Source: https://www.bernardouidefense.com/case-results/
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 16:23:21+00:00

Document:
Recovery Success - April 2019!
A client with a five-page record, which included lengthy periods of incarceration, was not only able to avoid incarceration but convinced the judge not to enter a conviction against him. All of this could not have been possible without the client's dedication and commitment to recovery. Through his open communication and cooperation with our office regarding his case, Attorney Bernard was able to achieve this amazing result. In addition, the gentlemen will now be eligible in the near future to obtain his license thus restoring his life.
Summary: Our client was suspected of operating a motor vehicle under the influence after he was involved in a very serious accident. The client had driven through an intersection and struck a guardrail, which sent his vehicle airborne ultimately landing upside down deploying all of its airbags. Officers who arrived on scene charged our client with OUI-Liquor, Third Offense.
Results: After a lengthy wait and a great deal of research and preparation the case proceeded to trial. Attorney Bernard was able to utilize five witnesses that were prepped, in order to show that the government failed to meet its burden under the law. The judge proceeding over the trial was convinced, and as a result entered a not guilty verdict to the OUI-Liquor, Third Offense.
April 2019 - VOP Hearing & OUI-Liquor, Second Offense - Dismissed!
Summary: While on probation for client's first OUI-Drugs offense, our client was arrested for an OUI-Liquor, second offense, charge. Our client's first appearance for her second case and violation of probation hearing was scheduled for the same day.
Results: After extensive negotiations with the Commonwealth, the Commonwealth entered a nolle prosequi, i.e. dismissal of the OUI-Liquor, second offense, charge. Our client pled guilty to negligent operation of a motor vehicle but her probation terms from her first offense were able to stay the same. This was a great result!
April 2019 - OUI-Liquor, First Offense, with Child Endangerment - NOT GUILTY!
Summary: Our client was driving her friend's car when she was pulled over for having a headlight out. The officer smelt an odor of alcohol in the vehicle and claimed our client was operating under the influence of intoxicating liquor. She was arrested for OUI-Liquor, First Offense, Negligent Operation of a Motor Vehicle, Child Endangerment While OUI, and a Motor Vehicle Lights Violation.
Results: After a year of waiting and pre-trial litigation hearings, our client was found not guilty for operating under the influence of intoxicating liquor and child endangerment while operating under the influence. Our office spent a great amount of time and effort with our client during pre-trial motions and then at trial.
Child endangerment is one of the most serious charges associated with drunk driving in Massachusetts. The charge could end someone's profession or have them terminated from their job. Child endangerment while OUI carries a minimum mandatory sentence. A great outcome occurred after a great deal of hard work and client participation.
March 2019 - OUI-Liquor, Second Offense, Dismissed!
Summary: Our client was arrested for OUI-Liquor, second offense, coming home from a benefit dinner. When being booked for this charge, the police did not follow the statutory requirement of informing client of his right to an independent medical evaluation to obtain evidence of his innocence. Further, critical documentation regarding this right was not produced and missing.
Results: Our office addressed this issue with the prosecutor, and ultimately he agreed with us regarding this violations. As a result of our extensive negotiations, the prosecutor agreed to dismiss the charge of OUI-liquor, second offense. This was an amazing result and client gets his license restored!
Summary: Our client was arrested for OUI-Liquor, second offense. Our client does not understand English well as he is from Portugal and only speaks Portuguese. The police department did not provide a copy of our client's rights in Portuguese upon being booked. Our client was only given his rights in English.
Results: Our office filed a motion to dismiss based on the fact that our client's right to be examined by a physician were violated. The Judge allowed our motion to dismiss and dismissed client's charge of operating under the influence!
March 2019 – OUI-Liquor, Second Offense, Dismissed!
Summary: Our client was pulled over after almost causing a motor vehicle accident. Upon further investigation, the officer assumed our client was under the influence of alcohol despite not performing any Field Sobriety Tests. Our client was charged with an OUI-Liquor, Second Offense.
Result: As a result of extensive negotiations between Attorney Bernard and the Commonwealth, Attorney Bernard was able to get our client’s charge dismissed. In addition, the court allowed a motion to restore our client’s license!
Summary: While on probation for OUI-Liquor, Second Offense, our client violated her terms of probation. Client accidently consumed alcohol while at a party. Client took appropriate actions and called her sponsor and did not shy away from responsibility.
Results: Thanks to the clients commitment to recovery, Attorney Bernard was able to guide and construct a recovery program that the probation officer agreed with. Client avoided any period of incarceration, unlike many others who go to jail for a drunk driving violation while on probation.
Summary: Client was arrested for an OUI in 2017, after more than a year of hard work and dedication the case was ultimately dismissed, and the client’s life was restored.
Results: Through hard work and dedication Attorney Bernard was able to reduce an OUI-Liquor, Third Offense down to a First Offense which was ultimately dismissed the day of trial. In addition, the Court allowed the motion to restore the client’s license allowing his life to return to normal.
February 2019 - Motion to Dismiss ALLOWED & License Restored!
Our client was arrested for an second offense OUI charge. Our client had difficulties understanding English because he is from Portugal. He tried to explain to the police that he needed an interpreter. Despite this, he was arrested and his license was taken away for 3 years.
Results: After our office filed a motion to dismiss, Attorney Bernard convinced the court to dismiss the case due to the enormous language barrier. The case was dismissed and our client's license was immediately restored!
After our client lost his first trial, Attorney Bernard was retained and convinced the court to overturn the jury's verdict. After the case was reopened and returned to trial, Attorney Bernard prepared the case for trial. Attorney Bernard convinced the District Attorney's Office and the judge to dismiss the drunk driving case!
Results: Our client was forced to live with this nightmare for 5 years until Attorney Bernard took action. After a great deal of hard work, the true right result occurred in the Northern Berkshire District Court.
After scheduling a trial and forcing the Commonwealth to its burden of proof, the District Attorney's Office dismissed our client's first offense OUI charge. The client was adamant that he was not under the influence at the time the police stopped and questioned him. Our client is a middle-aged man who worked all of his life in a factory. He was accused of operating while under the influence of alcohol and ordered to perform the field sobriety tests, which frightened and scared him. The officer was aggressive and at times, rude. Attorney Bernard spoke at length to our client and he understood that our client believed very passionately that he should not plea or be found guilty of an OUI.
Results: With all of that in mind, after the trial was scheduled, the District Attorney's Office dismissed the case. The client's relief was felt immediately.
Our client was stopped and arrested for drunk driving. He was brought to the police station and refused a breath test. Because of this, our client's license was suspended for 6 months. This threw his life upside down without the ability to drive.
Results: After deep negotiations with the District Attorney's Office, Attorney Bernard convinced the judge and the District Attorney's office to dismiss the drunk driving case. Client's license was restored!
Our client was twenty (20) years old and arrested for OUI-Liquor, first offense. Attorney Bernard believed that client performed well on the Standardized Field Sobriety Tests (FSTs). Client and witnesses stated that the officer said "you're all good" before the officer administered the Portable Breath Test (PBT). After the PBT, the client was then placed under arrest. Attorney Bernard argued that there was no probable cause for client to be arrested and OUI-Liquor must be dismissed.
Results: Because of Attorney Bernard's work on client's case, OUI-Liquor, first offense, was entered by the Commonwealth as a nolle prosequi, i.e. dismissal of the charge. Negligent operation of a motor vehicle was continued without a finding for one (1) year and our client was found not responsible for failure to stop/yield. This was an amazing result!
Our client pled guilty to OUI-Liquor in August 2016 based upon the result of the breath test in his case. Due to Attorney Bernard's work in Commonwealth v. Ananias, drunk driving cases in Massachusetts since 2011 can now be reopened if a breath test was used as evidence against the defendant in the case. Thus, the Law Offices of Joseph D. Bernard filed a motion to withdraw client's plea in this matter from 2016.
Results: The motion to withdraw plea was allowed! The client currently has an open case as a second offender which now will be reduced to a first offense. Our client can also reinstate his license immediately. This is an amazing result!
Summary: Our client was arrested for OUI-Liquor, second offense, because he was pulled over stopped on the wrong side of the road. The officer approached him and began to question him as to why he was stopped. Our client told the officer that he only spoke Portuguese and didn't speak English well.
Results: After contacting the Law Offices of Joseph D. Bernard, Attorney Bernard began to investigate into his case and discovered that our client's right to an independent medical examination was violated. Our client speaks Portuguese and when the officer read him his statutory rights, he did not give him a translated form to read from. The Statutory Rights and Consent form explains to the citizen what their rights are, including but not limited to the right to an independent medical examination. Additionally, although the officer contacted an interpreter to translate over the phone, the interpreter did not speak the Portuguese dialect that our client spoke. Thus, our office filed a Motion to Dismiss for G.L. c. 263 § 5A Violation and the motion was ALLOWED. The charge of OUI-Liquor has been dismissed because of the time and effort the Law Offices of Joseph D. Bernard put into the case to discover this violation and because Attorney Bernard was able to successfully explain this to the Judge.
Summary: Our client was charged with OUI-Liquor, first offense. He is currently an active member of the United States Air Force. Attorney Erica Bruno successfully convinced the District Attorney's Office to not prosecute our client based upon his service. At one point, there was a great deal of confusion with the law in a state of flux for the Brave Act.
Results: Attorney Bruno spent a great deal of time and diligent contact with the District Attorney's Office. She finally persuaded the District Attorney's Office that the Brave Act did apply to our client and the case was continued without a finding without any of the traditional fees normally associated with first offense penalties.
Summary: Attorney Erica Bruno is handling a matter involving a client who is charged with OUI-Liquor in Connecticut. Attorney Erica Bruno is licensed in both Connecticut and Massachusetts.
Results: Based upon all of the work in the statewide breath test litigation case, Commonwealth v. Ananias, The Law Offices of Joseph D. Bernard has a deep understanding of breath test machines. When our office determined that this particular breath test was not appropriately calibrated, multiple motions were filed and the State's attorney finally agreed to not use the breath test against our client. Thus, the State of Connecticut withdrew the use of a breath test result for an upcoming trial in the Superior Court for this case.
Summary: In 2014, our client accepted responsibility for a drunk driving case after basing his decision off of the breath test result that was going to be used as evidence against him. Based upon Attorney Joseph Bernard's work in the statewide breath test litigation case, Commonwealth v. Ananias, Attorney Bernard filed a motion for a new trial and to withdraw the client's former plea of responsibility.
Results: Because the client relied on the breath test results that have now been deemed unreliable, Attorney Bernard was able to successfully convince the court that the plea of responsibility was no longer valid. The Springfield District Court allowed the motion and the client no longer has this particular offense on his record.
Summary: Our client was charged with OUI-Liquor, second offense, in 2016. He submitted to a breath test during this arrest. Attorney Bernard worked on this case for two years.
Results: Based upon all of Attorney Bernard's work in the statewide breath test litigation, Commonwealth v. Ananias, our client's breath test was suppressed. Due to the fact that the case was not prosecuted for well over a year and a half, Attorney Bernard filed a motion to dismiss due to the fact that too much time had passed and the client was significantly prejudiced. The motion to dismiss was allowed and our client's case was dismissed.
Summary: Client pled guilty to OUI-Liquor, Second Offense, in 2016. Our office filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea due to his inability to intelligently or voluntary plea in 2016 as a result of his poor English. Our client is a native Portuguese speaker and Attorney Bernard argued that as a result of his poor English, he was not able to fully understand the court proceedings at that time. There was not an interpreter present during his court proceedings either.
Results: Our office filed the motion to withdraw his plea and was able to have a motion hearing in court. Attorney Bernard argued this motion and the motion was allowed, restoring his license five (5) year loss of license! Our office also had a Portuguese interpreter present with him at the hearing. This is a great result!
Summary: Our client was arraigned for OUI-Liquor, first offense, and contacted the Law Offices of Joseph D. Bernard shortly afterwards. Immediately, Attorney Bernard began looking into his case and had extensive negotiations with the supervising prosecutor regarding a dismissal of our client's case.
Results: Attorney Erica Bruno went to court with the client the very next day and was able to get the case dismissed due to all of Attorney Bernard's work that occurred in a single day. A motion to restore license was also allowed. This is an extraordinary result!
Summary: Our client was pulled over for not having an inspection sticker. The police officer who stopped him suspected he was under the influence of intoxicating liquor due to his slow and deliberate movements when retrieving his license. The officer requested our client to perform Standardized Field Sobriety Tests (SFSTs) to determine his sobriety. Our client only performed the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN) test and the 9 Step Walk and Turn. After the officer informed him of the instructions for the 9 Step Walk and Turn, our client told the officer that he needed a lawyer. The officer judged off of those two tests that our client was under the influence of alcohol and arrested him. Our client refused the breath test at the police department. He was arrested for OUI-Liquor, Second Offense, and Failure to Have an Inspection Sticker.
Results: The booking video was exculpatory for the client and after bringing the case to trial, the Commonwealth dismissed the OUI-Liquor, Second Offense, on the day of trial. The client's three (3) year loss of license was immediately ordered to be reinstated and restored. Our client is an avid hunter and now has an opportunity to have his gun license returned.
Summary: Our client was pulled over for failure to stop at a stop sign at an intersection. The officer activated his lights and claimed that our client took awhile to pull over. The officer claimed our client smelt like alcohol and that she had glossy, bloodshot eyes. Our client admitted to the officer that she had one drink at her sister's house. The officer then requested our client submit to the following Standardized Field Sobriety Tests (SFSTs): the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN) test, the 9 Step Walk and Turn, the One Leg Stand, the Modified Romberg test, and the Lack of Convergence test. Our client also submitted to the portable breath test (PBT) and produced a reading of 0.089% BAC. Our client was then arrested for OUI-Liquor, First Offense, Failure to Stop/Yield, and Negligent Operation of a Motor Vehicle. Our client submitted to the breathalyzer at the police department and produced a reading of .09% BAC.
Results: After hiring a doctor and obtaining medical records, our office was able to show that our client suffered from vertigo, which would cause the poor performance on the FSTs. The Commonwealth dismissed the OUI-Liquor, First Offense, charge on the day of trial. Amazing result!
Summary: Our client was pulled over for speeding when the Trooper assumed our client was intoxicated due to a smell of alcoholic beverages. The Trooper claimed our client has bloodshot and glassy eyes. The Trooper also saw a bottle of liquor in our client's motor vehicle. Our client then submitted to Standardized Field Sobriety Tests, including the following: the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN) test, the Nine Step Walk and Turn, the One Leg Stand, and Counting Backwards. The Trooper claimed our client performed poorly on the Field Sobriety Tests and was consequently arrested for OUI-Liquor, speeding, possession of an open container of alcohol in motor vehicle, negligent operation of a motor vehicle, a marked lanes violation, and failure to wear a seatbelt. At the station, our client submitted to a breathalyzer, which produced a reading of .20% BAC.
Results: Attorney Erica Bruno took our client's case to trial. Attorney Bruno was able to successfully cross-examine the Trooper regarding the bottle of liquor and our client's speech impediment, among other factors. Our client was found NOT GUILTY for OUI-Liquor, first offense. Amazing result.
Summary: Our client was found guilty of OUI-Liquor, first offense, after trial in January 2018. When he was arrested and brought back to the police department during this case, he submitted to a breathalyzer at the station, which was a Draeger 9510 device. With Attorney Bernard's work in Commonwealth v. Ananias, the joint agreement signed by all of the District Attorneys in Massachusetts agreed for breath tests to be excluded during that time. The breathalyzer in this client's case should not have been used as evidence against him during his trial. Thus, the Motion for New Trial was allowed.
Results: Since the breath test was improperly used during our client's first trial, he is able to now have another trial with the breath test excluded. This also saved any loss of license for our client.
Summary: Our client was involved in a motor vehicle accident and was transported to the hospital due to her injuries. The police alleged that she was operating under the influence of alcohol. While at the hospital, her blood was taken and screened for a blood alcohol level by the hospital laboratory through a process known as enzymatic testing. The prosecutor requested her medical records containing the blood alcohol level and intended to use this evidence against her at trial.
Results: Our office filed a motion to suppress the blood alcohol evidence. Attorney Bernard argued that an enzymatic blood test is merely a screening tool that is not intended to produce a scientifically reliable quantity of alcohol in a citizen's blood. Rather, it is used for physicians to quickly determine how to treat a patient who needs immediate care. When prosecuting a defendant for operating under the influence of a .08% or higher, the reliability of a test result is of the highest importance. Our expert testified that enzymatic testing is not accepted by forensic toxicologists as scientifically reliable, and therefore, the result is inadmissible.
After the hearing, the judge then ruled that the Commonwealth had failed to establish that enzymatic blood testing is scientifically reliable for forensic quantitative purposes. The judge also found that the Commonwealth had failed to establish that enzymatic testing has general acceptance in the forensic scientific community to quantify a level of alcohol in a citizen's blood. This result is a HUGE WIN for the client and for the advancement of science in the courtroom. Because we were successful on the motion, the blood alcohol evidence in her case cannot be used at trial.
Summary: Our client was originally pulled over for operating a motor vehicle at night with no headlights on. When pulled over, officers detected an overwhelming smell of alcohol and perfume coming from the vehicle. Our client was then asked to submit to Standardized Field Sobriety Tests (SFSTs). She performed the following tests: Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN), Walk and Turn, One Leg Stand, Recitation of the Alphabet, and Counting Backwards. The officers then requested our client submit to a Portable Breath Test (PBT), which produced a reading of .145%. Our client refused the breathalyzer at the police department but she did request to see a doctor. Although she made this request, she was denied.
Results: Our office filed a motion to dismiss based on our client's right to an independent chemical test or examination being denied from her. The prosecutor reviewed the motion to dismiss and agreed to dismiss the entire case. Instead, a new complaint was issued for our client for negligent operation of a motor vehicle, which was continued without a finding for one year. This was an amazing result!
Summary: Our client was originally pulled over for a failure to inspect motor vehicle. Once pulled over, the officer assumed our client was under the influence of intoxicating liquor because he had glassy eyes and a moderate odor of an alcoholic beverage emitting from his mouth. The officer called in another officer to witness our client perform the Standardized Field Sobriety Tests (SFSTs). Our client performed the following: the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus test (HGN), Nine Step Walk and Turn, and the One Leg Stand. Then, our client refused the Portable Breath Test (PBT) and was consequently arrested for OUI-Liquor, third offense, and failure to inspect motor vehicle. Our client also refused the breathalyzer at the police department.
Results: This client was originally charged with OUI-Liquor as a third offender. The jury found him not guilty after trial. Additionally, the judge allowed a motion and ordered the Registry of Motor Vehicles to restore the client's license. Originally, this client was facing a thirteen (13) year loss of license. At the conclusion of our representation, he not only received a not guilty verdict after trial, but he also obtained an order from the court restoring his right to operate immediately. This was an amazing result!
Summary: Our client was involved in a motor vehicle accident on the highway when State Troopers responded to the scene. The Trooper who spoke with our client claimed that he could detect an odor of alcohol emanating from her breath and that she had red, bloodshot, and glassy eyes. Our client admitted to consuming one alcoholic beverage. The Trooper had our client perform the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus test (HGN) as her only Standardized Field Sobriety Tests due to the unsafe condition of the ramp. Our client then submitted to a Portable Breath Test (PBT), which resulted in a reading of a .149% BAC. Our client was consequently arrested for OUI-Liquor, second offense, negligent operation of a motor vehicle, and speeding.
Results: After two years of litigating regarding the client's breath test result, our office filed a Motion to Dismissed based upon the client's right to a speedy trial. After an intensive investigation in Commonwealth v. Ananias, we discovered that the prosecution intentionally and willfully withheld valuable evidence and this client's operating under the influence of intoxicating liquor, second offense, was dismissed. The Commonwealth entered a nolle prosequi, i.e. dismissed the charge.
Summary: Our client was charged with OUI-Liquor in 2013. When he was arrested and brought back to the police department, he submitted to a breathalyzer at the station, which was a Draeger 9510 device. Due to Attorney Bernard's work in Commonwealth v. Ananias, Judge Brennan ordered that breath tests conducted on Draeger 9510 units that were calibrated after June 1, 2011 and prior to September 14, 2014 are to be excluded. As a result, our office filed a motion to withdraw client's guilty plea based on the breath test. Due to the joint agreement signed by all of the District Attorneys in Massachusetts, it was agreed for breath tests to be excluded during that time. Thus, the motion was allowed.
Results: Motion to withdraw was allowed for client, which means he is now considered a first offender. This is a great result because now he can go to the Registry of Motor Vehicles and get his license back.
Summary: Our client was driving late at night when he fell asleep at the wheel and crashed into a cemetery. He then called a tow truck and called the police department himself to report the accident. When the police came to the scene, they assumed our client was under the influence of alcohol and requested him to perform Standardized Field Sobriety Tests. He performed the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN), Walk and Turn, One Leg Stand, Recitation of the Alphabet, and Counting Backwards. Our client completed the alphabet and counted backwards properly. He then submitted to a Portable Breath Test (PBT), which resulted in a reading of a .08% BAC. Our client was then brought back to the police department where he submitted to the breathalyzer and received a reading of .07% BAC.
Results: Our client's case was on the path for trial when Attorney Bernard was able to negotiate a recommendation before trial. This was due to Attorney Bernard's communication with the tow truck driver and the lack of evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that our client was under the influence of intoxicating liquor. Thus, the District Attorney's Office agreed to dismiss the OUI-Liquor, first offense, charge. This was a GREAT result!
Summary: Our client was called in as an erratic operator and the police consequently pulled him over. They detected an overwhelming odor of alcohol and assumed our client was under the influence of alcohol. Our client performed poorly on the Standardized Field Sobriety Tests, which were the following: the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN), Walk and Turn, One Leg Stand, and Recitation of the Alphabet. Our client submitted to the Portable Breath Test (PBT) and provided a sample of .184%. He was consequently arrested for OUI-Liquor, Fourth Offense, Negligent Operation of a Motor Vehicle, and a Marked Lanes Violation. When brought back to the police department, he refused the breathalyzer.
Results: Our client became fully dedicated to recovery. He went to Alcoholic's Anonymous (AA) every day, some days even twice in one day. Our client also sought counseling for his alcohol dependency. He had many people who were willing to write letters of support for his recovery and commitment to living a healthy lifestyle. Our office was able to present this information to the District Attorney's Office. Their office eventually agreed to reduce the OUI-Liquor, fourth offense, charge to a second offense. Our client was placed on probation for two (2) years. Most importantly, our client avoided going to jail and a huge part of that was his commitment to recovery. Amazing result.
Summary: Our client was originally pulled over for crossing the double yellow lines while driving on a main road. The police officer detected a strong odor of alcohol and assumed our client was under the influence of intoxicating liquor. The officer asked our client to submit to Standardized Field Sobriety Tests. Our client performed the following: the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN), the Nine Step Walk and Turn, and the One Leg Stand. Our client was not asked to perform any other Field Sobriety Tests that were not physical and was not asked to submit to a portable breath test (PBT). Our client was arrested for OUI-Liquor, Fourth Offense, and a Marked Lanes Violation. He refused the breathalyzer at the police department.
Results: Attorney Bernard took our client's case to trial and emphasized how poorly the Standardized Field Sobriety Tests really tested one's impairment. He was able to successfully cross-examine the officers and the jury found our client not guilty of OUI-Liquor, Fourth Offense. This was a HUGE result and the client avoided going to jail. Client's family could not be happier.
Summary: Our client was initially pulled over for speeding. One officer approached our client and claimed he smelt an odor of alcohol. The officer requested our client to remove himself from his motor vehicle and the officer called another officer for assistance. Once the other officer arrived on scene, our client was asked to perform Standardized Field Sobriety Tests. The officer administered the following tests: Vertical Gaze Nystagmus (VGN), Lack of Convergence (LOC), Nine Step Walk and Turn, One Legged Stand, Romber Balance Assessment, Recitation of the Alphabet, and Counting Backwards. The officer then requested our client to submit to a preliminary breath test (PBT) and the client refused. Although our client completed the alphabet and counting backwards efficiently, the officer claimed our client performed poorly on the physical tests. Our client was then placed under arrest and transported back to the police department. Our client was booked and refused the breath test. Our client was charged with OUI-Liquor, second offense; negligent operation of a motor vehicle; marked lanes violation; and speeding.
Results: Attorney Bernard brought our client's case to trial. Prior to trial, the client entered into a plea with respect to his charge of negligent operation of a motor vehicle, which was continued without a finding for one year. At trial, Attorney Bernard cross-examined both police officers where he pointed out there was no evidence for slurred speech, glossy or red eyes. Attorney Bernard was able to point out other factors of our client's case which questioned if there was enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that our client was operating under the influence. Consequently, the jury found our client not guilty for OUI-Liquor, second offense. Our client was found responsible for a marked lanes violation and speeding but no fines were imposed. Great result and client's family was so happy!
Summary: Our client is a sixty-seven (67) year-old, Spanish speaking man who was pulled over for a marked lanes violation. When asked to perform Standardized Field Sobriety Tests (SFST), our client informed the officer that his knees were in bad shape. The officer still instructed our client to perform the field sobriety tests the same. Our client performed the 9 Step Walk and Turn but was unable to attempt to the One Leg Stand because of his knees. He was then asked to recite the alphabet. Our client submitted to a Portable Breath Test (PBT) and produced a reading of a .154% BAC. He refused the breath test at the police department.
Results: Attorney Bernard took client's case to trial. He was able to have the case dismissed prior to trial for many reasons. There were many factors to affect his performance on the field sobriety tests, including his age, medical history, and native language. Additionally, the booking video was exonerating. As a result, the Commonwealth entered a nolle prosequi for Count One involving OUI-Liquor, second offense. Both of the other civil charges, operation a motor vehicle with a suspended license and a marked lanes violation, were dismissed as well. Attorney Bernard filed a motion and the Court ordered to restore his license.
Summary: Our client was stopped for a marked lanes violation. The officer claimed he could smell a strong odor of an alcoholic beverage and instructed our client to perform Standardized Field Sobriety Tests (SFST). Our client first refused the tests but the officer said he would be placed into custody if he did not perform them. He then obliged and performed the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus Test (HGN), 9 Step Walk and Turn and the One Leg Stand. He refused the Portable Breath Test (PBT) and the breath test at the police department.
Results: Attorney Bernard took this client's case to trial. There were medical explanations for client's performance on field sobriety tests and his behavior during the booking video did not provide enough evidence of intoxication. Thus, the Commonwealth entered a nolle prosequi at trial readiness, i.e. dismissed the charge. The client's charge of negligent operation of motor vehicle was continued without a finding for one year. Client and his wife were ecstatic!
Summary: Our client was speeding through a parking lot onto main street and was then pulled over. Officer approached our client and our client admitted to consuming two (2) beers. He then was asked to perform Standardized Field Sobriety Tests and our client refused. Our client also refused the preliminary breath test (PBT) as well as the breath test at the police department. Our client was then charged with OUI-Liquor, first offense, negligent operation of a motor vehicle, and speeding.
Results: Attorney Bernard took client's case to trial. He was able to have the case dismissed prior to the trial even beginning due to the Commonwealth's lack of ability to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that alcohol affected our client's ability to operate a motor vehicle. This was due to no information for field sobriety tests and that there was no overwhelming evidence of intoxication on his booking video. Thus, the Commonwealth entered a nolle prosequi, i.e. dismissed the OUI charge. Additionally, the charge of negligent operation of a motor vehicle was continued without a finding and our client was found not responsible for speeding. This would not have occurred if the client did not choose to bring his case to trial with the Law Offices of Joseph D. Bernard.
Summary: Our client was initially pulled over for crossing the center double yellow lines. At the time, our client was under emotional distress and was crying. The police officer claimed our client had bloodshot/glassy eyes and could smell a moderate odor of alcohol. While speaking to our client, the police officer then detected alcoholic beverages in her motor vehicle. She then was asked to submit to Standardized Field Sobriety Tests. She was submitted to Counting Backwards, Recitation of the Alphabet, the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN) test, 9 Step Walk and Turn, and the One Leg Stand. She was then placed under arrest and was transported back to the police department. At the police department, she submitted to the breathalyzer, which produced a reading of .20% BAC.
Results: After filing pretrial motions to exclude the breath test result, and after successfully arguing motions in limine to exclude important pieces of evidence from trial, the District Attorney's Office dismissed the OUI, Second Offense, charge. Client not only avoided a guilty finding on her criminal record, she does not have to suffer a two (2) year loss of license.
Summary: Our client was stopped at a Sobriety Checkpoint (Roadblock). The officer instructed our client to step out of his vehicle to perform Standardized Field Sobriety Tests after claiming he could smell an odor of alcohol emanating from our client. Before beginning the tests, the officer had asked our client if he consumed any alcohol that night, which he did admit to consuming two (2) beers. Our client then submitted to the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN), the One Leg Stand, and the 9 Step Walk and Turn. The officer claimed our client failed the tests and then asked him to submit to a Portable Breath Test (PBT). Our client performed this test with a result of 0.092% BAC. Our client was placed under arrest and then submitted to the breathalyzer at the police department, which produced a reading of 0.102% BAC. Our client was charged with OUI-Liquor, First Offense.
Results: Our office brought our client's case to trial in the Springfield District Court. During cross-examination of the police officer, Attorney Bernard was able to point out variations from what the police officer was saying on the stand compared to what he wrote in the police report. For example, the officer stated our client had slurred speech and was "swaying." Neither of those were mentioned in the police report. Due to these differences, the police officer's testimony was discredited and essentially could not provide enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that our client was under the influence of intoxicating liquor. Consequently, our client was found not guilty for OUI-Liquor, First Offense. Our client is now able to maintain his CDL license and care for his family.
Summary: Our client was convicted of an OUI in 2011. Although his case was resolved a second offense, the Registry treated him as a third offense. Consequently, his license was suspended for eight (8) years. Client is a landlord for apartments and maintains a part-time job position. He relied on rides from his family or friends and when those rides were not available, he would walk to his destinations in town.
Results: Attorney Bernard presented his case in front of the Board of Appeals (BOA) at Springfield City Hall. He was able to show client's recovery in Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) as well as how the ability to travel would benefit him. The BOA voted to modify the decision of the Registrar of the Motor Vehicles and ordered the RMV to issue a hardship license with an interlock ignition.
Summary: The client had a mistakenly forgotten to pay a ticket in New York which caused his license to be suspended in that state. Years later when driving through New York, he was stopped for an unlicensed operation. He challenged the charge in New York and it was reduced to an unattended motor vehicle violation. However, the Registry of Motor Vehicles in Massachusetts had already reciprocated the New York charge of unlicensed operation and suspended his Massachusetts license and his CDL for sixty (60) days. Consequently, the client was not able to continue his business since he owns a truck driving company. This loss in income put a huge strain on not only his business, but his family.
Results: Attorney Bernard presented his case in front of the Board of Appeals (BOA) at Springfield City Hall. He was able to explain the situation accurately at the hearing and the BOA voted right then to modify the decision of the Registry of the Motor Vehicles. The client was able to have is licenses fully reinstated. The client and his family were so happy and relieved to resolve the problem immediately after the hearing.
Summary: Client was on her way back from a pumpkin-carving party and had struck a telephone pole causing police officers to respond to the scene. The police officers began to ask questions about what happened and client ultimately admitted to consuming alcohol that night. She submitted to a portable breath test (PBT) and produced a reading of .15% BAC. She did not perform any Standardized Field Sobriety Tests. She was then placed under arrest for OUI-Liquor, First Offense, negligent operation of a motor vehicle, and speeding. At the police department, she also submitted to a breathalyzer and produced a reading of .14% BAC.
Results: Attorney Bernard took her case to trial where the breath test was not used as evidence. The booking video provided evidence for her sobriety and Attorney Bernard was able to skillfully cross-examine the police officer. The jury ruled a not guilty verdict for OUI-Liquor and the charge for negligent operation of a motor vehicle was dismissed. The only charge she was found responsible for was speeding. Amazing result!
Summary: Client was driving back from dinner and crossed over the center yellow lines while speeding. Police officer conducted a traffic stop and claimed client parked on the curb. The police officer claimed the client smelt of alcohol, slurred her words, and that her eyes were bloodshot/glassy. Client refused the Standardized Field Sobriety Tests and breath test and was placed under arrest for OUI-Liquor, negligent operation of a motor vehicle, marked lanes violation, and speeding.
Results: Client's case was on the path to trial but Attorney Bernard was able to have the OUI-Liquor, First Offense, charge entered as a nolle prosequi, i.e. dismissed the charge. Client's charge for negligent operation of a motor vehicle was continued without a finding and she was found not responsible for her two other civil charges. All of this occurred prior to trial and client was ecstatic.
Summary: Officers responded to a scene of a pick-up truck driving off of the roadway and into the woods. The police officer observed three people emerge from the nearby wood line, one of which was our client. The officer asked who was operating the pick-up truck and our client and the two other witnesses stated they had no idea. Although our client was the owner of the pick-up truck, he still did not say he was operating it. Our client refused Standardized Field Sobriety Tests and refused the breathalyzer at the police department.
Results: Due to Attorney Bernard's Motion to Dismiss, it could not be proven that our client was the operator of the motor vehicle. Hence, his charge for OUI-Liquor, First Offense, was dismissed. Great outcome!
Summary: Our client was called in as an erratic operator and police approached him upon pulling into his driveway. The police officer asked our client to submit to Standardized Field Sobriety Tests and he performed the HGN test, the One Leg Stand, and the 9 Step Walk and Turn. Our client then submitted to a breath test at the police department which resulted in a .29% BAC.
Results: After negotiations with the District Attorney's Office, Attorney Bernard was able to have the Child Endangerment while OUI charge dismissed. Client's proof of recovery also helped tremendously in this.
Summary: Client was driving back from a Patriots game, looked down at his cellphone, and crashed into the motor vehicle in front of him. This caused a four motor vehicle crash on the highway and state police responded to the scene. The police officer asked him to submit to Standardized Field Sobriety Tests, specifically the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN), Nine Step Walk and Turn, One Leg Stand, and Recitation of the Alphabet. He then submitted to a portable breath test (PBT) and blew a .132%. When brought back to the police department, my client also submitted to the breath test there, which showed a reading of .138% BAC. My client was ultimately charged with OUI-Liquor, First Offense, a State Highway-Traffic Violation, and Operator Sending/Reading an Electronic Message.
Results: Attorney Bernard was able to have the breath test excluded from evidence due to the state-wide moratorium on breath tests being used as evidence in court in Massachusetts. Additionally, he was able to successfully cross-examine the officer on the notes taken during the performance of the Standardized Field Sobriety Tests. Client was found not guilty for OUI-Liquor, First Offense, by the jury. He was found not responsible for his other two charges as well, causing his entire case to be dismissed.
Summary: My client was stopped at a Sobriety Check Point in Agawam. The State Trooper claimed that he could detect a strong odor of alcohol from my client as well as glassy, watery eyes. He also claimed my client had slurred speech. My client then submitted to Standardized Field Sobriety Tests, specifically the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN), Walk and Turn, One Leg Stand, and the Recitation of the Alphabet. My client allegedly failed the physical field sobriety tests but was able to recite the alphabet. The State Trooper then gave my client a Portable Breath Test (PBT), which resulted in a reading of a .137% BAC. Once brought back to the police station, my client submitted to the breath test there, which resulted in a reading of a .165% BAC.
Results: Once brought to trial, Attorney Bernard was able to successfully cross-examine the police officer. Additionally, there was no booking video brought into evidence and the breath test was not able to be used as evidence either. Due to all of these factors and Attorney Bernard's successful arguments at trial, the Jury found my client not guilty.
Summary: My client was originally pulled over for speeding and then the police officer claimed my client had bloodshot, glassy eyes. The police officer requested my client perform Standardized Field Sobriety Tests, specifically Counting Backwards, HGN, Nine Step Walk and Turn, and the One Leg Stand. My client refused the portable breath test but submitted to the breath test at the police department, which resulted in a reading of .14% BAC.
Results: My client was charged with OUI-Liquor, First Offense, negligent operation of a motor vehicle, and speeding. All charges were dismissed pursuant to the Valor Act. This was an amazing result!
Summary: Client was called in by an erratic operator and was pulled over the police. The police officer had my client submit to Standardized Field Sobriety Tests, Portable Breath Test, and the breath test at the police department. The breath test resulted in a reading of .18%. My client was charged with OUI-Liquor, First Offense, and negligent operation of a motor vehicle.
Result: Attorney Bernard filed a motion to suppress the breath test, along with other evidence, and had the OUI-Liquor charge dismissed! This was a fantastic result and the client was ecstatic.
Summary: My client was called in as an erratic operator due to the fact that she was travelling in an improper lane. Once the officer pulled her over, he asked her to submit to a portable breath test and she refused. The officer claimed he smelt alcohol and that my client had blood shot/glossy eyes. She was then arrested for OUI-Liquor, Second Offense, Negligent Operation of a Motor Vehicle, and a Marked Lanes Violation.
Results: The charge of OUI-Liquor, Second Offense, and the Marked Lanes Violation were both dismissed. Negligent Operation of a Motor Vehicle was continued without a finding for six months.
Summary: My client violated her SCRAM test due to her having an illness which caused her to consume cough medicine. This resulted in a positive alcohol screen and the Commonwealth filed a motion for a warrant for my client's arrest.
Results:Attorney Bernard successfully argued that the unit was unable to detect mouth alcohol. The SCRAM utilizes a fuel-cell which is not capable of detecting mouth alcohol. With the help of our expert and after an evidentiary hearing, the court ruled that Commonwealth had not met their burden. My client was able to return home and continue her job.
Summary: My client was involved in a motor vehicle accident that caused the police to respond to the scene. The police officer assumed my client was under the influence of intoxicating liquor and asked him to submit to Standardized Field Sobriety Tests. My client submitted to a portable breath test at the scene and at the police department, which resulted in a reading of 0.14%.
Results: Attorney Bernard filed a motion to suppress the breath rest and convinced the jury that the Commonwealth could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that my client was operating the motor vehicle. He was found not guilty for OUI-Liquor, First Offense.
Summary: In 2014, my client had a closed case for a convicted OUI-Liquor, Second Offense. The breath test was used as evidence against him.
Results: The breath test cannot be used to prosecute the defendant due to Judge Brennan's decision in Commonwealth v. Ananias. Therefore, the motion to withdraw the guilty plea was allowed and the case was re-opened.
Summary: In 2016, my client was charged with negligent operation of a motor vehicle, OUI-Liquor, First Offense, and leaving the scene of property damage. His CDL was revoked for one year and the police filed an immediate threat application with the Registry of Motor Vehicles, having his driver's license suspended indefinitely. Although negligent operation of a motor vehicle and OUI-Liquor were both dismissed in 2016, my client still did not have his CDL or license.
Results: Attorney Bernard filed an appeal of the suspension with the Registry o f Motor Vehicles. His case was presented to the Board of Appeals in Springfield and they modified the decision of the Registry of Motor Vehicles. They ordered that he had his license and CDL reinstated.
Summary: My client was originally pulled over for a marked lanes violation. Once pulled over, the police officer asked my client to submit to Standardized Field Sobriety Tests, specifically the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus Test, the 9 Step Walk and Turn, and the One Leg Stand. He was asked to then submit to a portable breath test, which resulted in a reading of 0.153%. He also submitted to the breath test at the police department, which resulted in a reading of 0.14%.
Results: The jury found my client not guilty for OUI-Liquor, Second Offense. My client was found not responsible for a number plate violation and a marked lanes violation. Now, we are working on withdrawing his guilty plea for his first offense.
Summary: My client had a closed case where he was convicted of OUI-Liquor, First Offense, in 2014. During this case, he had submitted to a breath test and it was used as evidence against him.
Results: The breath test in 2014 was obtained from a breathalyzer device that was last calibrated between June 2011 and September 14, 2014. The breath test is deemed as unreliable due to Judge Brennan's decision in Commonwealth v. Ananias. Attorney Bernard filed a motion to withdraw this guilty plea due to the breath test being unreliable. My client now has his license and is able to continue his professional career.
Summary: My client was originally pulled over for speeding and a marked lanes violation. My client was then asked to submit to Standardized Field Sobriety Tests, specifically the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN), the 9 Step Walk and Turn, One Leg Stand, and Recitation of the Alphabet. My client refused the portable breath test and refused the breath test at the police department.
Results: Attorney Bernard filed motions, having the OUI-Liquor, First Offense, charge to be dismissed. My client's citizenship in the United States was kept as well as his electrician license.
Summary: My client was originally pulled over for operating his motor vehicle in the opposite lane. The police officer asked my client to submit to Standardized Field Sobriety Tests, specifically the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN), the Walk and Turn, The One Leg Stand, and the Recitation of the Alphabet. My client was then asked to submit to a portable breath test, which resulted in a reading of 0.142%. My client also submitted to a breath test at the police department, which resulted in a reading of a 0.171%.
Results: Attorney Bernard filed a motion to suppress the breath test, which successfully dismissed the OUI-Liquor, Second Offense, charge. My client accepted responsibility to negligent operation of a motor vehicle.
Summary: The police received a call from a gas station attendant stating that my client was acting oddly. My client was pulled over and asked to submit to Standardized Field Sobriety Tests. My client was then arrested for OUI-Drugs and negligent operation of a motor vehicle.
Results:Attorney Bernard filed a motion to suppress and a motion to exclude which resulted in the entire case being dismissed. My client was able to keep his license.
Summary: My client was originally stopped for speeding and was also charged with negligent operation of a motor vehicle. He was arrested and brought back to the police department. At the police department, my client was asked to submit to Standardized Field Sobriety Tests. He was also asked to submit to a breath test which he refused. He was then charged with OUI-Liquor, First Offense.
Results: In the police report, the officers stated that there was a booking video. However, they were unable to produce a copy of this booking video. As a result, Attorney Bernard filed a motion to dismiss for lost and destroyed evidence, which successfully resulted in the OUI-Liquor, First Offense, charge to be dismissed. The client was able to have this charge dismissed as well as restoration of his license.
Summary: My client failed to stop at a red light and was pulled over. The police officer asked my client to perform Standardized Field Sobriety Tests and charged my client with OUI-Liquor, Second Offense. He submitted to a breath test at the police department.
Results: Attorney Bernard filed motions challenging the breath test, relevant to Commonwealth v. Ananias. Additionally, my client was a veteran. With all of these factors, the Assistant District Attorney dismissed the OUI-Liquor, Second Offense, charge.
Summary: My client was found sleeping in his car in a parking lot and was asked to exit the vehicle. Police officers asked my client to submit to Standardized Field Sobriety Tests and was then charged with OUI-Liquor, First Offense. He submitted to a breath test at the police department.
Results: Due to the motions in Commonwealth v. Ananias, the breath test was deemed unreliable. The breath test results were excluded from evidence at trial and Attorney Bernard was successful at cross-examining the police officer. Ultimately, my client was found not guilty for OUI-Liquor, First Offense, after trial.
Summary: Police officers pulled my client over for a missing registration sticker on the motor vehicle. It was not my client's car but he was still asked to perform Standardized Field Sobriety Tests. My client was arrested and submitted to a breath test at the police department.
Results: Attorney Bernard filed numerous motions challenging the results of the breath test. Commonwealth v. Ananias directly affected this case because it had been found that the Office of Alcohol Testing was withholding evidence showing faulty results for the Draeger 9510 breath test machines. This caused a statewide moratorium on the use of breath test results. Consequently, my client's OUI-Liquor, First Offense, charge was dismissed.
Summary: My client was initially pulled over for speeding. The police officer assumed he was under the influence of intoxicating liquor and asked him to perform Standardized Field Sobriety Tests. He was also asked to submit to a breathalyzer, which he refused and his license was suspended.
Results: On cross-examination of the police offer, Attorney Bernard pointed out that his client was wearing soft contact lenses before performing the Standardized Field Sobriety Tests. After the first test, the client's contact lenses fell onto the gravel and had to put it back in with saliva, causing it to be contaminated. This affected his performance of the Standardized Field Sobriety Tests and was therefore found not guilty after trial.
Summary: The police pulled over my client and assumed he was operating a motor vehicle under the influence of intoxicating liquor. He was charged with OUI-Liquor. He served in the United States Marine Corps, though, and the Court recognized that he was a veteran prior to his arraignment.
Results:Pursuant to the Valor Act, my client was evaluated by a local Veterans Justice Outreach Coordinator. He received a recommendation of treatment provided by the VA. Consequently, my client's OUI-Liquor charge was dismissed.
Summary: My client was stopped at a roadblock and the police officers assumed my client was under the influence of intoxicating liquor. My client was asked to submit to a breath test and refused, resulting in a 3 year loss of license.
Results: During cross-examination of the police officer, Attorney Bernard successfully pointed out that the client informed the police officer of his leg injury and could not perform the Standardized Field Sobriety Tests. A witness also in the car testified the same. Ultimately, my client was found not guilty after trial.
Results: Attorney Bernard filed a motion to suppress and motion to dismiss. Specifically, Attorney Bernard filed a motion to dismiss the roadblock. Additionally, Attorney Bernard filed a motion to suppress the portable breath test as evidence. The Trooper did not utilize the device correctly. Both of these motions successfully convinced the District Attorney's Office to dismiss the case.
Summary: At a roadblock, police claimed my client had a strong odor of alcohol coming from her vehicle as well as my client having red, glassy eyes. She was then asked to perform the Field Sobriety tests. After that, she was submitted to a portable breath test, which read at a .106% and was used as evidence against her.
Results: The charge was dismissed after I filed a motion to suppress and a motion to dismiss. Specifically, I filed a motion to dismiss the roadblock involved in my client's case, which convinced the District Attorney's Office to dismiss the case. Additionally, the District Attorney's Office also dismissed the case based off of a motion to suppress regarding the preliminary/portable breath test. The reason behind this was because after obtaining discovery on the portable/preliminary breath testing device (Draeger 6510), I learned that the trooper did not utilize the device correctly. Therefore, his determination regarding probable cause was flawed.
Summary: Police claimed my client's car crossed double solid yellow lines. After the police stopped the car, they claimed she was confused and that her eyes were slightly bloodshot and glassy. They went on to state she almost fell during the Field Sobriety tests.
Results: Both charges were dismissed after I filed motions to dismiss. One of the most important factors in this client's outcome, though, was her dedication to recovery. My client was able to prove that she would be the right candidate for probation by providing evidence of her active commitment. Recovery was a huge factor that helped allow these excellent results. Another great outcome after the client committed herself to remain clean and sober!
Summary: My client was pulled over because the police claimed my client's car crossed double solid yellow lines. They claimed my client appeared confused and that her eyes are blood shot/glossy.
Results: After Attorney Bernard filed a motion to dismiss, both charges were dismissed. This was majorly due to my client's dedication to recovery. My client was able to prove that she would be the right candidate for probation by providing evidence of her active commitment. Recovery was a huge factor that allowed these excellent results.
Results: The court ruled the blood test evidence is precluded due to a Constitutional violation. We successfully argued on behalf of our client that the type of consent the police obtained was illegal. Hence, the strongest and maybe only piece of evidence against our client has now been suppressed!
Summary: Police claimed that my client was driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. My Client lost his license for 30 days after submitting to a breath test.
Results: The breath test result was successfully excluded from evidence due to its unreliability as a result of the decision in Commonwealth v. Ananias. Because this significant piece of evidence was excluded, the Commonwealth could only present evidence of field sobriety tests and the officer's observations. Ultimately, the Client received a tremendous result and was found not guilty after trial.
Summary: Police claimed that my client was driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor when an officer approached my client in his vehicle that was parked on the side of the road. The officer alleged that the vehicle running. My client was asked to perform field sobriety tests and submit to a breath test. He performed field sobriety tests, but became upset and erratic during the interaction. My client lost his license for three years after refusing a breath test.
Results: The Commonwealth presented evidence of the officer's observations of my client and my client's performance on field sobriety tests. I cross-examined the officer about the lack of information in his police report indicating that the vehicle was running, and how my client's shoes impacted his performance on the field sobriety tests. Ultimately, the client received an excellent result and was found not guilty after trial.
Summary: My client had previously been charged with OUI - Liquor and had his license suspended for five years for refusing to submit to a breath test. He was found not guilty after trial. The judge issued an order to reinstate his license provided that his license had a twelve hour time restriction and that he install an interlock ignition device in his vehicle.
Years later, my client was stopped by the police while driving on the highway and charged with operating a motor vehicle without an interlock ignition device. The police filed an immediate threat application with the Registry of Motor Vehicles as a result of this charge, and the Registry suspended my client's license indefinitely. My client ultimately entered a plea to a lesser charge of operation of a motor vehicle after suspension / time restriction. However, the indefinite suspension of my client's license remained in effect, and my client filed an appeal of the suspension with the Registry.
Results: I successfully presented my client's case to the Registry Board of Appeals in Boston. At the hearing, the Board reviewed the order from the judge requiring the twelve hour time restriction and the interlock ignition device in his vehicle. I argued and the Board agreed that that the statute allowing the reinstatement of a license after a finding of not guilty does not permit a judge to order restrictions on a license. The Board thus found that my client was not legally required to have an interlock ignition device installed in his vehicle. Ultimately, the Board issued a written decision to fully reinstate my client's license without an interlock ignition device.
Summary: My client had a closed case where he was convicted of OUI - 2nd offense after being stopped at a roadblock. He submitted to a breath test, and the result was used as evidence against him.
Results: The breath test result used to prosecute my client was obtained from a breathalyzer device that was last calibrated between June 2011 and September 14, 2014. Based on Judge Brennan's decision in Commonwealth v. Ananias, this breath test result is now presumptively excluded from evidence and cannot be used to prosecute a defendant. I filed a motion to withdraw the OUI-2nd offense conviction based on Judge Brennan's decision. The motion to withdraw was allowed and re-opened the case. The Commonwealth chose not to further prosecute my client and dismissed the charge. My client received a tremendous result which allowed him to pursue a higher level position in his career.
Summary: Our client was charged with five different offenses, including OUI-Drugs and OUI-Liquor. There were incriminating statements made by our client as well as a video of our client from the arrest, among other evidence. The Law Offices of Joseph D. Bernard aggressively litigated many pre-trial motions that successfully suppressed a great deal of evidence. Incriminating statements, drug paraphernalia, and opinion evidence were all going to be used as evidence against our client but they were all suppressed due to the motions our office filed.
Results: Based upon the pre-trial motions our office litigated, much of the evidence was ordered to not be used. Thus, OUI-Liquor and OUI-Drugs were both dismissed. The client was able to walk out of the courthouse without any conviction or any further loss of license. This was all due to the all of the work our office did on our client's behalf.
Summary: The police department in our client's town received information regarding an automobile accident that occurred. The driver left the accident and the police suspected that the driver was our client. The police entered our client's home and conducted questioning that the court deemed unconstitutional. This was due to our office filing and litigating a motion to suppress any and all statements made by our client.
Results: As a result of our motion, the Commonwealth dismissed the OUI-Liquor charge and our client was able to restore his license!

References: v. 
 § 5
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.