Commonwealth v. J.S. – Massachusetts Court of Appeals

Massachusetts Court of Appeals
104 Mass. App. Ct. 1110 (2024)

AFTER THE DEFENDANT PLED GUILTY TO DRUNK DRIVING AND WAS CONVICTED, ATTORNEY PATRICK J. NOONAN WINS APPEAL ON GROUNDS OF EGREGIOUS GOVERNMENT MISCONDUCT. THE DEFENDANT’S CONVICTION IS VACATED. WE ARE NOW MOVING FOR TRIAL.

The defendant, represented by another attorney, admitted to sufficient facts and tendered a plea on an offense charging him with Operating under the Influence of Liquor. Defendant took a breath test showing that his blood-alcohol-content was three times over the legal limit. Because there was no chance of winning at trial with such a high breathalyzer result, Defendant pled out to the OUI charge. The plea resulted in the client’s termination from a government position. The client hired Attorney Patrick J. Noonan and Attorney Scott Martin to vacate his conviction. We filed a motion to withdraw his plea based on the recent litigation surrounding the government’s misconduct in withholding exculpatory breath test records, as well as a recent decision finding that breath test results, generated within a particular timeframe, were inadmissible due to issues of scientific reliability and the government’s misconduct in handling breath test records. The judge denied our motion, finding that there was no evidence of egregious government misconduct. The judge also found that – even if the breath test result was excluded from evidence – the Defendant would not have gone to trial because the evidence of his intoxication was overwhelming. We won on appeal. The Appeals Court found that there was a conclusive presumption that the Commonwealth engaged in government misconduct at the time of the Defendant’s breath test. Further, the Appeals Court found that we established a reasonable probability that the Defendant would have gone to trial had he known that the breath test evidence would not have been introduced against him. On appeal, the Commonwealth argued that there was no reasonable probability that the Defendant would have insisted on a trial because the police report contained overwhelming evidence that the client was intoxicated. We argued that a person’s decision to insist on a trial is a unique, individualized decision. Here, the Defendant would have insisted on a trial because an acquittal would allow him to keep his government job. Most attorneys would not try an OUI case if a police report contains strong evidence of intoxication. However, Attorney Noonan and Attorney Martin are not your typical attorneys because we try difficult cases all the time and win acquittals despite there being strong evidence of our client’s guilt. The client’s plea and conviction were vacated. The case was remanded to the district court for further proceedings. At this point, we are intending to try the case in hopes of an acquittal.