MARSHFIELD OUI LAWYER

Put 10+ Years of Experience in Your Corner

Have you or a loved one been arrested for, or charged with, OUI, DWI, or DUI in Massachusetts? The Massachusetts criminal justice system is frightening and overwhelming.  When you are accused of a crime, it might seem like the entire criminal justice system is against you. Having someone walk beside you through the process is invaluable. 

DUI Defense

Driving while intoxicated (DWI) is a serious charge that can affect your life and career for years to come. Unfortunately, too many people fail to mount a serious defense, thinking that the odds are stacked against them. Depending on the alleged facts against you, however, there may be many routes toward a successful resolution. 

You need a Marshfield OUI Attorney James Hester who has the skills necessary to mount a solid defense. At The Law Office of James Hester, we know that the best defense against operating under the influence of intoxicating liquor (OUI) charges is a strong offense. 

No matter how big or small your case, we will aggressively pursue all avenues to achieve your best result. Attorney Hester understands Massachusetts OUI law and has experience achieving positive outcomes for clients throughout the state.

Defending Against OUI in Massachusetts

Usually, OUI charges are heavily dependent upon the observations of the arresting officer. When determining a defense in your case, there is no substitute for a skilled Marshfield OUI attorney. An attorney experienced with drunk driving cases will be able to immediately recognize opportunities in your case that can lead to a defense. 

Massachusetts Police officers make decisions to charge drivers with driving under the influence on less than perfect, and often less than compelling, evidence of intoxication. Such a decision is merely a judgment call. Because officers are making arrests based on observations of intoxication, the defense attorney’s cross-examination skills become your defense. The opportunities for attacking the officer’s observations and opinions are limitless.

How Officers Determine Evidence of Intoxication

In most cases, at the time the officer formed his or her opinion, evidence of intoxication is incomplete. It is highly unlikely that the officer interviewed a single witness who had spent the night in the driver’s company, even if that witness is seated in the passenger seat. In almost every OUI arrest, the reporting office will include observations of bloodshot eyes, odor of alcohol, and slurred speech. 

The officer opines that these observations are symptoms of intoxicating liquor. In turn, the defense attorney attributes these observations as signs of fatigue, anxiety, nervousness, or allergies. Often, the testifying police officer is forced to concede that the observations of intoxication could have been attributable to any number of innocent causes. 

Every police officer in Massachusetts receives training on how to investigate operating under the influence of alcohol traffic stops and or arrests. The training is broken down into three phases. 

• The vehicle in motion phase 
• The personal contact phase
• The pre-arrest screening phase. 

During each phase, the police officer gathers evidence and looks for cues or impairment.  For example, during the vehicle in motion phase, the officer observes the vehicle in operation, determines whether to stop the vehicle, and observes the vehicle come to a stop on the side of the road.  Some cues the officer looks for is whether the driver has problems maintaining proper lane position, speed and braking problems, or judgement problems. 

An officer may observe weaving, drifting, swerving, turning with a wide radius, or almost striking another vehicle. The officer is trained to look to see if the vehicles are being driven without headlights at night, failing to signal, driving in the opposite lane, driving the wrong way, showing a slow response to traffic signals, etc. During a trial, the officer testifies about the observations or cues he or she identified. The prosecutor and testifying officer will only, however, highlight cues that will lead to a possible conviction. 

The defense attorney, on the other hand, communicates to the jury, by cross examination, all the things the driver did successfully.  A police officer may observe a car swerve twice into the opposite lane at night and decide to pull the driver over.  In the police report, the police officer makes note of the time, that it is dark, and that he or she saw the driver swerve into the opposite lane twice.  The officer does not, however, include that the driver was operating with his or her headlights on. This omission becomes an opportunity for the defense attorney to introduce evidence through the police officer that the driver was properly operating with the vehicle’s headlights on at night. 

Marshfield OUI Criminal Defense Attorney James Hester usually begins by investigating the roadway upon which his client was stopped. The client may have crossed the marked lanes because he was avoiding a pothole or an animal or going around a bend. It is not unusual to find that the marked lanes are nearly gone. The weaving may be explained by a driver’s tendency to take his or her eyes off the road to watch the police cruiser in his or her rear-view mirror. No doubt, minor, or even major, deviations while driving can be caused by common distractions.  While the prosecution focusses on bad driving, Attorney Hester focuses on the good driving.  

At The Law Office of James Hester, we take OUI cases seriously. For a free consultation to discuss your case, call us at 619-345-5092. We serve clients throughout Massachusetts. 

OUI Results

QUINCY DISTRICT COURT (April 26, 2023)

Client was charged with OUI first offense.  After a trial before a jury, he was found not guilty of operating under the influence of alcohol. 

ORLEANS DISTRICT COURT (October 18, 2022)

Client was charged with OUI first offense.  The case was dismissed on the day of trial. 

BROCKTON DISTRICT COURT (March 17, 2022) 

Client was charged with OUI second offense, negligent operation of a motor vehicle, destruction of property, and marked lanes violation.  After a trial before a jury, he was found not guilty of operating under the influence of alcohol, not guilty of negligent operation, not guilty of destruction of property, and not responsible for a marked lanes violation. 

FALMOUTH DISTRICT COURT (October 26, 2022)

Client was charged with OUI second offense.  The first offense was 9 years earlier. Attorney Hester convinced the Commonwealth to amend the charge to a first offense penalty.  The Client offered a plea which was accepted by the Court.     

HOLYOKE DISTRICT COURT (October 24, 2022)

Client was charged with OUI Drugs third offense. The OUI drugs offense was dismissed prior to trial.   

BROCKTON DISTRICT COURT (September 8, 2021)

Client was charged with OUI first offense, negligent operation of a motor vehicle, and unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle.  After a trial before a jury, he was found not guilty of operating under the influence of alcohol. The remaining charges were dismissed following a continuance without a finding on the negligent operation and unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle.

BROCKTON DISTRICT COURT (October 22, 2018)

Client was charged with OUI first offense, possession of an open container, failure to signal, failure to yield, and failure to wear a seat belt.  After a trial before a jury, he was found not guilty of operating under the influence of alcohol. He was found responsible for having an open container of alcohol in the motor vehicle and not responsible for failure to signal, failure to yield, and failure to wear a seat belt.   

PLYMOUTH DISTRICT COURT (January 17, 2018)

Client was charged with OUI third offense which carries a mandatory minimum jail sentence.  After a trial before a jury, she was found not guilty. 

BROCKTON DISTRICT COURT (October 12, 2016)

Client was charged with OUI first offense, negligent operation of a motor vehicle, and failure to stop for police.  He was found not guilty of operating under the influence of alcohol, not guilty of negligent operation, and not responsible for failure to stop for police.