Smith v United States

Facts:

Defendant appealed his conviction by the Massachusetts court for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor (OUI) in violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 90, § 24(1)(a)(1) and leaving the scene after an accident in violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 90, § 24(2)(a). He claimed, inter alia, that certain testimony involving deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) testing violated his confrontation rights.

 If you are facing a Federal case in Massachusetts, contact a SRIS Law Group lawyer for help.  You can reach us at 888-437-7747

Federal OUI Lawyer Massachusetts

Holdings:

The Massachusetts Court made the following holding:

• If a defendant did not object to the admission of evidence at trial, the appellate court reviews the matter under the standard of a substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice. In examining whether an unpreserved error created a substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice, the appellate court considers the totality of evidence admitted at trial.
• When reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress, the appellate court accepts the judge’s findings of fact and will not disturb them absent clear error. The appellate court makes an independent determination of the correctness of the judge’s application of constitutional principles to the facts as found.

The SRIS Law Group Massachusetts lawyers will do their best to help you with your criminal case. Contact a Massachusetts lawyer from our firm to discuss your criminal case

Our Massachusetts lawyers have a thorough understanding of the Federal Rules of Evidence, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and the Federal Criminal Laws.

Our client meeting location in Cambridge, MA. Our firm has over 5 experienced federal criminal defense attorneys to defend you if you are charged with a federal crime. Contact us to help you through every phase of representation, starting from a Rule 5 hearing, to a detention hearing, to an arraignment, to a plea negotiation and all the way up to a jury trial if necessary.

Article written by A Sris

Click to Chat

Disclaimer:

These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.

The post Federal OUI Lawyer Massachusetts Motor Vehicle Gen. 90, 24 appeared first on Massachusetts Federal Criminal Lawyers.

United States v. Victor

Facts:

Defendant was charged in two violation notices with operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol and refusal to take a breath test in violation of 36 C.F.R. § 4.23(a)(1) and (c)(2). After a nonjury trial, the court found defendant guilty of both charges. Defendant filed a motion for a required finding of not guilty on the charge of refusing the breath test.

Federal Lawyer Massachusetts OUI Breath

Issue:

• Whether the defendant’s motion of finding not guilty should be granted?

Discussion:

Defendant’s motion was based on the fact that the park ranger had given defendant incorrect legal advice as to the consequences which would flow if he took the breath test and scored a particular result. The park ranger confused criminal penalties with the administrative penalties of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 90, § 24(1)(f)(2). In the circumstances of the case, the court ruled that the park ranger’s error was not a defense to the charge. The crucial point was that under the regulations, refusal to submit to a breath test was itself a criminal act. In such circumstances, the only advice required was the fact that the act of refusal was a crime and the maximum punishment which could be imposed upon conviction of that crime. There was no question that such advice was given. Beyond that, the fact that the park ranger gave misleading advice as to what had to be proven in order for a person under twenty-one to be charged with operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol was simply not a defense. The court denied defendant’s motion for a required finding of not guilty.

The SRIS Law Group Massachusetts lawyers will do their best to help you with your criminal case. Contact a Massachusetts lawyer from our firm to discuss your criminal case

Our Massachusetts lawyers have a thorough understanding of the Federal Rules of Evidence, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and the Federal Criminal Laws.

Our client meeting location in Cambridge, MA. Our firm has over 5 experienced federal criminal defense attorneys to defend you if you are charged with a federal crime. Contact us to help you through every phase of representation, starting from a Rule 5 hearing, to a detention hearing, to an arraignment, to a plea negotiation and all the way up to a jury trial if necessary.

Article written by A Sris

Click to Chat

Disclaimer:

These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.

The post Federal Lawyer Massachusetts OUI Breath Test Violation 36 C.F.R. 4.23 appeared first on Massachusetts Federal Criminal Lawyers.

Johnson v. United States

Facts:

Plaintiff arrestee filed an action against defendant officer asserting claims for assault and battery in connection with an arrest for driving under the influence of alcohol.

Federal Lawyer Massachusetts DUI

Issue:

• Whether the officer used excessive force in arresting defendant?

Discussion:

The officer stopped the arrestee’s vehicle and charged him with driving while under the influence of liquor and other motor vehicle offenses. The arrestee claimed that the officer used excessive force in arresting him. The officer claimed that the arrestee resisted arrest and attempted to escape and that the force used was reasonably necessary to restrain him. The court charged the jury that (1) the arrestee had the burden of proving that he was injured, (2) the officer had the burden of proving that he was privileged to use force because the arrestee resisted and attempted to escape, and (3) the arrestee had the burden of proving that, notwithstanding any privilege the officer may have had, the force used was excessive. The trial judge submitted the case to the jury.

The SRIS Law Group Massachusetts lawyers will do their best to help you with your criminal case. Contact a Massachusetts lawyer from our firm to discuss your criminal case

Our Massachusetts lawyers have a thorough understanding of the Federal Rules of Evidence, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and the Federal Criminal Laws.

Our client meeting location in Cambridge, MA. Our firm has over 5 experienced federal criminal defense attorneys to defend you if you are charged with a federal crime. Contact us to help you through every phase of representation, starting from a Rule 5 hearing, to a detention hearing, to an arraignment, to a plea negotiation and all the way up to a jury trial if necessary.

Article written by A Sris

Click to Chat

Disclaimer:

These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.

The post Federal Lawyer Massachusetts DUI Excessive Force Arrest appeared first on Massachusetts Federal Criminal Lawyers.

Graham v. Commonwealth

Facts:

Plaintiff motorist filed a civil rights action against defendant police officers, claiming that they violated his rights under the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 12, § 11J, and committed battery, false arrest, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, infliction of emotional distress, and libel. The officers filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.

Federal Lawyer Massachusetts OUI Disorder Conduct

Issue:

• Whether the defendant’s rights under the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act were violated?

Discussion:

A police officer stopped a vehicle the motorist was driving after he saw the vehicle roll through a stop sign and noticed that a registration sticker on the vehicle had expired. After the officer told the motorist that his vehicle would have to be towed, the motorist began arguing with the officer, he disobeyed the officer’s instruction to remain in his vehicle, and he followed the officer to his police cruiser, where he stood in a lane of traffic and continued the argument. The officer called for backup and when other officers arrived, they arrested the motorist and charged him with disorderly conduct and driving under the influence of alcohol. The motorist took two breathalyzer tests at the police station which showed that he was not under the influence of alcohol, and he was subsequently acquitted of disorderly conduct. The district court held that the officers had probable cause to arrest the motorist for disorderly conduct and the evidence he presented in the complaint he filed against the officers failed to show that they violated his rights under the U.S. Constitution, the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act, or the common law. The court dismissed the motorist’s complaint.

The SRIS Law Group Massachusetts lawyers will do their best to help you with your criminal case. Contact a Massachusetts lawyer from our firm to discuss your criminal case

Our Massachusetts lawyers have a thorough understanding of the Federal Rules of Evidence, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and the Federal Criminal Laws.

Our client meeting location in Cambridge, MA. Our firm has over 5 experienced federal criminal defense attorneys to defend you if you are charged with a federal crime. Contact us to help you through every phase of representation, starting from a Rule 5 hearing, to a detention hearing, to an arraignment, to a plea negotiation and all the way up to a jury trial if necessary.

Article written by A Sris

Click to Chat

Disclaimer:

These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.

The post Federal Lawyer Massachusetts OUI Disorder Conduct False Arrest Malicious Prosecution appeared first on Massachusetts Federal Criminal Lawyers.

United States v. Peter John

Facts:

Defendant pled guilty to money laundering. Defendant raised issues with his presentence report, to wit: he challenged the criminal history points assigned for his prior convictions for operating a snowmobile under the influence (OUI) and for his conviction for violating a condition of his release, and he challenged the reduction given for his role in the offense, arguing that he was a minimal participant. The court addressed the issues.

Federal Lawyer Massachusetts OUI

Issue:

• Whether the snowmobile OUI was properly characterized as motor vehicle OUI?

Discussion:

Defendant argued that a snowmobile OUI conviction should be characterized as a fish and game violation, which was not counted under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (USSG) § 4A1.2. The court, however, found that the offense compared more closely to driving under the influence. The snowmobile OUI and motor vehicle OUI were virtually identical. The dangers posed by both offenses were similar, as were the penalties. Thus, the prior convictions for snowmobile OUI would count in calculating defendant’s criminal history. Defendant sought to compare his condition of release violation to contempt of court, which was exempt under § 4A1.2(c)(1). However, a comparison between the elements of the crimes revealed that while having some similarities, the crimes were distinct, particularly since a violation of a release order was a strict liability crime. The penalties also differed. The exemption was not warranted. Defendant’s participation in the offense was not minimal, but essential, for purposes of a reduction under USSG § 3B1.2. Finally, defendant raised the issue but proffered no evidence to show that one of his prior convictions was constitutionally infirm. The court found that: defendant’s two convictions for operating a snowmobile under the influence and his conviction for violating a condition of release would count in his criminal history calculation; defendant was not a minor participant; defendant failed to show that one of his prior convictions was constitutionally infirm.

The SRIS Law Group Massachusetts lawyers will do their best to help you with your criminal case. Contact a Massachusetts lawyer from our firm to discuss your criminal case

Our Massachusetts lawyers have a thorough understanding of the Federal Rules of Evidence, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and the Federal Criminal Laws.

Our client meeting location in Cambridge, MA. Our firm has over 5 experienced federal criminal defense attorneys to defend you if you are charged with a federal crime. Contact us to help you through every phase of representation, starting from a Rule 5 hearing, to a detention hearing, to an arraignment, to a plea negotiation and all the way up to a jury trial if necessary.

Article written by A Sris

Click to Chat

Disclaimer:

These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.

The post Federal Lawyer Massachusetts OUI Money Laundering Conviction appeared first on Massachusetts Federal Criminal Lawyers.

United States v. Stephen

Facts:

Defendant appealed a magistrate’s judgment, which convicted him of the misdemeanor charge of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence under 36 C.F.R. § 4.23(a)(1).

Federal Lawyer Massachusetts OUI

Issue:

• Whether the trial court erred in convicting the defendant for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence?

Discussion:

The police found defendant slumped over the wheel of a stationary truck. Defendant smelled of alcohol, failed sobriety tests, and had a blood-alcohol level of .31 percent. Defendant appealed his conviction for knowingly and willfully being in actual physical control of a motor vehicle in a national park area while he had a blood alcohol level in excess of 0.08 percent and was under the influence of alcohol to a degree that rendered him incapable of safe operation. The court affirmed the conviction, which was not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. The court held that the magistrate’s finding that defendant was in actual physical control of the vehicle under § 4.23(a)(1) was supported by the totality of the evidence that defendant appeared to be asleep, was behind the wheel of his own vehicle, the keys were in the ignition, the hood was warm, and no one else was around. The court concluded that § 4.23(a)(1) was not unconstitutional because the phrase “actual physical control” put defendant was on fair notice that his actions could constitute criminal conduct. The court affirmed.

The SRIS Law Group Massachusetts lawyers will do their best to help you with your criminal case. Contact a Massachusetts lawyer from our firm to discuss your criminal case

Our Massachusetts lawyers have a thorough understanding of the Federal Rules of Evidence, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and the Federal Criminal Laws.

Our client meeting location in Cambridge, MA. Our firm has over 5 experienced federal criminal defense attorneys to defend you if you are charged with a federal crime. Contact us to help you through every phase of representation, starting from a Rule 5 hearing, to a detention hearing, to an arraignment, to a plea negotiation and all the way up to a jury trial if necessary.

Article written by A Sris

Click to Chat

Disclaimer:

These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.

The post Federal Lawyer Massachusetts OUI Failed Sobriety Tests Alcohol Influence appeared first on Massachusetts Federal Criminal Lawyers.

Stanley v. John

Facts:

Plaintiffs, the mother and father of a deceased unborn child, filed suit against defendants, a nightclub patron, a truck owner, the nightclub operator, and a lessor, alleging claims for negligence, wrongful death under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 229, § 2, and loss of consortium under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 231, § 85X. Defendants filed motions for summary judgment

Federal Lawyer Massachusetts OUI

Issue:

• Whether the expert testimony regarding the blood alcohol level was sufficient?

Discussion:

Plaintiffs filed suit after the patron, who became intoxicated at the nightclub, drove a truck into their vehicle, thereby seriously injuring the mother and killing plaintiffs’ unborn fetus. On defendants’ motions for summary judgment, the court held: (1) the patron, the truck owner, and the nightclub operator were entitled to summary judgment on plaintiffs’ wrongful death claim because plaintiffs failed to prove that their child was viable for purposes of the Massachusetts wrongful death statute; (2) the patron, the truck owner, and the nightclub operator were entitled to summary judgment on plaintiffs’ loss of consortium claim because the loss of consortium statute applied only to serious injuries (not death) of minor children (not fetuses); and (3) the nightclub operator was not entitled to summary judgment on plaintiffs’ negligence claims because plaintiffs’ expert testimony regarding the patron’s blood alcohol level was sufficient, in combination with other evidence in the record about the patron’s consumption of alcohol, to create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the patron was exhibiting signs of intoxication at the time he was served his last drink. The court granted summary judgment in favor of the patron, the truck owner, and the nightclub operator on the parents’ claims for wrongful death and loss of consortium, granted summary judgment in favor of the lessor on all claims, and denied the nightclub operator’s motion for summary judgment on the parents’ negligence claim.

The SRIS Law Group Massachusetts lawyers will do their best to help you with your criminal case. Contact a Massachusetts lawyer from our firm to discuss your criminal case

Our Massachusetts lawyers have a thorough understanding of the Federal Rules of Evidence, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and the Federal Criminal Laws.

Our client meeting location in Cambridge, MA. Our firm has over 5 experienced federal criminal defense attorneys to defend you if you are charged with a federal crime. Contact us to help you through every phase of representation, starting from a Rule 5 hearing, to a detention hearing, to an arraignment, to a plea negotiation and all the way up to a jury trial if necessary.

Article written by A Sris

Click to Chat

Disclaimer:

These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.

The post Federal Lawyer Massachusetts OUI Blood Alcohol Negligence Wrongful Death appeared first on Massachusetts Federal Criminal Lawyers.

Thompson v. United States

Facts:

Defendant’s OUI arrest occurred after an officer saw him wandering drunkenly. Defendant then got into his van and fell asleep at the wheel with a beer can and the key in the ignition. A search of the van incident to arrest produced drugs. Defendant had also been arrested for the state crime of operating under the influence (OUI) after he failed field sobriety tests. Defendant appealed his conviction in the United States District Court for the District of Maine for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C.S. § 841(a)(1).

Federal Lawyer Massachusetts OUI

Issue:

• Whether the Defendant’s theory that reasonable suspicion of OUI could exist because the defendant was found asleep behind the wheel with the engine was not running?

Discussion:

Based on the Fourth Amendment, the court upheld the denial of defendant’s motion to suppress. There was a reasonable suspicion to think that the crime of OUI had been committed, which resulted in the search. Defendant’s theory that reasonable suspicion of OUI could not exist because he was found asleep behind the wheel with the engine not running was rejected. The court also rejected defendant’s argument that hearsay was erroneously admitted in violation of his rights under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment based on Crawford. Crawford stated that a declarant’s testimonial out-of-court statement was inadmissible unless one of three exceptions were met. Defendant challenged the admission of testimony indicating that a non-testifying informant stated that defendant was a drug dealer. Although the statement was testimonial, because defendant did not object and because the jury received a limiting instruction, there was no plain error. The court affirmed the conviction

The SRIS Law Group Massachusetts lawyers will do their best to help you with your criminal case. Contact a Massachusetts lawyer from our firm to discuss your criminal case

Our Massachusetts lawyers have a thorough understanding of the Federal Rules of Evidence, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and the Federal Criminal Laws.

Our client meeting location in Cambridge, MA. Our firm has over 5 experienced federal criminal defense attorneys to defend you if you are charged with a federal crime. Contact us to help you through every phase of representation, starting from a Rule 5 hearing, to a detention hearing, to an arraignment, to a plea negotiation and all the way up to a jury trial if necessary.

Article written by A Sris

Click to Chat

Disclaimer:

These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.

The post Federal Lawyer Massachusetts OUI Drunk Field Sobriety Test Cocaine Distribute appeared first on Massachusetts Federal Criminal Lawyers.

United States v. Charles

Facts:

Defendant, a flight controller, answered “no change” to questions regarding operating a vehicle under the influence of alcohol (OUI) convictions on forms submitted to the FAA. Although defendant reported his 1978 OUI conviction, he never reported his subsequent 1983 and 1995 OUI convictions. Defendant argued that the form was fundamentally ambiguous and that the statement “NO CHANGE” was literally true since he had not included his 1983 and 1995 OUI convictions on previous forms. Defendant appealed an order of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, which denied his motion, pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 29, for a judgment of acquittal for his convictions of five counts of making a false statement to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in violation of 18 U.S.C.S. § 1001.

Federal Lawyer Massachusetts OUI

Issue:

• Whether the district court erred in denying defendant’s motion for a judgment of acquittal?

Discussion:

The court held that the district court did not err in denying defendant’s motion for a judgment of acquittal. The form was not fundamentally ambiguous: defendant was required to disclose any and all OUI convictions. Defendant knew that his answer was false and that his other two OUI convictions had to have been included on the form. The government proved, and a rational jury found beyond a reasonable doubt, that the only sensible reading of the form demanded that defendant report his entire OUI history. Defendant’s answer was false because his OUI history had changed. His “NO CHANGE” answer would only have been true if he had disclosed the change in his OUI conviction history on prior forms. The court affirmed defendant’s conviction

The SRIS Law Group Massachusetts lawyers will do their best to help you with your criminal case. Contact a Massachusetts lawyer from our firm to discuss your criminal case

Our Massachusetts lawyers have a thorough understanding of the Federal Rules of Evidence, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and the Federal Criminal Laws.

Our client meeting location in Cambridge, MA. Our firm has over 5 experienced federal criminal defense attorneys to defend you if you are charged with a federal crime. Contact us to help you through every phase of representation, starting from a Rule 5 hearing, to a detention hearing, to an arraignment, to a plea negotiation and all the way up to a jury trial if necessary.

Article written by A Sris

Click to Chat

Disclaimer:

These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.

The post Federal Lawyer Massachusetts OUI False Statement Flight Controller appeared first on Massachusetts Federal Criminal Lawyers.

United States v. Francis

Facts:

Defendant, a paraplegic, pled guilty to child pornography and gun charges. The United States District Court sentenced him to 135 months. Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court erroneously applied a five-level enhancement for engaging in a pattern of sexual exploitation, and had misunderstood the scope of its authority to grant a downward departure based on his extraordinary physical impairments.

Federal Lawyer Massachusetts Child Pornography

Issue:

• Whether the district court erroneously applied a five-level enhancement for engaging in a pattern of sexual exploitation, and had misunderstood the scope of its authority to grant a downward departure based on his extraordinary physical impairments?

Discussion:

On review, the court found that in addition to defendant’s 1979 conviction on two counts of rape and two counts of posing or exhibiting a child, which (as defendant conceded) involved more than one victim, the sentencing court had before it pleas of guilty to state charges of two counts of unnatural acts with a child and one count of indecent assault and battery on a child under 14. Moreover, it had the undisputed statement of the presentence report that defendant had sexually abused between 12 and 15 children in his neighborhood between 1974 and 1978. The court concluded that the sentencing court had ample evidence of repeated sexual abuse or exploitation to find a pattern under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual 2G2.2(b)(4). Also, because the sentencing judge did not misunderstand his legal authority to depart downward, or otherwise err, the court found that it lacked jurisdiction to review the sentencing court’s decision not to depart downward. Defendant’s sentence was affirmed.

The SRIS Law Group Massachusetts lawyers will do their best to help you with your criminal case. Contact a Massachusetts lawyer from our firm to discuss your criminal case

Our Massachusetts lawyers have a thorough understanding of the Federal Rules of Evidence, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and the Federal Criminal Laws.

Our client meeting location in Cambridge, MA. Our firm has over 5 experienced federal criminal defense attorneys to defend you if you are charged with a federal crime. Contact us to help you through every phase of representation, starting from a Rule 5 hearing, to a detention hearing, to an arraignment, to a plea negotiation and all the way up to a jury trial if necessary.

Article written by A Sris

Click to Chat

Disclaimer:

These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.

The post Federal Lawyer Massachusetts Child Pornography Sexual Exploitation Downward Departure appeared first on Massachusetts Federal Criminal Lawyers.