License Suspension and OUI Case Results

OUI 2nd Offense– Worcester District Court – Not Guilty – October 2023

On February 20, 2022, at approximately 12:30 A.M., the State Police observed our clients vehicle in the breakdown lane on the Mass Pike. The vehicle was not operational when state police arrived. According to the State Trooper, our client admitted that his vehicle ran out of gas. The Trooper further observed that our client smelled strongly of alcohol, had bloodshot, glossy eyes, and exhibited slurred speech. He asked our client if they had anything to drink, to which he admitted to 5-6 nips earlier in the evening. After having our client exit his vehicle and perform field sobriety tests, the Trooper placed him under arrest.

Fortunately, Attorney Matthew Gilman was able to highlight many of the flaws in this officer’s findings during cross-examination. Attorney Gilman initiated his argument by attacking the officer’s observations, such as our client’s glossy and bloodshot eyes. In this case, he stated that the bloodshot eyes could have been caused by a variety of things, including restlessness or allergies. He also noted alcohol lacks scent, that the odor detected does not tell the court anything. Moreover, Attorney Gilman highlighted how perfectly his client had pulled into the breakdown lane. Moreover, Attorney Gilman highlighted how his client provided his license and registration without any issue and was able to exit from his vehicle perfectly. Finally, Attorney Gilman noted how well our client did during the 9-step walk and run and the one-leg stand field sobriety tests.

OUR CLIENT WAS DEEMED NOT GUILTY AND NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL CHARGES

Practice Area: DUI/DWI

Court: Worcester District Court

Attorney: Matthew Gilman

OUI Liquor and OUI Drugs, 2nd Offense – Judge Found the Client Not Guilty of Both Charges – Dudley District Court – September 2023

On June 3, 2022, around 1:50 A.M., our client walked into the Massachusetts State Police Barracks in Charlton for help after running out of gas on the Mass Pike. During their interaction, the Troopers smelled an odor of alcohol coming from our client’s mouth, slurred speech, and glassy and bloodshot eyes.

While sitting in the Barracks, the client removed a bottle of prescription Oxycodone pills from their pocket and made an admission to taking the pills two hours prior. The client also made admissions to drinking two margaritas earlier in the night. Based on these admissions and their observations, the Troopers requested our client perform field sobriety tests in the lobby of the Barracks. The troopers claimed that the client’s performance on both the Walk and Turn and One Leg Stand indicated impairment.

Before trial, Attorney Matthew Gilman was successful in his argument to exclude the video evidence, leaving the Troopers’ testimony as the sole evidence against our client. What solidified Attorney Gilman’s case, however, was his ability to develop a creative defense by recognizing a critical hole in the Commonwealth’s case.

On cross-examination, Attorney Gilman meticulously elicited from the Trooper that our client was never asked what time the margaritas were consumed, what time the car ran out of gas, how long the client waited in the car before walking to the Barracks, or how long it took the client to walk from the car to the Barracks. Both Troopers conceded that timing was an important factor in making the determination of impairment, yet both admitted that they never asked the client these important questions.

As a result, Attorney Gilman was able to persuasively argue in closing that despite the client’s admission to drinking alcohol and taking prescription drugs, the Commonwealth offered no evidence of impairment at the time of operation.

Fortunately, the judge recognized this critical piece of missing evidence and found the client NOT GUILTY ON BOTH COUNTS OF OUI LIQUOR AND OUI DRUGS.

Practice Area: OUI

Court: Dudley District Court

Attorney: Matthew Gilman

Operating Under the Influence of Alcohol, 4th offense and Operating After Suspension for Operating under the influence of alcohol while operating under the influence of Alcohol - Jury found the Client Not Guilty of Both Charges - Gardner/Winchendon & Fitchburg District Court

In November 2021 client was involved in a serious motor vehicle accident. When police arrived she denied driving and refused to provide her identity. After subsequent investigation including a dog search police determined she was the driver and she was charged with operating under the influence of alcohol, 4th offense, and operating after suspension for operating under the influence while operating under the influence. This second charge occurs when at the time a person is charged with an OUI their license is still suspended for a prior OUI. There is case law that indicates that although potentially prejudicial the evidence for why the person's license is suspended does not require bifurcation or splitting of the two charges. Therefore, unlike in a typical trial where the majority of prior offenses do NOT come into evidence if a person is facing these two charges, the jury WILL hear that the client had a prior OUI conviction. It can be difficult for jurors to separate a person's past behavior in determining their guilt in a case where they are charged with the same offense again.

In addition to the evidence that this client had a prior OUI conviction, the government introduced testimony from four police witnesses as well as video of the client from the night of arrest that showed slurred speech, aggression, confusion, and difficulty with balance. At trial Attorney Gaudreau was able to get officers to admit many of the symptoms they were observing were also consistent with a head injury. The officers testified at trial that the client refused medical treatment at the scene however Attorney Gaudreau was able to show that during booking the client made two requests to be evaluated medically and an evaluation never occurred. Further Attorney Gaudreau submitted medical records of the client showing that the client had a significant head trauma history and continued to complain of headaches to her doctor two months after her arrest.

The jury returned NOT GUILTY verdicts on both charges.

Practice Area: DUI/DWI

Court: Gardner/Winchendon & Fitchburg District Court

Attorney: Matthew Gilman

Leaving the Scene of Property Damage – Fitchburg District Court – Case Dismissed on Motion to Dismissed – August 2023

Our client was involved in a motor vehicle accident after sideswiping another car in a parking lot and leaving the scene. An eyewitness to the accident took a photograph of the client’s license plate, which was provided to the responding police officer. The officer was able to look up the client’s license plate number and address but did not immediately issue a citation.

Later that same day, our client proactively called Fitchburg PD to report his involvement in the accident and provide his contact information. However, the officer did not return his call until nine days after the accident. Several days later, the client received a citation in the mail and was informed that he was being criminally charged with Leaving the Scene of Property Damage.

Recognizing that the circumstances of the case offered a potential avenue of relief for our client, Attorney Gilman filed a Motion to Dismiss arguing that the officer failed to comply with the strict requirements of the Massachusetts “no fix” law. The law requires law enforcement officers to issue traffic citations “at the time and place of the violation,” subject to certain narrow exceptions including where additional time is needed to determine the identity of the violator.

At the motion hearing, through aggressive and strategic cross-examination of the police officer, Attorney Gilman was able to establish that there was no legitimate excuse for the officer’s failure to comply with the statute that would justify the delay in informing our client of the criminal charges. The judge agreed and dismissed the case with prejudice.

Practice Area: Leaving the Scene of Property Damage

Court: Fitchburg District Court

Attorney: Matthew Gilman

OUI – Ayer District Court – Not Guilty – August 2023

On October 8, 2022, at approximately 12:00 A.M., the Shirley Police observed our client operating at a speed estimated to be above the speed limit. According to the Sargent, he observed our client commit several lane violations.

At this point, the officer reported that our client smelled strongly of alcohol, had bloodshot, glossy eyes, and exhibited slurred speech. He asked our client if they had anything to drink, to which they said, “some drinks”. At this moment, the officer order our client out of his vehicle and placed him under arrest for OUI.

Fortunately, Attorney Matthew Gilman was able to highlight many of the flaws in this officer’s findings during cross-examination. Attorney Gilman initiated his argument by attacking the officer’s observations, such as our client’s glossy and bloodshot eyes. In this case, he stated that the bloodshot eyes could have been caused by a variety of things, including restlessness or allergies. He also noted alcohol lacks scent, that the odor detected does not tell the court anything. Moreover, Attorney Gilman highlighted how perfectly his client pulled over as directed, provided his license and registration without any issue and was able to exit from his vehicle perfectly. Finally, Attorney Gilman noted our client’s quick, effective responses and compliance which would likely not describe an intoxicated individual.

OUR CLIENT WAS DEEMED NOT GUILTY AND NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL CHARGES

Practice Area: DUI/DWI

Court: Ayer District Court

Attorney: Matthew Gilman

Operating to Endanger – Immediate Threat Suspension – Board of Appeals – August 2023

Our client received an immediate threat suspension on October 20, 2022. They were pulled over by the Whitman Police for driving erratically and failing to stop at a stop sign. According to the officer, our client was clearly tired and possibly falling asleep behind the wheel, which served as grounds for indefinite license revocation. Our client was not, however, given any criminal charges for their actions.

After consulting Attorney Matthew Gilman, our client received necessary legal guidance that would help them to get their license back. First, Attorney Gilman turned to the available medical concerns of the situation. Prior to visiting our office, our client had been prescribed medication which helps to combat the effects of insomnia. After visiting with medical experts at the request of Attorney Gilman, however, our client was deemed not only fit to drive but clear of any mental and motor impairments that could impact driving abilities.

With this information in mind, Attorney Gilman began his next phase of the argument. He attacked the current use of the immediate threat suspension, stating that it had served its purpose, and was beginning to overstep it. Attorney Gilman demonstrated that an immediate threat suspension is intended only to take a potentially dangerous driver off the road, and not to punish a competent driver that was once in question.

Finally, to ensure that justice was brought to our client, Attorney Gilman brought light to the destructive consequences that this revocation had. He mentioned our client’s inability to be employed and financial hardship as evidence.

The Board of Appeals found our client was medically qualified to operate safely and expired the immediate threat license suspension.

Practice Area: Immediate Threat License Suspension

Court: Board of Appeals

Attorney: Matthew Gilman

Incompetent Driver – Permanent License Suspension – Board of Appeals –Given an Opportunity – August 2023

Our client had their license permanently suspended due to being deemed incompetent on the road. They were initially given an immediate threat license suspension, which led to them having to retake the road tests. Unfortunately, they were unable to pass the road tests, and the Registry refused any further tests.

Unfortunately, our client was also enduring strenuous personal situations. While they were married, they were also separated from their significant other, which meant that they had to rely on friends as transportation. This was problematic, as work shift ended at 2:30 A.M. Moreover, they needed to be able to visit their son, who was hospitalized with schizophrenia. Evidently, the suspension proved to be incredibly harmful to our client, which is why they consulted Gilman Law.

After evaluating the situation, Attorney Matthew Gilman realized that our client could reasonably request a learner’s permit for another chance at the road test. He also knew, however, that this would be a difficult case to make, given questionable driving capabilities.

First, he began by approaching medical professionals. An initial medical evaluation proved that our client had only been prescribed one medication, and that they exhibited no signs of any condition that would impair their driving. Another psychiatric evaluation showed that our client did have some conditions such as previous alcohol dependence, but none that would impact driving. Both Attorney Gilman and the medical professionals concluded that our client would be capable of driving, barring any use of alcohol or illicit drugs. This was made convincing by the final medical evaluation that our client underwent, which showed that they had not consumed alcohol for many months.

With clear evidence that our client was making an effort to make a positive change alongside unique circumstances, Attorney Gilman knew that our client had a chance. With only a little more effort, and a little more care, he knew he could get out client the opportunity that they deserved. He did just that. Attorney Gilman pointed out the clear misuse of the immediate threat suspension, noting that our client was no longer a threat on the road, especially when being monitored by others. This was the final piece that won our client a chance to turn her life around.

OUR CLIENT WAS GIVEN A LEARNER’S PERMIT AS REQUESTED, AND GIVEN A CHANCE TO CHANGE THEIR LIFE.

Practice Area: Medical Immediate Threat

Court: Board of Appeals

Attorney: Matthew Gilman

Traffic Violation – Immediate Threat Suspension – Board of Appeals – License Reinstated – August 2023

When presented with a serious criminal charge such as OUI, most people make the wise decision to turn to an attorney for legal guidance. Unfortunately, not all attorneys are equally capable. An inexperienced or careless attorney can cause significant damage to case, or even lose it.

A situation similar to the one above presented itself recently at Gilman Law when a client approached Attorney Matt Gilman, stating that they had a mishandled traffic case. According to our client, they had allowed another attorney to handle criminal matters in a local District Court, which led to them being advised to agree to a plea deal which seemed more enticing than it should have been. This deal offered to reduce the original charge given from driving without proper insurance to a mere civil penalty, but it had one string attached – there would be a sixty-day license suspension. Overlooked by both the attorney and defendant, the plea deal was agreed upon. Our client was shocked when he received the license suspension notification.

When our client received notice that their license had been suspended, they contacted Attorney Gilman who quickly located the mistake. Within forty-eight hours of contact, Attorney Matthew Gilman was able to file a motion to reopen our client’s case and work with the court to amend the resolution and remove the license suspension.

ATTORNEY MATTHEW GILMAN RIGHTED THE WRONGS OF ANOTHER ATTORNEY AND BROUGHT JUSTICE TO OUR CLIENT.

Practice Area: Traffic Violations

Court: Board of Appeals

Attorney: Matthew Gilman

Immediate Threat Suspension – Board of Appeals – License Reinstated – August 2023

On August 9, 2021, our client received an immediate threat license suspension. On this day, the Northampton Police Department pulled over our client as a part of a random query, but found much more information than anticipated. First, they found that our client was operating a vehicle whilst his license was suspended. Moreover, the officer also found objects within the vehicle that were consistent with methamphetamine use. As a consequence, our client was arrested and charged. Additionally, the police requested that the Registry of Motor Vehicles issue an immediate threat license suspension.

Fortunately, we were able to establish that our client no longer posed a threat to public safety, which allowed Attorney Matthew Gilman to get their license back. First, Attorney Gilman used documents from family members, friends, and medical evaluations to prove that our client was making a concerted effort to overcome their substance abuse issues Additionally, these medical evaluations proved that our client had not been using illicit substances for months. Next, Attorney Gilman noted our client’s inability to get a job because of their suspension, which was causing them extreme financial hardship. Finally, he used the referenced the suspension law itself, which states that immediate threat suspensions are not intended to punish drivers, but rather to keep others safe. Attorney Gilman testified that this suspension was being used to punish the operator, and demonstrated through an abundance of evidence that his client was not endangering others. As a consequence, our client’s license was fully reinstated.

OUR CLIENT’S CASE WAS WON, AND THEIR LICENSE WAS REINSTATED.

Practice Area: Immediate Threat License Suspension

Court: Board of Appeals

Attorney: Matthew Gilman

OUI Drugs – Newburyport District Court – Dismissed – July 2023

On January 8, 2022, around 5:46 P.M. a police officer from the Salisbury Police Department witnessed a black Dodge Ram truck miss a turn into a Mobil gas station parking lot. After missing the entrance, the driver veered towards the gas station, driving over a curb and then through snow-covered grass. The officer then left their position and then headed in the direction of the gas station to investigate the situation. After stopping near the gas pumps, the officer exited their cruiser and headed towards the vehicle in question. While walking, the officer watched as the operator dislodged the truck from the snow-covered area and drove towards the rear of building. The officer then entered their vehicle again, following the truck with their emergency lights activated until the driver finally pulled over.

When asked to identify themselves, the operator retrieved their license and registration immediately, although they were accompanied by unnecessary insurance information. Throughout the process, the officer noted that the operator (who later became our client) processed instructions slowly and exhibited a “thousand-yard stare.”

At the scene, our client gave the officer all necessary details as requested. Additionally, when asked if they had taken any drugs or consumed any alcohol, our client admitted that they usually took prescription Adderall but had not that day, which was causing them to be slightly disoriented.

After this interaction with our client, the officer found it necessary to conduct a field sobriety test, which our client consented to. As requested, they exited the vehicle without any issues.

The officer noted consistently “poor” balance. Furthermore, they claimed that our client failed to count properly during the One-Leg Stand test, took an incorrect number of steps during the Heel-Toe Test, and counted to twenty seconds instead of thirty seconds during the Romberg test. With these errors amongst others, the officer placed them under arrest. After the complete investigation of the scene, the police also found containers of mixed prescription drugs within our client’s vehicle. With the given information, our client was charged with OUI drugs and possession of illegal drugs.

Through extensive medical evidence, documentation, and case-specific information, Attorney Julie Gaudreau was able to have the OUI drugs charge dismissed prior to trial.

Practice Area: OUI/Illegal Possession of Drugs

Court: Newburyport District Court

Attorney: Julie Gaudreau

OUI – Leominster District Court – Not Guilty – July 2023

On March 23, around 1:30 P.M., an officer from the Holden Police Department was dispatched to a single-vehicle accident. Upon arrival, the officer found a red Toyota Rav4 that was still running while lodged in a ditch. The officer then spoke with the driver, who seemed to be physically stable and responsive. While near the vehicle, he noted that its interior smelled distinctly of alcohol, and that the operator had glassy eyes.

Our client shortly after stepped out of their vehicle to speak with the officer while EMTs and towing services came. During the conversation, the officer learned that our client had consumed one alcoholic beverage (specifically vodka) before the accident. When asked how the accident occurred, our client responded that their vehicle’s sensors had malfunctioned, which prevented them from turning and caused them to drive into the nearby ditch.

Our client did however agree to partake in the standard field sobriety test, which took them through the one-leg stand and walk-and-turn tests, all of which they reportedly failed. Prior to the exercises our client told the officer she suffered from tremors and leg injuries. The officer later claimed that our client was unable to balance for more than a second at a time and could not count aloud as instructed.

On cross-examination, Attorney Gilman constructed a creative and persuasive argument that was ultimately effective. First, Attorney Gilman noted that our client was able to remove themselves from their car, speak, behave, and retrieve their license in a manner that did not indicate impairment. Moreover, he used existing evidence to convince the court to disregard the officers statements about glassy eyes and the scent of alcohol.

Arguably the most important factor of Attorney Gilman’s cross-examination was his analysis of the field sobriety tests. By questioning the officer’s proceedings after being advised that our client was physically disadvantaged, he was able to persuade the court into agreeing that the results of the physical tests were irrelevant.

Finally, Attorney Gilman was able to have our client’s statements about drinking disregarded, as he argued that they never stated when the drink was consumed, which meant that it could no longer be impactful. Through various references to the NHSTA Field Sobriety Test manual, scientific information, and case-based details, Attorney Gilman was able to achieve justice for our client.

OUR CLIENT WAS PROVEN NOT GUILTY AND HER LICENSE WAS REINSTATED.

Practice Area: DUI/DWI

Court: Leominster District Court

Attorney: Matthew Gilman

OUI – Milford District Court – Not Guilty – July 2023

On October 23, 2022, at approximately 10:00 P.M., the Hopedale Police were informed of an accident involving a collision with a deer. When the Hopedale officer arrived on scene, he found a grey Infiniti SUV with significant damage to its passenger side pulled over on the side of the road. After briefly investigating the scene, the officer determined that the vehicle had struck a tree. Standing by the vehicle was our client, who explained that they thought that they had struck a deer. When the officer asked if our client had hit a tree, our client replied that they were unsure, and may have.

At this point, the officer reported that our client smelled strongly of alcohol, had bloodshot, glossy eyes, and exhibited slurred speech. He asked our client if they had anything to drink, to which they said, “two Allagash beers,” which they reportedly mispronounced multiple times. At this moment, the officer decided that it would be necessary to conduct a field sobriety test, which our client agreed to complete.

The officer request our client perform the standard field sobriety tests including the Walk-and-Turn Test, and the One-Leg Stand. Prior to the Walk-And-Turn test, the officer asked our client if they had any medical conditions that could influence their performance. Our client advised that they had both hips replaced about seven years ago, although they did not believe that it would influence their results. During the test, our client apparently struggled to balance, place their feet in proper starting position, and even begin the test. After multiple attempts, our client had given up, and decided to no longer continue with the field sobriety tests. It should be noted that the officer reported perpetual swaying, imbalance, and alcoholic odor throughout his interaction with our client.

Fortunately, Attorney Matthew Gilman was able to highlight many of the flaws in this officer’s findings during cross-examination. Attorney Gilman initiated his argument by attacking the officer’s observations, such as our client’s glossy and bloodshot eyes. In this case, he stated that the bloodshot eyes could have been caused by a variety of things, including restlessness or allergies. He also noted alcohol lacks scent, and therefore could not have been what the officer smelled at the scene.

What solidified Attorney Gilman’s case, however, was his argument about the unfair tests that our client was presented with. He claimed that our client, who clearly had issues with their legs, are disadvantaged when given physical balance tests, which therefore could cause a wrongful conviction. He stated that the officer could have offered other mental acuity tests rather than the physical tests, which would have given a fairer opportunity to our client.

Finally, Attorney Gilman noted our client’s quick, effective responses and compliance which would likely not describe an intoxicated individual.

OUR CLIENT WAS DEEMED NOT GUILTY.

Practice Area: DUI/DWI

Court: Milford District Court

Attorney: Matthew Gilman

OUI – Westborough District Court – Not Guilty – July 2023

Just before midnight on December 21, 2022, an officer from the Framingham Police Department observed a black Volvo XC-90 driving over the median. The officer continued to watch this vehicle, which later crossed into other lanes various times, even occasionally endangering other drivers. Resultingly, the officer began to follow the vehicle, which eventually led to the driver being pulled over.

At the stop, the officer noted that the car smelled strongly of alcohol, and that our client had bloodshot eyes accompanied by slurred speech. When the officer asked why our client was unable to stay within the marked lanes, our client responded that they were “just driving.” Our client later claimed that they were driving back home from work and had not consumed any alcoholic beverages.

The office later requested that our client submit to a field sobriety test, to which they agreed. During this test, our client reportedly struggled with the first nine steps of the heel-to-toe test, although improving during the second nine. As for the one-leg stand test, they proved unable to balance consistently on one foot, putting their foot down multiple times throughout. Consequently, our client was placed under arrest, and brought into police custody. During the investigation of the scene, Framingham Police were able to locate four open alcoholic beverage containers, of which three were fully empty.

Fortunately, Attorney Matthew Gilman was able to bring justice to our client by showing overlooked details in the police report. Attorney Gilman was able to show that our client had no difficulties following the directions or commands of the officer which included retrieving his license and registration and exiting the vehicle. In addition, Attorney Gilman was able to show the court that when the officer put on his lights, our client was able to effortlessly pull their car to the side of the road showing a full command of the vehicle.

In addition, Attorney Gilman attacked the arresting officers' observations. On cross examination the officer could not tell the court how much alcohol if any our client consumed, when it was consumed or what was consumed. Finally, Attorney Gilman was able to give plausible other reasons for our client’s appearance of which alcohol would play no part. Lastly, Attorney Gilman attacked the officer's directions during the field sobriety tests and on cross examination showed our client passed the one legal stand. This was enough to make a compelling case, which led to a not guilty verdict for our client.

OUR CLIENT WAS FOUND NOT GUILTY.

Practice Area: DUI/DWI

Court: Westborough District Court

Attorney: Julie Gaudreau

Junior Operator License Suspension – Board Of Appeals – License Reinstated – June 2023

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts has some of most aggressive legislation for junior operators (individuals within the 16 ½ to 18-year-old range) in the country. For example, any junior operator that is found speeding will be punished with the following:

• A ninety-day license suspension
• A five-hundred-dollar license reinstatement fee
• Two compulsory learning courses
• Required retaking of the learner’s permit and road tests.

Furthermore, if a junior operator continues to violate the law, they can be subject to increasingly harsh punishment. It is necessary to bear in mind that speeding is simply one of numerous violations that a junior operator may face, and that there are many laws made exclusively for these young drivers.

Unfortunately, one of our clients was issued a speeding citation, thus causing their license to be revoked. This was a devastating situation for our client, as they used their license to support themselves and other family members.

Therefore, Gilman Law brought this case to the Board of Appeals. Here, Attorney Matthew Gilman noted that our client needed this license to work and transport themselves and others to school in a safe and reliable manner. The Board of Appeals found this to be a convincing appeal, and consequently reinstated our client’s license.

OUR CLIENT’S LICENSE WAS FULLY REINSTATED WITHOUT ANY RESTRICTIONS.

Practice Area: Speeding

Court: Board of Appeals

Attorney: Matthew Gilman

Immediate Threat – Negligent Operation – License Reinstatement

On September 6, 2020, Edgartown Police and Fire Rescue were dispatched to a single-car accident. The reporting party claimed that the vehicle had driven across the street and into the woods in an uncontrolled manner.

When the officers arrived at the scene, they found our client, who explained that their vehicle unexpectedly accelerated against their will. Our client also noted that they tried to brake, but it was not enough to stop the vehicle. Resultingly, our client was forced to swerve around a group of cyclists and into the woods, where the car later became stuck.

During the investigation, the officers were able to determine a few important facts. The first was that our client was not intoxicated in any way. Our client was able to start their vehicle (which had an interlock ignition system installed) without any problems, which guaranteed this finding. Second, the cyclists at the scene noted that they did hear the engine of the vehicle rev before driving past them. Finally, the officers found no vehicular malfunctions when the vehicle was retrieved and therefore assumed that our client accidentally stepped on the accelerator instead of the brake pedal. They warned our client not to use it, however, until it was properly inspected by a mechanic. Our client was issued a citation for negligent operation and a marked lanes violation, with an immediate threat license suspension until given further notice.

This case was brought to the Board of Appeals, where Attorney Matthew Gilman was able to get our client’s license reinstated. Using their medical history, lack of mental disorder diagnoses, and other situational factors, Attorney Gilman was able to appeal to the board’s greater reasoning. Our client’s needs were fully satisfied, without exception.

OUR CLIENT’S LICENSE WAS REINSTATED FULLY.

Practice Area: Negligent Operation

Court: Board of Appeals

Attorney: Matthew Gilman

OUI 2nd Offense – Worcester District Court – Not Guilty – June 2023

At 7:35 P.M. on April 15, 2022, a Worcester Police Officer was dispatched to a single vehicle accident with reported injuries. Upon arrival, the officer witnessed our client’s Ford F-250 resting on its passenger side across a driveway. Sitting on a rock wall nearby was our client, who was reportedly falling in and out of consciousness.

The officer, who had begun to assume that our client was intoxicated, later spoke to a witness, who claimed that he had tried to help our client back his vehicle up. He stated that our client had then driven over a curb and a small rock wall, which had led to the vehicle rolling and landing in a nearby driveway.

When questioned, our client refused to answer almost everything, although they did consent to the field sobriety tests. During the investigation of the scene, the officer reported that he had found a half-empty bottle of D’usse Cognac within the Ford F-250 that our client was driving.

At trial, Attorney Gilman successfully excluded three crucial pieces of evidence, which collectively set our client free. First, Attorney Gilman demonstrated that the caller of the towing company was not able to be authenticated, thus removing them from the court’s consideration. Next, any mention of or testimony of observations made during the horizontal nystagmus test were excluded, as Attorney Gilman argued that it would take a more scientifically qualified person to properly understand the results, which the court agreed with. Finally, the Commonwealth was prohibited from discussing any field sobriety testing performed by our client. On cross-examination, Attorney Gilman was able to establish that his client was polite and cooperative, was able to follow all commands and instructions of the officer and was not unsteady or swaying in any manner. Additionally, Attorney Gilman was able to establish that observations made by the arresting officer could have been caused by reasons other than alcohol consumption.

Practice Area: DUI/DWI

Court: Worcester District Court

Attorney: Matthew Gilman

OUI – MALDEN DISTRICT COURT – NOT GUILTY, JUNE, 2023

On the evening of April 29, 2022, our client was placed under arrest for a marked lanes violation and OUI Liquor. The arresting officer arrived at the scene of a head-on collision, between our client and a bus. The collision sent our client’s vehicle into an embankment across the street. Our client had admitted to the police department she was coming from a bar and had taken two shots of tequila. The officer claims that our client was unsteady, eyes red and glassy, slurred speech, and detected the scent of alcohol coming from her person. She was asked to perform two sobriety tests, which she complied to. During the walk and turn test, our client stepped offline multiple times and took 10 steps on the second set. When performing the one leg stand test, she put her foot down multiple times, was hopping, and was unable to maintain balance for more than approximately 5 seconds.

However, at trial there were many faults in this case. Firstly, Attorney Goudreau brought to attention that the driver of the bus was not present in court, nor was he ever spoken to by the trooper. Other than our client admitting that she was distracted by her phone, and her friend in the front seat, there was no evidence that was investigated into regarding the cause of the crash. From body cam footage shown in court, it was shown that our client was cooperative and alert, and she was able to walk to where the officer asked her to perform the sobriety tests with no issues. Also in the footage it was seen that our client did in fact not step off of the line, there was no unsteadiness in the one leg balance test, and was able to keep her balance throughout the interaction with the officer, besides the times she was actively tested. As a result of this evidence, our client was not found guilty.

Practice Area: OUI

Court: Malden District Court

Attorney: Matthew Gilman

OUI – Ayer District Court – Not Guilty – June, 2023

On the evening of January 13, 2023, State Police observed our client commit a number of marked lanes violations. After pulling our client over, the Trooper claimed to have smelled alcohol coming from the vehicle, as well as our client having slurred speech. During trial, the Trooper testified that our client had bloodshot and glassy eyes. The client did admit to having two beers earlier in the evening. Our client was asked to perform three sobriety tests, which he complied with. During the walk and turn test, our client lost his balance, stepped offline, and did an improper turn. During the one leg stand, our client put his foot down, used his arms, and swayed. After these tests, our client was cuffed and placed into the back of the police car.

At trial, there were many holes in this case. Attorney Gilman, on cross-examination, was showed that our client's driving was very safe. There was no evidence of speeding, not going too slow, not crossing into other lanes, and not striking any curbs. When actively being pulled over, our client did not attempt to flee, stopped in a slow and controlled manner, and pulled over parallel with the curb. Our client was able to reach into his pocket and get documents asked for comprehensively. Importantly, Attorney Gilman was able to show that the Commonwealth had no evidence as to when our client started and stopped drinking, the size of beer, or if there was any food consumed. Attorney Gilman pointed out that the smell of alcohol the Officer claimed to smell had nothing to do with how much he drank, when, or where. The walk and turn test revealed our client was walking on an imaginary line, which he never stepped off, wasn’t swaying, or stumbling, and turned around in good manner. In the end, our client was found not guilty.

Practice Area: OUI

Court: Ayer District Court

Attorney: Matthew Gilman

OUI – Uxbridge District Court – Not Guilty – June 2023

On the evening of July 8, 2022, an officer from the Uxbridge Police Department observed our client drive past them with their headlights off. The officer flashed their lights to catch our client’s attention. Our client, however, continued to drive without turning on the lights.

After observing our client fail to turn on his lights, the officer turned around and pursued our client. The arresting officer noted multiple marked lane violations. According to the arresting officer, our client reportedly almost hit the sidewalk of the opposing lane. After making these observations, the officer activated their emergency lights.

After interacting with our client, the officer noted a strong odor of alcohol coming from his vehicle. Additionally, he observed our client to have red, glassy, and bloodshot eyes and slurred speech. Finally, our client admitted to coming from a party and consuming alcohol earlier in the evening.

At trial, Attorney Gilman brought light to a few major flaws in the officer’s testimony. On cross-examination, Attorney Gilman was able to show that when the officer first observed the Defendant driving, there was nothing about his operation which indicated impairment. Additionally, Attorney Gilman argued that our client retrieved his license in a controlled, non-hesitant motion when it was requested. At this point and at other moments of the stop, our client comprehended the instructions provided by the officer flawlessly. Finally, when our client exited the vehicle, there were no issues with their actions, which further solidified Attorney Gilman’s argument.

Our client was found NOT GUILTY.

Practice Area: DUI / DWI

Court: Uxbridge District Court

Attorney: Matthew Gilman

OUI - 2nd Offense - Fitchburg District Court - Not Guilty

Client was arrested and charged with a second offense OUI in Gardner, Massachusetts. After trial in the Fitchburg District Court our client was found Not Guilty. Client was pulled over due to having an expired registration sticker. The State Trooper testified that when he approached the vehicle, he detected an overwhelming odor of alcohol coming from the open window. Trooper testified that the client admitted to consuming two beers. Trooper administered the nine-step walk and turn and one-leg stand. After performing these field sobriety tests the Trooper placed our client under arrest.

During cross-examination, Attorney Gilman successfully got the Trooper to testify that the client's driving was perfect. Trooper testified that our client was not speeding, was not swerving side to side, didn't cross the fog line or the median. When the Trooper put on his take-down lights, our client pulled over in a controlled fashion, did not strike a curb but came to a slow and controlled stop. Our client had no issue locating and handling his license and registration to the Trooper. There was no evidence presented that our client was operating erratically or dangerously. Additionally, on cross-examination, Attorney Gilman was able to highlight just how exceptional his client performed on the field sobriety tests. This was a strong case for our client, and he was found Not Guilty.

Practice Area: DUI / DWI

Court: Fitchburg District Court

Attorney: Matthew Gilman

Fitchburg – OUI 2nd – Not Guilty - October 2022

Client was stopped due to the vehicle owner's license being suspended. At trial officer stated client had bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, smelled strongly of alcohol and was clumsy and lethargic. Client was ordered to exit the car and perform two field sobriety tests. The officer testified that the client was unable to follow instructions and failed both tests. Client was placed under arrest and blew a breathalyzer test nearly three times the limit. At trial Attorney Gilman was able to show through cross-examination that the client's driving did not indicate impairment in any way and that his operation of the vehicle did not place the lives and safety of the public at risk. Moreover, the court found our client not guilty of all charges.

Practice Area: DUI / DWI

Court: Fitchburg District Court

Attorney: Matthew Gilman

North Adams – OUI 2nd – Not Guilty Jury Trial - October 2022

Client was stopped at 2:00 am for a suspected expired license. At trial officer stated client had bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, smelled strongly of alcohol and was clumsy and lethargic. Client was ordered to exit the car and perform two field sobriety tests. The officer testified that the client was unable to follow instructions and failed both tests. Client was placed under arrest and officer stated client became verbally abusive and berated him for the entire ride to the station. At trial Attorney Gaudreau was able to show through cross-examination that the client's driving did not indicate impairment in any way and that their performance or the tests was reasonable for a person who had a full work day and was exhausted and nervous. The jury returned a not guilty verdict.

Practice Area: DUI / DWI

Court: Northern Berkshire District Court

Attorney: Julie Gaudreau

OUI – East Brookfield District Court – Not Guilty - September 2014

Barre Police pulled over our client due to having an expired inspection sticker. The arresting officer detected an odor of alcohol coming from the vehicle. Our client admitted to consuming three Budweiser Beers prior to operating. The client was asked to exit from his motor vehicle and complete field sobriety tests. The arresting officer testified that our client missed touching heel to toe during the 9-step walk and turn, counted incorrectly and took too many steps. The officer also testified that our client did not count quick enough during the one-leg stand, counted 11 twice and skipped over number 18. Based on these facts, the defendant was placed under arrest.

Prior to trial, Attorney Matthew Gilman was able to exclude the client's breath test result of .08. At trial, Attorney Gilman was able to cross-examine the officer, showing that the client did not specify a time period in which he consumed the drinks. He was able to have the arresting officer agree that his client's driving was perfect. There was no evidence that our client was driving too fast or dangerously. He demonstrated with the Commonwealth's own evidence that the defendant was courteous, cooperative, and appeared sober throughout the ordeal. He was further able to show that our client actually did very well on the field sobriety tests. This comprehensive defense undermined the Commonwealth's main assertion that the defendant exhibited signs of intoxication.

After trial our client was found NOT GUILTY.

Practice Area: DUI / DWI

Court: East Brookfield District Court

Attorney: Matthew Gilman

OUI Second and Negligent Operation – Orange District Court – Not Guilty - August 2022

Athol and Orange Police responded to a report of single car accident where the vehicle had sustained front end damage, a blown tire, and the airbag had deployed. One of the responding officers testified that once on scene the client's speech was slurred, his eyes were bloodshot, and he emitted a strong odor of alcohol. The client was asked to complete field sobriety tests which he at first refused. The officer further testified that the defendant stated he had eight drinks that evening. The officer testified that the client failed the nine-step walk and turn and the one leg stand. Based on these facts, the defendant was placed under arrest. Booking video of the client appeared to show he was disheveled, unsteady on his feet, and visibly upset.

Prior to trial, Attorney Julie Gaudreau was able to exclude the client's portable breath test result of .23. At trial, Attorney Gaudreau was able to cross-examine the officer, showing that the client did not specify a time period in which he consumed the drinks. She challenged the Commonwealth's position on the cause of the accident, asserting it was the blown tire. She demonstrated with the Commonwealth's own evidence that the defendant was courteous, cooperative, and appeared sober throughout the ordeal. She was further able to show several limiting factors that may have contributed to the defendant struggling with the sobriety test. This comprehensive defense undermined the Commonwealth's main assertion that the defendant exhibited signs of intoxication.

After deliberating for only fifteen minutes, the jury returned a verdict of NOT GUILTY.

Practice Area: DUI / DWI

Court: Orange District Court

Attorney: Julie Gaudreau

Fall River District Court - First Offense OUI - Not Guilty - MAY 2022

Client was stopped by state trooper for speeding and marked lanes violations. The trooper testified that the client was travelling at a high rate of speed and weaving between lanes. Trooper further testified that when he activated his lights the client slammed on his brakes rather coming to a gradual stop. Once the vehicle was stopped the trooper approached the vehicle and testified that the client's speech was slurred, his eyes were bloodshot and he smelled of alcohol. The trooper ordered the client from the car and asked him to complete field sobriety tests. The trooper testified that the client failed the nine-step walk and turn and the one leg stand. At trial, Attorney Gaudreau was able to cross-examine the trooper and show that at the time the client was stopped there were no other vehicles on the road and that the client reacted immediately when the trooper activated his lights. She was further able to show that in light of the circumstances, the client performed well on the field sobriety tests and he exhibited good balance and mental clarity. After trial, the jury returned a verdict of NOT GUILTY

Practice Area: DUI/DWI

Court: Fall River District Court

Attorney: Julie Gaudreau

Boston Municipal Court - Central Division - First Offense Jury Trial - Not Guilty - APRIL 2022

Client was stopped by state trooper for speeding and marked lanes violations. The trooper testified that the client was travelling at a high rate of speed and weaving between lanes. Trooper further testified that when he activated his lights the client slammed on his brakes rather coming to a gradual stop. Once the vehicle was stopped the trooper approached the vehicle and testified that the client's speech was slurred, his eyes were bloodshot and he smelled of alcohol. The trooper ordered the client from the car and asked him to complete field sobriety tests. The trooper testified that the client failed the nine-step walk and turn and the one leg stand. At trial, Attorney Gaudreau was able to cross-examine the trooper and show that at the time the client was stopped there were no other vehicles on the road and that the client reacted immediately when the trooper activated his lights. She was further able to show that in light of the circumstances, the client performed well on the field sobriety tests and he exhibited good balance and mental clarity. After trial, the jury returned a verdict of NOT GUILTY

Practice Area: DUI/DWI

Court: Boston Municipal Court

Attorney: Julie Gaudreau

OUI First Offense - Leominster District Court - State Police Department Sobriety Checkpoint - Not Guilty - May 2022

Client was arrested and charged with a first offense OUI. After trial in the Leominster District Court our client was found Not Guilty. Client was stopped at a sobriety checkpoint. Officer observed the client's eye to be bloodshot and glassy and that he was swaying side to side. Officer also smelled the odor of an alcoholic beverage coming from our client. Client admitted to consuming alcohol. Officer administered the nine-step walk and turn and one-leg stand. Client had no difficulty performing both of these field sobriety exercises. Client failed the portable breath test and was placed under arrest.

As this was a sobriety checkpoint case there was no evidence that our client was operating badly or dangerously. This was the case in this case. There was no evidence that our client was operating erratically. Additionally, the client performed exceptionally on the field sobriety tests. This was a very strong case for our client and he was found Not Guilty. Additionally, the court immediately ordered that his drivers license be reinstated.

Practice Area: DUI / DWI

Court: Leominster District Court

Attorney: Matthew Gilman

Fourth Offense OUI - Directed Verdict - NOT Guilty - Dudley District Court - APRIL 2022

Client was stopped by police after failing a breathalyzer test at the Dudley District Court. Officer noticed the client's eyes were bloodshot and glassy and that he had slurred speech when answering questions. Client was placed under arrest. Client was given a chemical breath test during the booking process and failed the breathalyzer test.

The breath was test was deemed not admissible at trial. During cross-examination of the arresting officer, he admitted that prior to pulling our client over there was nothing about his driving that indicated he was impaired. Additionally, the officer admitted that our client fully complied when he was commended to pull over and followed all of the officers commands. The Defendant was found NOT GUILTY by a directed verdict from the Court.

Practice Area: DUI/DWI

Court: Dudley District Court

Attorney: Matthew Gilman

Worcester District Court: OUI 2nd Offense Not Guilty After Trial MARCH 2022

In this case, our client was charged with a Second Offense OUI after being stopped at a Sobriety Checkpoint after 12:00 A.M. in Worcester. The checkpoint was operated jointly by the Worcester Police Department and Massachusetts State Police. The arresting officer alleged that our client when driving into the screening area was not following directions, did not go to the designated area and had to be told three times where to go. Client allegedly had a strong odor of alcohol and bloodshot and glass eyes. The officers alleged that our client was unable to pass the nine-step walk and turn test as he took to many steps, walked off the line, started too soon and did not turn properly. At Trial, Attorney Gilman was able to poke large holes into the Commonwealth's case. In this case our client was able to get his license and registration without any hesitation or issue, was able to exit the vehicle without any indication of impaired, had no slurred speech. Most importantly, during the one-leg stand test, Attorney Gilman was able to get the arresting officer to testify that they observed no clues of impairment during the test. After trial the defendant was found not guilty and avoided a two-year license suspension. Additionally, Attorney Gilman immediately filed a Motion to Restore our client's driver's license. After a further hearing the court allowed the motion and ordered the Registry of Motor Vehicles to reinstate our client's license which avoiding the balance of a three-year license suspension.

Practice Area: DUI/DWI

Court: Worcester District Court

Attorney: Matthew Gilman

Somerville District Court: Portable Breathalyzer Reading Of 0.016 OUI Complaint Not Issued After Clerk Magistrate Hearing JANUARY 2022

In this case, our client was involved in a two car motor vehicle accident. State Police responded and observed an open container in our client's motor vehicle. When asked about the alcohol, our client reached in and took a sip of the drink. Client subsequently admitted to having a single shot earlier in the evening. Client was only offered one field sobriety test and a portable breathalyzer test. The results of the portable test were 0.016 or double the legal limit. Attorney Gilman was able to argue that the Clerk Magistrate should put little value in the two tests offered as they would not be admissible at trial. The clerk was not arrested and offered a breathalyzer test back at the State Police Barracks. Additionally there was no evidence that our client was driving or responsible for the accident. In this case the Clerk Magistrate elected to not issue the criminal complaint against our client.

Practice Area: DUI/DWI

Court: Somerville District Court

Attorney: Matthew Gilman

Client With A Thirteen Year License Suspension Wins A Hardship License At The Board Of Appeals

We are thrilled to announce that on June 26, 2018, the Division of Insurance Board of Appeals voted to grant our client a Hardship License between 7:00 A.M. and 7:00 P.M.

At the time of our hearing, our client who resides on Cape Cod had served 2,028 days of his thirteen (13) year license suspension. In addition to working full-time for a masonry company, our client was attending school to update his Maritime Captains License. On Cape Cod public transportation is not reliable. Moreover, as a mason, such transportation is not a reasonable option. In addition to needing a license for work and school, our client's mother at the time of the hearing had been diagnosed with breast cancer and needed her son to drive her to her daily treatments.

Prior to the hearing our client completed several substance abuse related programs while serving a 2.5 year jail sentence. Following his release from the Barnstable County House of Correction, our client has maintained his sobriety. He attends Alcoholics Anonymous three times per work, has a sponsor and has weekly therapy sessions with the Outer Cape Therapy Service. The great strides our client has made were recognized by the Board of Appeals with a decision in his favor.

The Hardship License will allow our client to get to and from work everyday without having to rely on expensive Uber costs. Most importantly, it will help him drive his mother to and from her daily medical appointments. We are thrilled the Board of Appeals recognized the significant steps our client has taken and voted to help him!

Attorney Gilman helps clients every week get back on the road. Whether your license is suspended for OUI or you are facing a license suspension or criminal charges, Attorney Gilman has your back, do not wait until it is to late. Attorney Gilman is available for a Free Case Consultation. Attorney Gilman can help you get back on the road legally!

* Real names have been changed to protect confidentiality. This testimonial, dramatization, or endorsement does not constitute a guarantee, warranty, or prediction regarding the outcome of your legal matter. The results portrayed were dependent on the facts of that case, and your results will differ if based on different facts.

Practice Area: License Suspension

Court:

Attorney:

Mandatory Minimum Jail Sentence Avoided

Mike* came to Gilman Law, P.C., after he was arrested and charged with Operating After Suspension for OUI. A conviction of Operating After Suspension for OUI in Massachusetts carries a mandatory minimum jail sentence of 60 days and an additional 1-year license suspension. In addition to the mandatory minimum jail sentence, Operating After Suspension for OUI charges cannot be continued without a finding or modified in a way that would avoid the mandatory minimum sentence.

Mike was fifty-six years old and lived in Western Massachusetts. Where Mike lived there was no public transportation. Mike is married, has three adult children, and three grandchildren. At the time of his arrest he was driving to work, located 90 minutes from his home. Prior to retaining Attorney Gilman, Mike had resolved his OUI case and given a 45-day license suspension. At the time of his license suspension, Mike was working as a production manager at one of the state's largest Newspapers. He was arrested just four days prior to the end of the 45-day suspension.

Attorney Gilman knew that mandatory minimum jail sentence and license suspension were not fair. Working with Mike, Attorney Gilman put together a strong case to give to the Assistant District Attorney in charge of the Milford District Court. In just two court appearances, Attorney Gilman working with the District Attorney's Office reached a resolution that avoided any jail sentence or license suspension! Mike was able to keep working without having to fear that he was going to jail or facing any additional suspension time.

Successful outcomes such as Mikes are happening in District and Superior Courts every day. Attorney Gilman has an extensive record of success in helping clients navigate both the court and license suspension processes. If you have or are facing criminal charges or a license suspension, do not wait! Attorney Gilman is available for a Free Case Consultation. Attorney Gilman can help you get back on the road legally!

* Real names have been changed to protect confidentiality. This testimonial, dramatization, or endorsement does not constitute a guarantee, warranty, or prediction regarding the outcome of your legal matter. The results portrayed were dependent on the facts of that case, and your results will differ if based on different facts.

Practice Area: DUI/DWI

Court: Milford District Court

Attorney: Matthew Gilman

Nurse And Mother Of Four Granted A Hardship License

We are thrilled to announce that on June 12, 2018, the Division of Insurance Board of Appeals voted to grant our client a Hardship License between 1:00 P.M. and 1:00 A.M.

Our client's license had already been suspended for 1,188 days for refusing the breathalyzer test. Our client is the mother of four daughters and is employed full-time as Licensed Practical Nurse. Throughout the license suspension our client has struggled but has maintained her employment. As an LPN our client provides critical nursing services to individuals with developmental disabilities.

Due to the license suspension, our client often was forced to spend many overnights at her job. When our client's 11:00 P.M. shift ended there was no transportation available to get her back home. Our client completed the Driver Alcohol Education Program, attends weekly counseling, attends AA two to three times per week and most importantly has been sober since May, 2016!

The Hardship License will allow her to get to and from work everyday without having to rely on unreliable public transportation or family on Cape Cod. We are thrilled that the Board voted to help her!

* Real names have been changed to protect confidentiality. This testimonial, dramatization, or endorsement does not constitute a guarantee, warranty, or prediction regarding the outcome of your legal matter. The results portrayed were dependent on the facts of that case, and your results will differ if based on different facts.

Practice Area: DUI/DWI

Court:

Attorney:

Client Found Not Guilty After Jury Trial Of 3rd Offense OUI

John* was charged with a third offense OUI after he crossed into the wrong lane of travel, hit the curb and struck a building. In Massachusetts a conviction on a third offense OUI carries a mandatory minimum jail sentence of 180 days.

Witnesses observed the entire accident and observed John get out of the car after the accident, survey the damage and leave the scene. At trial the Commonwealth presented evidence that police observed John to be out of it when the caught up to him several miles from the accident scene. Police testified that there was a strong odor of alcoholic beverage coming from John, his eyes were bloodshot and glassy. John even exited his car before being asked to by the police. It seemed this was a slam dunk guilty verdict for the Commonwealth.

Attorney Gilman made it simple for the jury, the case not about operating under the influence, it was a motor vehicle accident. Accidents occur everyday and most have nothing to do with drugs or alcohol. Attorney Gilman on cross-examination of the police got the officers to admit that the odor of alcohol means really nothing. The officers testified that the odor has no relationship to how much alcohol a person may have consumed, what the person may have drank or when they had a drink. Most damning for the Commonwealth was that the Defendant performed perfectly on the field sobriety tests. The one leg stand and nine-step walk and turn both performed to perfection. The final piece of evidence that the Commonwealth could not overcome was the booking video. The video showed John standing in the police station in full control. He was not swaying side to side, he was not falling over himself, he was not leaning on the wall. John had full control over his physical movements during the entire booking process. The police wanted the jury to believe that John was falling down on the side of the road but the booking video told the opposite and the Commonwealth could not come over the direct evidence.

The Jury returned a Not Guilty Verdict in under an hour!

Attorney Gilman is successfully defending OUI/DUI cases to Not Guilty Verdicts and Case Dismissals everyday. John's jury verdict is not unique. If you have been charged with OUI or DUI or have a license suspension related to a OUI or DUI. do not wait! Attorney Gilman is available for a Free Case Consultation. Attorney Gilman can help you get back on the road legally!

* Real names have been changed to protect confidentiality. This testimonial, dramatization, or endorsement does not constitute a guarantee, warranty, or prediction regarding the outcome of your legal matter. The results portrayed were dependent on the facts of that case, and your results will differ if based on different facts.

Practice Area: DUI/DWI

Court:

Attorney: Matthew Gilman

Not Guilty Jury Verdict On Assault And Battery

Mike* was charged with committing the crime of assault and battery after he allegedly got into an argument and pushed his roommate. Mike had an extensive criminal record and if found guilty was likely facing a significant jail sentence.

We are thrilled to announce that in under 20 minutes the jury returned with a verdict of Not Guilty! Attorney Gilman made it simple for the jury. The case was not about a physical fight but was simply an argument between two roommates. Roommates argue everyday. During cross-examination of the alleged victim, Attorney Gilman was able to get him to admit that all Chris did was put his hand on his shoulder, something he does all the time. During cross-examination the alleged victim admitted that Chris is an emotional person and would often put his arms around peoples shoulders during discussions. The alleged victim admitted that he was not scared, was not offended by and had no concerns for his physical safety during the entire interaction with Chris. No harmful or offensive touching resulted in a quick and just verdict of NOT GUILTY!

The Jury returned the Not Guilty verdict in under twenty (20) minutes!

Attorney Gilman is successfully defending criminal law cases and OUI/DUI cases to Not Guilty Verdicts and Case Dismissals everyday. Chris's jury verdict is not unique. If you have been charged with OUI or DUI or have a license suspension related to a OUI or DUI, do not wait! Attorney Gilman is available for a Free Case Consultation. Attorney Gilman can help you get back on the road legally!

* Real names have been changed to protect confidentiality. This testimonial, dramatization, or endorsement does not constitute a guarantee, warranty, or prediction regarding the outcome of your legal matter. The results portrayed were dependent on the facts of that case, and your results will differ if based on different facts.

Practice Area:

Court:

Attorney: Matthew Gilman

Third Offense OUI Hardship Granted

We are thrilled that the Board of Appeals recently voted to issue our client a hardship license during the balance of his eight year OUI suspension. Our client was serving an eight year suspension for a third offense OUI. The Board of Appeals Decision will pave the way for our client to further build his HVAC business. Most importantly, our client can now help transport his children to and from school and all of their activities.

Practice Area: DUI/DWI

Court: Board of Appeals

Attorney:

Hardship License Granted On Five Year Larceny Of A Motor Vehicle Suspension

Client was in the early stages of a five year license suspension for a subsequent conviction of Larceny of a Motor Vehicle. Client had an extensive history of illegal drug use and convictions for stealing motor vehicles. Client served a House of Correction Sentence and retained Gilman Law to help him get a hardship license. Attorney Gilman brought the client to the Board of Appeals and through extensive preparation, Attorney Gilman was able to show the Board that his client was sober and no longer using any illegal substances. Moreover, Attorney Gilman was able to show the extreme hardship that the license suspension had on his client. Attorney Gilman was able to obtain a hardship license from the Board of Appeals.

Practice Area:

Court: Board of Appeals

Attorney: Matthew Gilman

Junior Operator Avoids License Suspension

On June 13, 2018, my client was found not responsible for speeding. The client was alleged to have been going 58 mph in a 35 mph zone. A responsible finding would have been devastating to not just the client but his family. Client is one of four boys to a divorced mother, who is enrolled full-time in college. With mom taking college courses, our client provides critical support to his family. A responsible finding would have meant a 90 days license suspension, a $500.00 reinstatement fee to the Registry of Motor Vehicles and the requirement that the client retake the Permit Examination and Road Test. I am thrilled that our client was found not responsible at the Clerk Magistrate's Hearing. No license suspension, no reinstatement fee and no permit or road test!

* Real names have been changed to protect confidentiality. This testimonial, dramatization, or endorsement does not constitute a guarantee, warranty, or prediction regarding the outcome of your legal matter. The results portrayed were dependent on the facts of that case, and your results will differ if based on different facts.

Practice Area: License Suspension

Court: Clerk Magistrate

Attorney: Matthew Gilman

Board Of Appeals Voted To Issue Habitual Traffic Offender A Hardship License

In this case our client who resided in Western Massachusetts was suspended as a Habitual Traffic Offender (HTO). The client had served already two years of the four year suspension without any difficulty. Attorney Gilman brought the client to the Board of Appeals where he spoke of the hardship that the license suspension had imposed. The client had become gainfully employed, had four children and completed all the necessary driver retraining programs. In this case, my client was now working well over 40 hours a week as the General Manager of a restaurant located over seven miles from his house. After the Board deliberated, my client was granted a hardship license!

These results are not unique to just this client. If your license is suspended or you are facing a license suspension, do not fight it alone. Contact Attorney Gilman today.

Practice Area: License Suspensions

Court: Board of Appeals

Attorney: Matthew Gilman

Board Of Appeals Grants A Hardship License To Client After Just Three Weeks

Client contacted Attorney Gilman after receiving notification from the Registry of Motor Vehicles that his license was about to be suspended for four years as an Habitual Traffic Offender. The client over a five year period had accumulated a total of 12 minor traffic violations which generated the suspension. Client a full time engineer lived over thirty minutes from his office and was required to drive to and from project sites as part of his employment. Attorney Gilman immediately filed an appeal with the Division of Insurance Board of Appeals and was able to get a hearing date in just three weeks from when the suspension began. Under G.L. 90 §22F, the Habitual Traffic Offender law, individuals are required to serve one year of the suspension before being eligible for hardship relief.

Attorney Gilman brought client before the Board just three weeks into the suspension. At the Board Attorney Gilman among other things argued before the Board that his client would be terminated from work if he was unable obtain hardship relief. In just over a week the Board voted to issue our client a hardship license. If it was not for this successful outcome, our client would very likely be unemployed today. Under G.L. 90 §22F, the Habitual Traffic Offender law, individuals are required to serve one year of the suspension before being eligible for hardship relief.

These results are not unique to just this client. If your license is suspended or you are facing a license suspension, do not fight it alone. Contact Attorney Gilman today.

Practice Area: License Suspensions

Court: Board of Appeals

Attorney: Matthew Gilman

Three For Three In Junior Operator License Suspension Appeals

Over the past month Attorney Gilman has gone three for three at the Board of Appeals with Junior Operator License Suspension cases!

Each of the clients were in the beginning stages of a state mandated 90-day license suspension. All three clients had received speeding tickets and made the decision to just pay the ticket. In some cases the license suspension notice came as a complete surprise.

Attorney Gilman successfully got all three of the suspensions terminated within just weeks of when they started (in some cases just days). In addition to terminating the suspension, the Board of Appeals voted to waive the requirement for all three clients that they retake the permit and road tests.

The firm is thrilled for all three clients and their families. License suspensions terminated, no permit test and no road tests. Suspended one week and driving the next. These results are not unique. If you or someone you know are facing a license suspension, contact Attorney Gilman to see how you can get back on the road.

Practice Area: License Suspensions

Court: Board of Appeals

Attorney: Matthew Gilman

Six Month License Suspension Overturned

Jen* came to Gilman Law, P.C., after she was referred to the firm by another attorney. Jen had just received notice that her license was going to be suspended the following day for an indefinite period. Attorney Gilman immediately contacted the Massachusetts Enforcement Services Department and delayed the suspension for over one month.

Years ago, Jen allowed her friend to borrow her credit card. Her friend was in nursing school and need some extra financial help. At the time Jen was in a position to help. Unfortunately, Jen's friend was often asked for an I.D. when she went to use the card. Jen suggested that they go and get a duplicate I.D. in Jen's name from the Registry of Motor Vehicles.

Years have since passed and only now is the Registry of Motor Vehicles coming for Jen and her friend. Jen is now the mother of three and set to begin nursing school in the fall and her best friend works full-time as an emergency room nurse. Neither Jen nor her friend could survive any extended license suspension. After meeting with the Enforcement Services Division of the Registry of Motor Vehicles both Jen and her friend were issued 6 month license suspensions and told they would have to retake the permit test and road examination.

Attorney Gilman knew the suspension was not fair, and advised Jen that she had a great appeal to take to the Division of Insurance Board of Appeals. Within just a few weeks, at the Board, Attorney Gilman argued that the six month suspension was not just unfair but that it was wrong as a matter of law! We argued that M.G.L. c. 90, §34B permits a one year suspension upon a criminal conviction. If there is no prosecution or conviction, the suspension should not exceed 60 days. Attorney Gilman argued that Jen should not only be entitled to the immediate reinstatement of her driving privileges but that she should not be obligated to retake either the permit or driving test. Jen had renewed her license multiple times before the Registry decided to act!

Just a few days after the hearing, we received the Board of Appeals Decision – Jen's license was no longer suspended! The Board voted to fully reinstate her drivers license!

Do Not Let the Registry of Motor Vehicles Get Away Without a Fight!

Stories of license restatements and hardship licenses are happening every day. Attorney Gilman has an extensive record of success at not only the Registry of Motor Vehicle's but at the Board of Appeals. If you have or are facing a license suspension, do not wait! Attorney Gilman is available for a Free Case Consultation. Attorney Gilman can help you get back on the road legally!

* Real names have been changed to protect confidentiality. This testimonial, dramatization, or endorsement does not constitute a guarantee, warranty, or prediction regarding the outcome of your legal matter. The results portrayed were dependent on the facts of that case, and your results will differ if based on different facts.

Practice Area: License Suspensions

Court: Board of Appeals

Attorney: Matthew Gilman

Attorney Gilman Helps Client Avoid A 10 Year Ignition Interlock License Suspension

Client appeared at the Registry of Motor Vehicles without Representation and was issued a ten year license suspension for Ignition Interlock Device (IID) violations. Client was alleged to have failed numerous device start-up tests and missed a number of rolling re-tests. Client worked full-time as a Defense Contractor with extensive security clearance was set to be let go if the license suspension was upheld. We argued that the Registry of Motor Vehicle's use of failed start-ups as a grounds for a license suspension was unsupported by the authorizing statute and regulations. In essence the Registry of Motor Vehicles was making up its own rules and penalties that had exceed what was authorized by law. The Board of Appeals expired the ten year license suspension and allowed our client to reinstate and maintain his employment. In just three months, our client will be eligible to have the interlock device removed for good.

Contact Gilman Law, P.C., to see how we can help you get back on the road.

Practice Area: DUI/DWI

Court: Board of Appeals

Attorney: Matthew Gilman

Lifetime Chemical Test Refusal Suspension Lifted And Hardship License Granted

In this case, my client came to the firm with a lifetime license suspension for refusing to take the chemical breathalyzer test the night of his arrest back in 2012. In addition to the lifetime license suspension, he was found guilty of the criminal charge of operating under the influence which generated a ten year license suspension. Attorney Gilman in reviewing his client's record was able to recognize a discrepancy between his driving record and his criminal record. The driving record showed his client's first OUI from 1979 resulted in a guilty disposition. However, the clients criminal record showed the case resulted in a Continuance Without a Finding (CWOF). Attorney Gilman traveled to Dudley District Court and was able to locate the docket book from 1979 and obtained paperwork that showed his client did receive a CWOF in 1979 and not a guilty disposition. Attorney Gilman worked with the court to forward the necessary documentation to the Registry of Motor Vehicles to have the lifetime suspension amended to a five-year license suspension which was deemed served.

In this case, by having the lifetime suspension terminated, our client was immediately eligible to apply for a hardship license. Attorney Gilman took his client to the Board of Appeals where he was able to successfully obtain a hardship license for his client. After the Board of Appeals deliberated they voted to issue a hardship license with the installation of an ignition interlock device to our client!

Stories of license restatements and hardship licenses are happening every day. Attorney Gilman has an extensive record of success at not only the Registry of Motor Vehicles but also the Board of Appeals. If you have or are facing a license suspension, do not wait! Attorney Gilman is available for a Free Case Consultation. Attorney Gilman can help you get back on the road legally!

Practice Area: DUI/DWI

Court: Dudley District Court

Attorney: Matthew Gilman

Lowell District Court License Suspended For OUI Dismissed

Lowell District Court – February, 2021

Client was stopped for operating with his license suspended. Making matters worse his license was suspended due to a third offense OUI/DUI conviction. In Massachusetts a person who is arrested or charged and found guilty of operating on a suspended license that is suspended due to an OUI/DUI faces the prospect of a mandatory minimum jail sentence of sixty days based on G.L. c. 90 §23

Attorney Julie Gaudreau met the client at his arraignment hearing, conferenced with the District Attorney's Office and negotiated the outright dismissal of the charges.

Collateral Consequences That Our Client Avoided

• A minimum 60 days in jail; and
• An additional one year license suspension added to the end of his current suspension.

If you face charges related to your OUI/DUI or have a License Suspension do not hesitate to contact us 24/7 for a free case consultation. Our client now can move forward confidently towards applying for a hardship license.

Practice Area: DUI/DWI

Court: Lowell District Court

Attorney: Julie Gaudreau

Victim Suspended As A Habitual Traffic Offender Appeals And Wins

John H* came to me from Worcester and had been suspended as a Habitual Traffic Offender and also had an Immediate Threat Suspension. His license had already been suspended for two years. John kept getting suspension letters from the Registry and had finally decided he was going to do something about it.

The Registry of Motor Vehicles had sent John both a four year license suspension and an indefinite license suspension letter. John for a couple of years assumed the Registry had acted properly. What bothered John the most was that prior to two bad accidents he had never been pulled over or received any motor vehicle ticket. That's when John called me.

John and I reviewed his driving recorded. I said “No, you're crazy – the Habitual Traffic Suspension was illegal!” And, I told him, it sounded like we had a great appeal to take to the Division of Insurance Board of Appeals.

At the Board I argued that John had no prior motor vehicle law violations and that he had resolved all of the offenses on the same day. Even though the offenses occurred on different dates, John resolved all his cases together. I won't say that this happens everyday but the Habitual Traffic Offender Law actually helped John. The Registry had failed to properly treat some of these offenses as just one offense.

In a nice twist (not uncommon at the Board) the Board of Appeal members picked up on my argument very quickly, they turned to the Registry and could not understand why John had been treated the way he was. John for two years suffered the consequences of a license suspension that was improper.

In just a week we received the Board of Appeals decision – John's license is no longer suspended!

Success stories like John's are happening every day. If you have or are facing a license suspension, don't wait, get FREE help right now. Call, chat and/or request a Free Case Consultation so I can find out if you have a case where I can get you your license back.

* Real names have been changed to protect confidentiality. This testimonial, dramatization, or endorsement does not constitute a guarantee, warranty, or prediction regarding the outcome of your legal matter. The results portrayed were dependent on the facts of that case, and your results will differ if based on different facts.

Practice Area: License Suspensions

Court: Board of Appeals

Attorney: Matthew Gilman

Criminal Charges Not Issued After Show Cause Hearing

A Lenox Police Officer responded to a single motor vehicle accident where he observed the operator had driven his vehicle up over the curbing in the road. The accident resulted in the front bumper being severely damaged. When the officer approached the operator, identified as the client he discovered that his license had expired over five months prior. The officer also noted that the clients erratic operation was a threat to public safety. The client was charged with unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle and the Registry suspended the client as an Immediate Threat. Working with both the Lenox Police and the Clerk Magistrate's Office, Attorney Gilman was able to establish that his client was not intentionally operating on an expired license and that it was an honest error. Moreover, Attorney Gilman argued that what his client had already gone through with the Registry of Motor Vehicles was punishment enough. The Clerk Magistrate decided against issuing the criminal complaint.

Complaint Denied.

* Real names have been changed to protect confidentiality. This testimonial, dramatization, or endorsement does not constitute a guarantee, warranty, or prediction regarding the outcome of your legal matter. The results portrayed were dependent on the facts of that case, and your results will differ if based on different facts.

Practice Area: License Suspensions

Court: Lenox Clerk Magistrate

Attorney: Matthew Gilman

Hardship Granted On Under 21 OUI License Suspension

Client was charged and convicted of operating under the influence and lost his license for 210 days because he was under 21 at the time of the arrest. Following his conviction for OUI, he was charged twice with disorderly conduct and possession of alcohol under twenty-one years old. All of these issues were raised by the Registry of Motor Vehicles who subsequently suspended our client as an Immediate Threat. Client now 21 lives between Cape Cod and Central Massachusetts came to Gilman Law in dire need for the ability to drive.

Attorney Gilman decided to bypass the Registry of Motor Vehicles and filed immediately with the Division of Insurance Board of Appeals. Prior to attending the Board of Appeals Hearing, the Client completed the National Safety Council's State Courts Against Road Rage and Alive at 25 Programs. At the Board of Appeals Hearing, Attorney Gilman spoke of the hardship that the license suspension had imposed. The client was not the “trouble maker” the Registry portrayed him to be. Rather, the client worked two jobs and was a rising junior at the state college here in the Commonwealth. After the Board deliberated, our client was granted a hardship license!

These results are not unique to just this client. If your license is suspended or you are facing a license suspension, do not fight it alone. Contact Attorney Gilman today.

Practice Area: DUI/DWI

Court: Board of Appeals

Attorney: Matthew Gilman

Interlock Device Not Required

In this case, our client was told by the Registry of Motor Vehicles that he had never had hardship hours removed from his record following a 1996 OUI. Our client in fact provided our office with a license issued in 2015 that had no restrictions. The Registry argued that their system showed hardship hours were never removed and argued that our client was required to maintain an interlock device for two years. Our client's last criminal offense was in 1996. Attorney Gilman was able to argue that the Registry's system was incorrect and that the Registry could not explain why our client had a valid license issued in 2015 with no restrictions. Attorney Gilman called into question the validity of the restrictions and the Board of Appeals issued an order permitting our client to fully reinstate with no interlock device.

From his Lunenburg office, attorney Matthew Gilman represents clients all over the state of Massachusetts. Fill out the form on this page or call the office today to connect with him and set up a free consultation. Matthew will discuss your case in the office or even in your own home and determine the best way forward for your unique situation.

Practice Area: DUI/DWI

Court: Board of Appeals

Attorney: Matthew Gilman

Motion For A New Trial On 1987 OUI Granted And Charges Dismissed

Client came to the office with a thirteen year license suspension, five years for refusing the breathalyzer and eight years for an OUI. Client was not eligible to even apply for a hardship license until 2020 and his full suspension would not conclude until 2028.

We decided to file a Motion for a New Trial in Plymouth District Court to try and reopen his first OUI from 1987. Today, we had our hearing in Plymouth District Court. I am thrilled to say that not only were we successful in getting our motion allowed, but the Commonwealth was forced to move to dismiss, as they could no longer prove their case. Working with the Registry of Motor Vehicles, our client's license suspension will be modified to three years and forty-five days. Our victory will allow our client to reinstate his right to operate today.

* Real names have been changed to protect confidentiality. This testimonial, dramatization, or endorsement does not constitute a guarantee, warranty, or prediction regarding the outcome of your legal matter. The results portrayed were dependent on the facts of that case, and your results will differ if based on different facts.

Practice Area: DUI/DWI

Court: Plymouth District Court

Attorney: Matthew Gilman

Client Charged With Operating Under The Influence Case Dismissed!

Mike* came to the firm from the state of Colorado. Mike never had a Massachusetts license but in 2004 was charged with OUI/DUI. For years Mike was able to renew his Colorado license but now in March 2018 he was being told he was blocked on the National Driver Registry. Mike spoke with Attorney Gilman on a Saturday morning. The following Monday, Attorney Gilman was in Dudley District Court and had the 2004 Court Default removed. By Monday afternoon, Attorney Gilman was at the Registry of Motor Vehicles and had the National Driver Registry cleared. Within an hour of clearing the National Registry, Mike was able to walk into a Colorado Registry of Motor Vehicles and renew his license.

In addition to resolving the National Driver Registry Suspension, Attorney Gilman represented Mike against the OUI/DUI charges. According to the Sturbridge Police, Mike was found outside of his broken down vehicle on the side of the road by the Police. According to the Police Mike's car was parked halfway in the breakdown lane and half off the road with the drivers door wide open. Police claimed Mike was standing by the rear of the car trying to put gas into the vehicle and they observed him to be unsteady on his feet. According to the police Mike was holding a gas can and pouring gas onto the street and missing the gas tank. Police claimed Mike had glassy eyes, was rocking side to side and his speech was hard to understand.

After two court appearances the case was dismissed!

If you are facing OUI/DUI charges or your license is suspended, contact Gilman Law, P.C. We are available 24/7 for a Free Case Evaluation

* Real names have been changed to protect confidentiality. This testimonial, dramatization, or endorsement does not constitute a guarantee, warranty, or prediction regarding the outcome of your legal matter. The results portrayed were dependent on the facts of that case, and your results will differ if based on different facts.

Practice Area: DUI/DWI

Court: Dudley District Court

Attorney: Matthew Gilman

Client Facing Operating Under The Influence Charges Had Complaint Not Issued At Show Cause Hearing.

Dave T* was involved in a serious car accident in Worcester County in August, 2018. Multiple vehicles were involved in the accident that occured just five minutes from Dave's residence.

According to the police who responded to the accident Dave was unsteady on his feet, had blood shot eyes, slurred his speech and had an odor of alcohol coming from his person. Due to the crash the police requested that Dave seek medical treatment at the local hospital. Following the accident the police sent a request to the Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles to have Dave's license suspended as an Immediate Threat.

Just days after the accident Dave received notice that the Registry had suspended his license indefinitely as an Immediate Threat. Attorney Gilman working with Dave was able to get his license reinstated in just weeks even while the criminal charges were pending for a show cause hearing.

Weeks after Dave had his license reinstated, he received a notice for a Clerk Magistrate's Hearing the Gardner District Court. If Dave lost the Show Cause Hearing and the criminal complaint issued he was facing a further license suspension and at least another $500.00 in fees by the Registry.

Attorney Gilman at the Show Cause Hearing provided sufficient evidence to convenience to Clerk Magistrate to not issue the Criminal Complaint! Even though there was probable cause for the complaint to go forward, the Clerk Magistrate agreed with Attorney Gilman's argument and decided against issuing the complaint.

Today, Dave faces no further license suspensions or Registry fines and can continue working without worrying that his license will be suspended again.

Stories of license restatements and hardship licenses are happening every day. Attorney Gilman has an extensive record of success at not only the Registry of Motor Vehicle's but at the Board of Appeals. If you have or are facing a license suspension, do not wait! Attorney Gilman is available for a Free Case Consultation. Attorney Gilman can help you get back on the road legally!

* Real names have been changed to protect confidentiality. This testimonial, dramatization, or endorsement does not constitute a guarantee, warranty, or prediction regarding the outcome of your legal matter. The results portrayed were dependent on the facts of that case, and your results will differ if based on different facts.

Practice Area: DUI/DWI

Court: Gardner District Court

Attorney: Matthew Gilman

Immediate Threat Suspension Terminated At Board Of Appeals

On December 31, 2015, officers from the Fitchburg Police Department were dispatched to a serious ATV accident involving children and the client. The client was thrown from the ATV and seriously injured. Fitchburg Police subsequently investigated and charged with OUI. At the time of the accident the client was operating on a hardship license due to a prior license suspension. At a Division of Insurance Board of Appeals, Attorney Gilman through his presentation was able to establish that his client had successfully completed 18 months of probation including the Driver Alcohol Education (DAE) Most importantly Attorney Gilman was able to show that his client was no longer a threat to public safety and that he was deserving of a hardship license. Following Attorney Gilman's presentation the Board voted to issue a hardship license and terminate the immediate threat suspension!

* Real names have been changed to protect confidentiality. This testimonial, dramatization, or endorsement does not constitute a guarantee, warranty, or prediction regarding the outcome of your legal matter. The results portrayed were dependent on the facts of that case, and your results will differ if based on different facts.

Practice Area: License Suspensions

Court: Board of Appeals

Attorney: Matthew Gilman

Use Of A Motor Vehicle Without Authority Case Dismissed!

I am excited to report that after just two court appearances a client with an extensive criminal record had the criminal offense of using a motor vehicle without authority dismissed. This case had extra significance because a conviction would have caused the client to loose his license for one year.

Client was a rear seat passenger in a motor vehicle that was pulled over for not coming to a complete stop at an intersection. It was discovered that the vehicle had been reported stolen. Police removed and arrested all three individuals including our client who was located in the rear passenger seat. I filed a Motion to Dismiss and argued that this criminal charge should never have gone forward against my client. Both the Commonwealth and the Judge agreed. The case was dismissed and our client's driving privileges are protected.

If you are charged with offenses that involve motor vehicles or driving there are often collateral consequences tied to the outcome of the case. If you are concerned that your case could result in a license suspension or revocation you need an attorney knowledgeable about the license consequences. Attorney Gilman is available 24/7 for a Free Case Evaluation.

* Real names have been changed to protect confidentiality. This testimonial, dramatization, or endorsement does not constitute a guarantee, warranty, or prediction regarding the outcome of your legal matter. The results portrayed were dependent on the facts of that case, and your results will differ if based on different facts.

Practice Area: Criminal Law

Court:

Attorney: Matthew Gilman

A Decorated Vietnam War Veteran Serving A Lifetime Suspension For OUI Was Awarded A Hardship License From The Board Of Appeals

On August 10, 2018 the Board of Appeals voted to overturn a Registry of Motor Vehicles lifetime license suspension.

On November 28, 2002 our client was pulled over at 12:52 A.M. The significance of having been pulled over at 12:52 A.M. vs. 11:52 P.M.on November 27, 2002 meant the difference between a first offense OUI and a fifth offense OUI. On November 28, 2002 the Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles adopted a lifetime look-back period when it came to calculating prior OUI convictions. Prior to November 28, 2002 the look-back period was limited to examining convictions from the prior ten years. Our client was pulled over just 52 minutes after the new policy started. Our client went to trial and was found guilty of OUI in 2002 and the Registry of Motor Vehicles subsequently suspended his license for life.

Under the law there is no specific authority for the Registry of Motor Vehicles to consider hardship relief for a person suspended for life. Attorney Gilman took on the Registry and won! Our client served two years in Vietnam and prior to the 2002 OUI his last OUI arrest was in 1984. For his service to the United States our client earned the rank of Sergeant in the United States Army. Following his tour of duty our client was awarded the Bronze Star Medal for Heroism, the Purple Hearst for wounds received in action and the Army Commendation Medal for Service. The Commendation Medal was awarded to our client due to his heroic actions in 1968. After his company came under enemy fire, our client left his covered position, crawled through enemy fire to signal gunships to the team's location. These actions enabled the team to be evacuated and to the success of the mission.

Attorney Gilman proudly told his client's story. The story was not just about our client's service but also his current sixteen years of sobriety. That since 2002 our client has remained sober. He got married, bought a house and became active in the Western Massachusetts VA Community. An extensive substance abuse evaluation was completed by Mr. John Christian that reflected a low risk of recidivism.

Just seven days after the hearing was concluded our client was notified that the Board of Appeals had voted to order the Registry of Motor Vehicles to issue him a Hardship License! The Board saw right through the Registry of Motor Vehicles and came back with an appropriate and reasonable decision.

* Real names have been changed to protect confidentiality. This testimonial, dramatization, or endorsement does not constitute a guarantee, warranty, or prediction regarding the outcome of your legal matter. The results portrayed were dependent on the facts of that case, and your results will differ if based on different facts.

Practice Area: DUI/DWI

Court: Court of Appeals

Attorney: Matthew Gilman