South Carolina DUI crash killing bride and severely injuring the groom could involve legal battles over blood alcohol testing as the defendant refused field sobriety tests.  25 year old Jamie Komoroski was charged with three counts of felony DUI resulting in great bodily injury or death and one count of reckless homicide after a wedding crash. The 25-year-old suspect smelled of alcohol but refused a field sobriety test at the scene, police said. Komoroski has no past convictions.  To read more about the Komoroski case you can read Julianne McShane’s Article from NBC News.

The husband, who suffered bodily injuries but has been released from the hospital, has sued several bars that allegedly over-served the defendant alcohol that Friday. The suit blames the bars for serving a “notably and visibly intoxicated” Komorowski and letting her consume additional and excessive amounts of alcohol. It also alleges the bars allowed her to leave in her dangerously intoxicated state.

The Hutchinson family’s attorney, Danny Dalton said in a statement to CBS News: “The state grants restaurants and bars a license for the privilege to serve alcohol, and with that privilege comes a responsibility to the community to serve patrons responsibly and to deny service to individuals who are visibly intoxicated.”

Recent studies have started to surface in regards to the number of OUI’s now that Uber has become a popular ride-sharing service. Uber operates in many cities across the country and has become increasingly more popular over the last couple of years. Young people and adults alike look to Uber to provide transportation after a night out; Uber is generally considered a safer option and is accessible to those who live outside the city.

What does this mean for OUI rates across the country? As Uber is still relatively new in the transportation world, there have been mixed finding’s depending on what study you look at. A study on drunk driving in the city of New York supported the idea that, boroughs that had wide-spread usage of Uber, had a 25%-35% decrease in the number of accidents where alcohol was a leading factor; these numbers can be compared to areas which do not offer Uber as a ride service to it’s residents.

The study, summarized by the New York Times here, illustrates that this results in about 40 fewer alcohol-related accidents per month. California, another state that conducted a similar study back in 2015, also found that there was a decrease in Drunk driving fatal crashes; more recently, West California conducted a study which produced shockingly similar results. However, some would argue that while New York and other popular cities have seen a decrease in OUI’s and alcohol related collisions, Uber is still a new company and these findings can not be applied country-wide.

As a Massachusetts OUI attorney, there will be rare cases where a driver had no intention of driving, but because of some sort of disorder or episode, got behind the wheel without any intention of driving. A question in these cases arises when the person driving is drunk and whether they can be held criminally liable for drunk driving with the lack of intent to drive. The Oregon Supreme Court recently addressed this question State v. Newman and determined a driver must commit some voluntary act in order to be held criminally liable.

In State v. Newman, the defendant was pulled over in a clearly intoxicated state, blew a .15 on the breathalyzer and performed very poorly on the field sobriety tests. In what would seem to be an open and shut case, the defendant offered evidence that he never knew he was driving drunk because of a sleep walking disorder. The defendant claimed he walked home after having drinks with friends and went to sleep. He claims it was an episode of “sleep driving” that caused him to drive drunk. The question then becomes, can evidence that the defendant did not voluntarily drive be a defense to a drunk driving charge.

What the prosecution centered their argument on and what the trial court based the original decision on was that drunk driving is a strict liability crime. Being a strict liability crime would make whether the driving was voluntary or not irrelevant and the sleep driving defense worthless. If drunk driving was a strict liability crime, it would not matter what the circumstances led to the driver driving in his condition; if he drove over the limit, it would be a crime every time.

As a Massachusetts OUI defense lawyer, often an argument made at trial is that a motorist drank responsibly and only had one or two drinks with dinner. The proposed reduction of the presumptive legal limit would have potentially impose criminal penalties on those who drink responsibly. Fortunately, the proposal is not likely to be adopted.

The National Transportation Safety Board, or NTSB has recently recommended that states modify the legal limit of alcohol allowed while driving. This modification would mean that a driver would be considered to be driving under the influence of alcohol at a .05 blood alcohol content opposed to the current legal limit of .08. As a Massachusetts OUI attorney, it seems like this change would create a disadvantage to drivers and punish drivers who were once considered responsible.

The NTSB argues that this change is necessary to ensure the safety of the citizens. NTSB argues that alcohol related deaths are on the rise and this is the best way to stop it. Deborah Hersman, the chair of the NTSB states that a .05 blood alcohol content has been implemented as the legal limit in many nations which have safer roads and it is time for this change in America. One example of where NTSB believes the .08 legal limit seems unjust is the death of Sergeant Douglas Weddelton, a Massachusetts state trooper. While pulling someone over, Sergeant Weddelton was slammed into by a pickup truck and killed. The driver who hit him however only had a blood alcohol content of .07 and was not legally drunk.

Julie Campanini recently published an excellent article in Lawyers USA offering a number of suggestions for improving trial skills. From her experiences during trials combined with years of speaking with jurors, she noticed that many lawyers tend to unknowingly act in ways which place them in a negative light for the jury. Below is a list describing some of the issues she noticed. As a Massachusetts OUI lawyer, I found these suggestions extremely helpful and encourage trials lawyers to read the recent article.

• Act genuinely- It is important for defense lawyers to be themselves in the courtroom and allow elements of their personality to show. Jurors are intimidated by overly formal lawyers, so it is good to relax and show the jury that they can relate to you on a personal level rather than just a “business” level. Jurors, like everyone else, are more likely to believe you if they can empathize and trust what you are saying.

• Act respectively- It is common for opposing counsel to subconsciously intimidate one another with statements and mannerisms which may come across as rude or disrespectful. Campanini mentions how the most successful lawyers are those who treat everyone in the courtroom with respect, so that their statements are taken more seriously and with higher levels of consideration. Over-zealous or short tempered lawyers are least likely to create a positive impression on the jury, as they simply appear arrogant or insecure.

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court released today the Special Report it had a major Boston law firm prepare on OUI convictions rates following a three part series published by the Boston Globe. The special report makes numerous recommendations geared toward increasing the conviction rate for OUI offenses.

As a Massachusetts OUI lawyer, the most remarkable part of the report is that the highest Court in Massachusetts is seeking recommendations geared toward increasing a result in a particular type of case. The report undermines the idea that the Court should be neutral and about protecting Constitutional rights. While a report like this would be appropriate for a district attorney or journalist, it is disturbing that the Court would sanction a report to investigate the outcomes in a particular charge.

The Supreme Court hired a major Boston law firm to conduct this research addressing the issues raised by the Boston Globe. Apparently, the attorneys at the firm reviewed OUI cases looked at police reports, and in the report state that they agreed with some not guilty verdicts, thought other cases could have gone either way and disagreed with other verdicts. There is a clear difference between reading a police report and even listening to testimony on a CD as compared to seeing it live at trial. Communication experts teach that over 70% of communication is nonverbal so the way it is communicated in court and its value and impact on a judge listening to the testimony cannot be measured by reading the report or listening to a transcript.

Hall of Fame catcher Carlton Fisk was arrested and charged with DUI in Illinois this week.

ESPN Chicago reported police found Fisk passed out behind the wheel of his vehicle in the middle of a cornfield. New Lenox Deputy Chief Bob Pawlisk said Fisk was charged with a lane violation, driving under the influence and illegal transportation of alcohol.

Police say an open vodka bottle was found in his vehicle. As a Massachusetts DUI defense lawyer more information is needed to determine the best course of action. Did Fisk submit to a breathalyzer or was he given a blood test? Did he perform field sobriety tests? Is there a medical condition involved that could help explain how he ended up in the middle of the field? The fact that he was found on private property could also complicate things for prosecutors.

“They contacted local paramedics in New Lenox, had him examined, and the officers had reason to believe he was under the influence,” Pawlisk said. Fisk was transported to the local hospital.

The 64-year-old Fisk posted bond and was released. He is due back in court on Nov. 29.

Fisk played for the Red Sox upon entering the major league in 1969 and was a member of the 1975 World Series team. His last game was in 1980. Ironically, his arrest came just one day after the 37th anniversary of his game-clinching home run in Game 6 against the Cincinnati Reds. The Reds went on to win Game 7. Fisk signed with the Chicago White Sox in 1981 and retired from baseball in 1993.

Thus, Pudge was a Sox of one sort or another for his entire career. He was the first player to be unanimously voted American League Rookie of the Year when he took the award in 1972. At the time of his retirement, he held the record for most home runs all-time by a catcher (351). Until July 2009, he held the record for most consecutive games as a catcher (2,226).

He is still the American League record holder for most years behind the plate (24). Also known as a fierce competitor and a superb handler of pitchers, Fisk was an 11 time All-Star.

He was inducted into the Hall of Fame in 2000.

In Illinois, a first-offense DUI is punishable by a one-year suspension of your driver’s license. Massachusetts DUI Law (MGL c.90, s.24) also outlines possible penalties that include license suspension, as well as fines and jail time. A typical disposition for a first-time offender is a 45-day license suspension, completion of an alcohol-education class, fines and court costs.

Fisk now lives in New Lenox, Illinois. However, many times an out-of-state charge can pose additional hassle for the defendant. And Boston is a frequent tourist destination. Fighting an out-of-state DUI charge is just as important. With increasing frequency, such cases are being used to enhance future charges in a driver’s home state should a subsequent arrest occur. An experienced defense attorney can work to reach a favorable resolution in your case without you ever returning to appear in court. Even in the worst case scenario, these cases can be properly defended with a single court appearance arranged to meet a defendant’s schedule.
Continue Reading ›