Keegan Law’s Recent Case Results in Massachusetts
View our recent and notable case results to see what we’ve done for past clients. Contact our office today to learn what Keegan Law can do for you.
After a nearly week long jury trial in Middlesex Superior Court, our client was found NOT GUILTY of a DUI/OUI 4 th offense in which he faces a mandatory sentence of two and a half years if convicted. In addition to the OUI charge, the jury heard evidence of a pedestrian that was seriously injured before our client’s pickup truck hit an oil truck that was part of a construction crew working on the roadway. There were two witnesses that came in from the road crew and identified my client and testified that they saw him behind the driver’s wheel after the accident, that they saw him trying to leave the scene, and that they forcefully took him out of the driver’s seat and held him until police showed up. As a result of our investigation we were able to illicit from two witnesses that my client was in the passenger seat and that he did not try to flee the scene.
We received a CASE DISMISSAL in Quincy District Court for a case in which our client was alleged to have committed an assault and battery. The alleged victim told police that an assault and battery had occurred but refused medical attention. There was also a witness to the alleged incident.
Our client was allegedly the passenger in a car who stepped out of the vehicle and fired a weapon 15 times at an unknown person before fleeing the scene. The DA obtained video footage of the incident and presented it at trial. The gun was found about 45 minutes later in the Codefendant’s safe who was the driver of the car in the shooting. The Codefendant flipped on our client and testified against him after receiving a deal that would keep him out of jail. He claimed that our client was in fact the shooter and that they went back to the Codefendant’s house and my client put the gun in the safe and they went outside when police pulled up. The police came to the house because a license plate number was seen at the scene of the shooting by a witness and she provided it to police who ran the plate and found that it was registered to the codefendant.
We obtained a not guilty verdict for a client charged with negligent operation of a motor vehicle after he allegedly drove in the emergency lane and hit another vehicle. According to three witnesses and a state trooper, the client caused a five-care pile up and injured seven people. After witnesses testified in court, we cross examined witnesses and determined that no one actually saw the client operate a vehicle prior to the accident.
A Trooper testified that our client was “all over the road” and that “he fell down upon exiting his vehicle.” The Trooper went on to testify that our client had a “strong odor of alcohol, that his eyes were glassy and bloodshot and that he was very unsteady on his feet.” There was further testimony from the Trooper that he conducted two field sobriety tests on our client and that he failed miserably. The Trooper added that he had to discontinue the tests for the safety of our client.
Our client was charged with Possession of Class B with the intent to distribute. The charge was dismissed when the Commonwealth decided they couldn’t purse the case due to the lack of being able to identify our client.
Our client met with us several times, went to the scene and we prepared him for his testimony. Our client testified and filled in some of the blanks that the Trooper had left out. We investigated the Trooper and found that he had recently been suspended from work due to his conduct. We further found that the Trooper had never received the necessary basic training on the field sobriety testing.With the proper preparation we were able to secure a not guilty for our client.
A client was charged with Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon and was accused of stabbing her boyfriend twice. After hearing the prosecutions evidence which consisted of two police officers, a police detective, a hospital security officer, and after reviewing medical records of the victim and photos of the victim’s injuries, our firm motioned the Court for a Required Finding of Not Guilty. The judge agreed, allowed the motion and found our client Not Guilty.
Not guilty after trial. The Trooper testified that our client was “all over the road” and that “he fell down upon exiting his vehicle.” The Trooper went on to testify that our client had a “strong odor of alcohol, that his eyes were glassy and bloodshot and that he was very unsteady on his feet.” There was further testimony from the Trooper that he conducted two field sobriety tests on our client and that he failed miserably. The Trooper added that he had to discontinue the tests for the safety of our client. Our client met with us several times; we went to the scene and prepared him for his testimony.
Our client ended up testifying and filled in some of the blanks that the Trooper had left. We had previously investigated the Trooper and found that he had recently been suspended from work due to his conduct. We further found that the Trooper had never received the necessary basic training on the field sobriety testing. With the proper preparation we were able to secure a not guilty for our client.
Hung jury after trial. The testimony for the police officer was that he pulled over a motor vehicle in which our client was located in the front passenger seat. After the officer arrested the driver he had our client exit the motor vehicle because he saw her reaching under her legs on three occasions. When she got up he saw a wallet and upon searching the wallet he found several rocks of crack cocaine. A technician from the drug lab testified that it was in fact crack cocaine.
We were able to cross examine the police officer and extract that he, in no uncertain terms, did not want to testify that the wallet was a style that would be carried by a male and that a male had been driving the motor vehicle. The jury deliberated over two days but could not reach a unanimous decision. After having the crack in her legal possession, our client was able to leave the court house having held her record in check and not having a guilty on her record. The District Attorney’s Office is reviewing the case to see if they will try it again.
In Essex County, our client received a not guilty after a jury trial for a second DUI/OUI offense; that offense carries a minimum 90 day house of correction sentence that can be suspended for 18 months, plus an automatic 2 year loss of license with no hardship eligibility for at least one year. This means a guaranteed loss of license for at least one year. The arresting officer testified that at 2:30 in the morning, our client made an illegal U-turn, went up the on ramp to Route 95, crossing the fog line and kicking up sand and rocks that hit the officer’s windshield and cruiser. He then watched our client enter the highway at 70 mph while entering the second lane of travel while showing no regard for other cars on the road. He then said that our client straddled two lanes almost directly in the middle of two lanes for at least a couple of hundred yards.
He then pulled over our client who he stated had a strong odor of alcohol with red and glassy eyes. He testified that our client was nervous, speaking barely audible and was not looking at the officer as if trying to avoid eye contact. The officer asked him how much to drink and our client said about 4 or 5 beers. The officer asked him to get out of his truck and had him perform the one-legged stand, as well as the nine-step walk-and-turn in which he testified that our client failed both tests. Our client was then arrested and brought to the station where he blew a 0.17 and a 0.15 percent.
A second officer, who was a lieutenant, testified that he booked our client and that he appeared intoxicated and he had a strong odor of alcohol with bloodshot and glassy eyes. Our client testified that he did in fact have four beers but it was over the course of several hours. He also told the jury that he was extremely nervous which is why he didn’t perform as well as he wished he had on the field sobriety tests. Before the trial, we prepared by going to the scene of the arrest, obtaining the officer’s training manual, and meeting with and preparing our client to testify. We were able to cross-examine the police officer with a great amount of success due to our preparation and our firm’s experience as a police officer having been trained at the Boston Police Academy. Our experience both as an attorney and a police officer helped us to persuade the jury that our client was not guilty. They agreed when the Judge asked them if they reached a verdict by responding with our client’s name and announcing in a loud tone “Not guilty!”
In Suffolk County, our client went to trial after he was accused of assault and battery on his former girlfriend. The ex-girlfriend flew up from Florida on the morning of the trial to testify against him. She told the jury that when she came home from work, the two of them were in an argument that ended when our client punched her several times then picked her up and threw her down the stairs. Two police officers were also there to testify on the behalf of the Commonwealth.
A mistrial was declared because evidence was introduced at trial on behalf of the Commonwealth that should not have been introduced. In order for our client to be tried again, the Commonwealth must have the former girlfriend fly back up from Florida to testify all over again. After speaking with the alleged victim after the trial she was clearly not happy that the trial ended as it did and did not seem too enthused about flying back to testify again. If she does not show up the case should be dismissed.
Operating Under the Influence (OUI) charge scheduled for trial. It was alleged that the client passed out at the wheel of the car and crashed into a curb. She took a Breathalyzer and the reading was a .18%, which is more than double the legal limit. It was also alleged that the client was intoxicated by appearance and failed several field sobriety tests. The Commonwealth answered “not ready” for trial and after hearing the defense motion and the judge dismissed the case.