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.

Our client was alleged to have one of two people who pulled out a gun and a baseball bat and threaten other individuals before leaving the scene. The police pulled over a vehicle, found a fun and a baseball bat, and had the alleged victims identify our client. We won a Motion to Suppress the stop, the weapons, and the identifications, as our client’s constitutional rights were violated.

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 legal team obtained a NOT GUILTY verdict on five counts, including assault with a dangerous weapon, carrying a concealed firearm, possession of a large capacity feeding device, possession of ammunition, possession of loaded firearm.

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.

Our client was charged with OUI Drugs and Negligent Operation of a motor vehicle after being found passed out behind the wheel of a running car in the middle of the road at 2 am. Police report stated that client was unresponsive, very difficult to arouse, and admitted to smoking marijuana and taking drugs they did not have a prescription for. There was also a civilian witness. Client was transported to hospital for evaluation. We were contacted right away by the client, even before arraignment. We handled the case very aggressively from the start. We filed motions regarding medical records. After a hearing before a judge, we were able to convince the judge to dismiss all charges. Our experience as police officers coupled with our advanced training through our membership at the Nation College of DUI Defense, Inc. has given us the tools that most criminal defense lawyers do not have to be successful with these types of cases. The client hugged our attorneys when leaving the courtroom.

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 OUI (2nd offense). The case was dismissed over the Commonwealth’s objection. They were not ready on the day of trial due to missing evidence. If our client was found guilty he was facing potential house of correction time and a lengthy license loss.

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 was scheduled to go into trial after being charged with larceny over $250 and Malicious Damage to Motor Vehicle. There was a break in at a car dealership where several motor vehicles were damaged. Some tires and rims were stolen from the motor vehicles. A security guard noticed the damage and the missing tires and went to the front of the dealership where he saw a partial plate and the make and color of our client’s car fleeing the scene. Police followed up on the report and charged our client with the crimes. We prepared the case for trial and the Commonwealth made a decision to dismiss the charges at trial after they determined that they would not be able to obtain a conviction.

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.

In Boston Municipal Count, our client was charged with possessing marijuana with the intent to distribute it. The police testified that they pulled a motor vehicle over in which our client was a passenger. Upon approaching the vehicle they could smell a very “pungent odor of marijuana.” They asked the driver of the car and our client questions. They eventually asked my client to step out of the vehicle. They searched him and found several bags of marijuana, along with money in his pockets. They searched the car and found a scale in the center console.The judge agreed with us and ordered that my client’s constitutional rights were violated because the police ordered my client from car as well as unlawfully searched. The judge ordered the drugs and the money be suppressed.

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.

A client in Suffolk Superior Court was facing a trafficking of cocaine charge of more than 56 grams. The case was investigated by the DEA and with the help of the Boston Police Department. Our client was facing a mandatory minimum of 5 years in prison on this count.We went to trial and the Commonwealth had the DEA Confidential Source who buys drugs as a part time job testify that he in fact bought 56 grams of cocaine from our client outside of a restaurant in Dorchester. A DEA agent and Boston Police Detective also testified that they witnessed what they believed to be a drug transaction and shortly thereafter met with the buyer of the drugs who turned the drugs over to the DEA. They in turn shipped the drugs to their lab in New York City.After three days of trial the jury came back with a not guilty on the trafficking charge.

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.

In a trial in Boston Municipal Court, the prosecution alleges that our client stabbed his girlfriend several times. The Prosecution had two police officers, a detective and a City Paramedic that treated the victim on the stand. The witnesses testified that the victim had wounds consistent with a stabbing, they introduced medical records, photographs of the wounds, as well as an “admission” by our client. A police officer testified that while our client was at the hospital being treated by a nurse that we was asked “What are you under arrest for” and the police officer testified that our client said “I am under arrest because I stabbed my girlfriend.”After deliberating for a little more than an hour the jury came back with a Not Guilty verdict.

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 Suffolk County, our client received a “not guilty” after a jury trial for threats to commit a crime; she also had a charge of identity fraud dismissed after we motioned the Court. The alleged victim testified that our client communicated to her that she was going to “fuck her up if you don’t stop messing with my man.” The victim notified the police and charges were made against our client. The victim also alleged that client stole the victim’s identity and stole internet service as well to try and gain access to the financial record of the victim. On the day of trial, the Commonwealth knew they couldn’t go forward on the identify fraud and didn’t object to our request for a dismissal.On the threats charge, the victim testified that she knew our client for a period of time due to them both dating the same man. The victim testified that our client called her several times and told her that she was going to physically assault her when she saw her. After meeting and preparing our client to testify, she testified that she never communicated that to the victim. The Commonwealth tried to twist her words and asked her about her motive to threaten the victim with regard to the man that our client was previously dating and the alleged victim was still dating. After deliberating, the jury came back with a not guilty; our client was thrilled with the outcome.

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!”

Our client received a not guilty in the Boston Municipal Court on the charges of assault and battery with a dangerous weapon. The alleged victim, as a well as an eyewitness, testified that our client was arguing with said victim when our client punched the victim and a fight ensued. During the fight, they alleged that our client took out a knife and cut the victim on the head. The fight ended and the police and ambulance were called. Our client was arrested and the victim went to the hospital and had 19 staples put in their head to close the wound.The Commonwealth introduced a graphic picture of the just closed wound as well as EMT records and hospital records for the jury to review. Our client and we prepared testimony and went over the case at length. Our client testified that there was a fight but that any punches were thrown on behalf of our client were done so in self-defense. As for the wound, our client explained that it was probably sustained by the fence that they had both fallen on. After deliberating, the jury came back with a 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.

Client charged with assault and battery of a police officer scheduled for trial for the sixth time in the past thirteen months. The arresting officer claimed that our client assaulted him, and that multiple officers were needed to subdue the defendant. The Commonwealth arrived at court without the evidence necessary to proceed, even after bringing it on earlier occasions. As a result, our motion was granted and the case 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.

Our client went to trial after being indicted for rape. The alleged victim made the accusation that while he was 15 years old he had sexual encounters with my client more than 100 times. He testified to this but during cross examination he could not tell an accurate story with the stories that he had told in the past. The alleged victim is now 20 years old and it was apparent after we put on our defense that my client was not guilty and she received the verdict that she deserved. Our client was found Not Guilty in Brockton Superior Court.