Your Massachusetts DWI Lawyer wants you to be well informed. These 5 myths about Drunk Driving, by William C. Head, should give you food for thought when selecting you own OUI attorney.
Note: These article is for informational purposes only. Please consult your Stephen Jones for legal advice if you are facing issues with the OUI (also known as DUI) law in Massachusetts
This article was reprinted with permission of TRIAL (March 1993)
Copyright the Association of Trial Lawyers of America
Myth Number 1: Most people accused of this crime are guilty.
This is perhaps the most troubling myth—one harbored by attorneys and the general public. In my opinion, an attorney who believes this should never represent a person accused of drunk driving. That mind-set can eliminate objectivity.
In the overwhelming majority of drunk-driving cases in which a chemical test is obtained by police, an infrared breath analysis machine is used, not a blood test. This primary evidence is vulnerable to attack by a skillful practitioner.
Most attorneys have no idea how woefully inadequate infrared breath machine are as evidence-gathering devices. These machines are so unsophisticated that virtually no scientist would ever trust the results as a basis for scholarly research or scientific investigation. Yet attorneys assume that since the state has approved the machine, its accuracy and reliability are not subject to challenge.
There are at least 30 ways to rebut the evidence from these machines if the attorney understands how the machines work, what causes them to malfunction, and that they are nonspecific for alcohol. Without doing exhaustive research, no attorney would understand their internal workings enough to cross-examine the state's witnesses effectively on their alleged accuracy.
The "opinion" evidence gathered by police officers typically consists of field or roadside sobriety tests. These agility tests are supposed to indicate that the person suspected of drunk driving was actually impaired or in some way "a less safe driver."
|