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 5: Drunk-driving cases are just like any other criminal case.

Nothing could be farther from the truth. In many areas, the courts handle these cases differently from other offenses. Here are two examples that make the point.

First, consider the normal prosecution where the state proposes to use physical evidence as part of its case-in-chief. For example, suppose John Doe is charged with murder, having allegedly shot Tom Jones. The prosecution will normally order ballistics tests, take blood spatter patterns and fingerprints, and collect other physical evidence. That evidence is always subject to independent analysis by the defense attorney representing the accused.

This is not true in drunk-driving cases, where breath tests usually are not required to be preserved. Very few states require police officers taking a breath sample to capture some of the breath so it can be analyzed independently at a later date. Yet, all modern breath-analysis machines can provide sealed samples at a minimal cost. The U.S. Supreme Court has said that it is perfectly acceptable that such critical evidence is destroyed, even where the state could have preserved it for less than $1 per sample.