OUI Mistrial Massachusetts Officer Endanger Lawyers Franklin County
OUI Mistrial Massachusetts Officer Endanger Lawyers Franklin County
Commonwealth v. Rochester
Facts:
Defendant challenged an order from the Franklin District Court Department (Massachusetts), which directed verdicts and entered a judgment on the jury’s verdicts to convict defendant of failing to stop for a police officer while operating a motor vehicle and of driving to endanger.
Issue:
- Whether there was merit in defendant’s contentions that a judge’s unobjected to instructions to the jury in a criminal case ordering them to return verdicts of guilty on certain charges should be treated as though they were a declaration of a mistrial in the absence of “manifest necessity”?
Discussion:
Defendant was charged on complaints with two counts of failing to stop for a police officer while operating a motor vehicle, with two counts of driving to endanger, and with one count of operating under the influence of liquor. At trial, defense counsel stated in his closing arguments that defendant had admitted to some of the charges, and the trial judge twice directed the jury to return verdicts of guilty on the charges of operating to endanger and of failing to stop for a police officer. The jury then returned guilty verdicts as directed and acquitted defendant on the operating under the influence charge. On appeal, the court held that: defense counsel’s statements during closing arguments could not be considered a knowing and voluntary waiver of a jury trial or a guilty plea; and the trial judge’s improper jury instructions were not in the circumstances that were the functional equivalent of a declaration of a mistrial to preclude a retrial on double jeopardy grounds, and the “manifest necessity” requirement to a declaration of a mistrial did not apply because defense counsel did not object when the trial judge ordered the jury to return guilty verdicts. The court reversed the trial court’s judgment and set aside the verdicts
The Gilmore & Sris Massachusetts lawyers will do their best to help you with your OUI case. Contact a Massachusetts lawyer from our firm to discuss your OUI case. A Massachusetts lawyer from our firm will talk with you about your OUI case in Massachusetts and advise you about your options. You can count on a lawyer from our firm to try their best to help you obtain the best result possible based on the facts of your case.
We have a client meeting location in Cambridge.
Article written by A Sris
Disclaimer:
These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.
OUI License Massachusetts Blood Alcohol Hardship Hearing Lawyers New Hampshire County
OUI License Massachusetts Blood Alcohol Hardship Hearing Lawyers New Hampshire County
REGISTRY OF MOTOR VEHICLES V GEORGE
Facts:
Plaintiff’s driver’s license was suspended by the state of New Hampshire for failure to submit to a blood alcohol test and conviction for OUI. The registrar in Massachusetts revoked plaintiff’s license until the end of New Hampshire’s suspension.

OUI License Massachusetts Blood Alcohol Hardship Hearing Lawyers
Plaintiff appealed the decision of the Board of Appeal on Motor Vehicle Liability Policies and Bonds (Massachusetts) affirming the registrar’s suspension of plaintiff’s Massachusetts driver’s license.
Issue:
- Whether the Massachusetts law entitled the Plaintiff to a hardship hearing?
Discussion:
This court finds that the Plaintiff contentions (1) his license was improperly revoked without a hearing by the registrar (2) because the transcript of the hearing was not included in the administrative record, there was insufficient evidence in the record to support the decision and (3) that Massachusetts law entitled him to a hardship hearing. In response, the Board maintained that both substantial evidence and applicable law supported its decision. The court stated the board’s interpretation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 90, § 22(c), authorizing the registrar to suspend plaintiff’s license for a period equal to that allowed under New Hampshire law was reasonable. The court affirmed the decision of the board stating that plaintiff could not successfully argue that the lawful absence of a pre-termination hearing before the registrar entitled him to judgment on appeal.
The Gilmore & Sris Massachusetts lawyers will do their best to help you with your OUI case. Contact a Massachusetts lawyer from our firm to discuss your OUI case. A Massachusetts lawyer from our firm will talk with you about your OUI case in Massachusetts and advise you about your options. You can count on a lawyer from our firm to try their best to help you obtain the best result possible based on the facts of your case.
We have a client meeting location in Cambridge.
Article written by A Sris
Disclaimer:
These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.

