was an acquittal of the OUI charge.

Commonwealth v. E.H.  – Dedham District Court (2012) – State Police
Charge:   Operating Under the Influence
Result:  Not Guilty on OUI

Client drove into a Sobriety Checkpoint.  Client was observed to have an odor of alcohol and was sent into the parking lot for further screening.  The trooper asked client to exit the vehicle and perform 2 field tests: 1) One Leg stand (completed to 30 seconds but used arms for balance) and 2) Alphabet test from D-T (Client said D-N then jumbled letters).  Client was arrested and submitted to the breath test with a reading of .09.  
At trial, the breath test was called into question because of the failure to provide certain records required for its introduction.  Client testified about the evening and consumption of alcohol and performance on the tests.  Because of the client’s credible testimony and decent performance on the field tests there was an acquittal of the OUI charge.

Commonwealth v. D.N  – Dedham District Court (2012) – State Police
Charge:   Operating Under the Influence
Result:  Not Guilty on OUI

Client drove into a Sobriety Checkpoint.  Client was observed to have an odor of alcohol and was sent into the parking lot for further screening.  The trooper asked client to exit the vehicle and perform 2 field tests: 1) One Leg stand (completed to 30 seconds at a count of 24 but used arms for balance) and 2) 9 Step Walk and Turn  (client went 16 steps out and then came back 17 steps) Client was arrested and refused to submit to breath test.
At trial, client testified as to the day and evening leading up to the arrest.  Client also testified that the trooper did not instruct the tests in the way that was explained to the jury.  Client explained the performance on the test and how they were conducted which differed from the trooper’s version of events.  Jury deliberated for a short period of time and acquitted the client.

Commonwealth v S.K.  - Quincy District Court (2011) – Braintree Police
Charge:   Operating Under the Influence
Result:  Dismissed on OUI and Dismissed on .08 per se violation

Client was observed to be driving erratically by police officer at one point hitting a curb on the side of the road.  Client was stopped and officer observed an odor of alcohol, red glassy and bloodshot eyes and slurred speech.  Officer asked client to exit motor vehicle and she complied but was unsteady on her feet.  Client refused to take field sobriety test but agreed to take the breath test with a reading of a .21.
At trial, the officer failed to appear on at least two occasions without good cause and the case was dismissed.  This case is an example of the fact that you never know what can happen on a difficult case.

Commonwealth v. C.W.  – Wareham District Court (2011) – Middleboro Police
Charge:   Operating Under the Influence
Result:  Not Guilty on OUI

Client was involved in a motor vehicle accident.  A civilian had observed the client driving erratically before the accident and called police.  After calling the police the civilian observed the client hit a telephone pole.  The police arrived and almost immediately placed client into custody after observing an odor of alcohol and slurred speech.  The officer did note that client was injured from the accident and requested EMS to the scene to examine client.  EMS determined that client needed to be transported to the hospital.  At the hospital a blood test was taken and it showed a blood alcohol level well above the legal limit.
At trial, the civilian caller failed to appear at trial thus all of his observations were excluded at trial.  Additionally, the blood test was excluded prior to trial based upon procedural errors.  Thus, the only evidence of impairment from alcohol were the limited observations from the officers who testified candidly and could not render an opinion that client was impaired by alcohol.

Commonwealth v. T.C.  – Brockton District Court (2012) – East Bridgewater
Charge:   Operating Under the Influence
Result:  Not Guilty on OUI

Client was observed speeding and almost struck a curb when the officer reversed direction and initiated a stop of the vehicle.  Officer observed an odor of alcohol, slurred speech and red glassy eyes.  Officer requested the client to exit his vehicle to perform field tests and client indicated that he would rather not take the tests.  At this point client was placed under arrest.  The officer asked the client again if he would like to take the tests even though he was already under arrest.  Client agreed reluctantly and failed the field tests.  The tests were recorded on a video camera.  At a Motion hearing the results of the field tests were excluded because they were deemed to be involuntary. 
At trial, the government did not have much to prove client was impaired from alcohol because the field tests and video were excluded from evidence. 

Commonwealth v. J.P. – Roxbury District Court (2011) – State Police
Charge: Operating under the Influence of Alcohol (2nd Offense)
Result: Not Guilty

Client was observed by a Massachusetts State trooper operating his motor vehicle without its headlights on. As a result the trooper stopped the client and made inquiry. During initial contact the trooper observed the client to have an odor of alcohol, slurred speech and red/glassy eyes. As a result, the trooper requested the client to exit his motor vehicle and perform field sobriety tests. The trooper administered 3 field sobriety tests and concluded that the client was under the influence of alcohol. The client elected to take a breath test a blew a .12 (.08 being legal limit)

At trial, through cross examination and presentation of defense witnesses it was revealed that this trooper makes a lot of OUI arrests and competes every year for an award for making the most OUI arrests for the State Police. It was also revealed that the trooper’s assessment of the performance on the field tests was not accurate. Specifically, the client testified that he performed a field sobriety test that the trooper did not mention in his testimony or report. Also, the client had a cleff lip which makes him speak with a slur that was not noted by the trooper. Moreover, it was revealed that the trooper did not follow necessary procedures in administering the breath test to the client.

Finally, the defense called an expert to testify about the scientific underpinnings and flaws in breath testing. The government did not offer any evidence to explain to the jury how the breath testing machine works or the inherent issues with breath testing. Therefore, the only evidence the jury heard was from the defense expert calling into serious questions the machine and its capabilities to calculate a blood alcohol level. Not to mention the fact that the client was arrested approximately 1:20 minutes before the breath test and there was no way of knowing what the client’s blood alcohol level was at the time he operated his motor vehicle as required by the law.

OUI & DRUNK DRIVING CASES CONTINUED...

* Case results depend on a variety of facts unique to each case and do not guarantee a result.