June 24, 2017

Fitchburg MA – Not Guilty of OUI DUI Charges

Fitchburg District Court

Client a 24 year old male from Townsend, MA was charged with Operating Under the Influence, also known as DUI, DWI or OUI, Negligent Operation of a Motor Vehicle, Failure to Wear a Seatbelt and a Miscellaneous Municipal Ordinance Violation.

The client was pulled over in his vehicle by a member of the Fitchburg police department.  The officer made observations of traffic violations and behavior by the client as he observed him enter and exit a liquor store, which caused him to decide to pull the vehicle over.

The officer made observations of a very strong odor of alcohol, very glossy eyes, and an apparent inability to comprehend simple requests.  The client admitted to drinking two beers.  The officer administered four field sobriety tests to the client which according to the officer he failed. [Read more…]

Possession to Distribute Class D Drugs in Fitchburg MA

Fitchburg District Court

Client a 24 year old male from Fitchburg, MA was charged with Possession to Distribute Class D and Carrying a Dangerous Weapon.

The client was pulled over in his vehicle by a member of the state police gang unit in Fitchburg.  The trooper pulled the vehicle over for having what he believed to be excessive tint on his windows.  In addition the trooper stated that the vehicle had just left a known drug distribution house, that the vehicle had recently been stopped for suspected drug distribution by the Fitchburg police, that the vehicle was in a high crime area for both violence and drugs and that there was a recent shooting in front of the area where the client’s vehicle just pulled away from.  Based on all of this information the trooper pulled the vehicle over.   Once the trooper engaged with the client he detected the strong odor of marijuana and noted that the client was a known associate of the local Bloods gang.  At that point the trooper ordered the client to exit the vehicle and conducted a search of the client and his vehicle.

The trooper discovered $500 cash on the client and $700 cash in the vehicle.  He also discovered 5 individually knotted plastic bags of marijuana, three cell phones, multiple air fresheners, a Digiweigh electronic scale, an open box of plastic sandwich bags and a Stiletto brand switchblade knife. [Read more…]

OUI DUI DWI Charges in Lunenburg MA

Fitchburg District Court

Client a 26 year old male from Leominster, MA was charged with one count of Operating Under the Influence of Liquor 2nd Offense also referred to as OUI, DUI or DWI, a civil marked lanes violation.

The client was pulled over by a Lunenburg officer  at 1:56 am on Lakefront Ave. in Lunenburg, MA.  The officer pulled the vehicle over after seeing him leave a bar and failing to put his lights on and travelling the wrong way around a rotary.   The officer made observations that the client had an odor of alcohol coming from him, had glassy eyes and appeared disoriented.  The client admitted to having three drinks.

The client was administered four field sobriety tests, which according to the officer he failed.  After arresting the client the officer made observations that he was quiet and cooperative.

Attorney Damian Riddle scheduled the case for jury trial.  On the day of trial the client and Attorney Riddle elected to try the case jury waived and the client was found Not Guilty after cross-examination of the officer and argument of counsel.

Result: Client found Not Guilty.

Assault and Battery Charges Dismissed

Clinton District Court

Client a 54 year old male from Harvard, MA was charged with one count of Assault and Battery.  The client came to Attorney Damian Riddle four and half years after he plead to the case, received a Continuance Without a Finding and completed his probation.  The client was a Canadian citizen and had been in the U.S. on a green card for many years.  The client came to Attorney Riddle when he realized that due to pleading out and admitting to the domestic assault and battery case we was now subject to deportation, denial of naturalization and exclusion from the United States.  The client’s green card was about to expire and he was in a terrible predicament.  The client had his family in the UNITED States and had a very good job.

Attorney Riddle thoroughly researched the legal issues, pulled all of the recordings, transcripts and records that had been filed when the client previously plead.  Attorney Riddle discovered that there had been two legal insufficiencies in the proceeding when the client had previously plead.  Based on those legal errors Attorney Riddle prepared a Motion for a New Trial.   After arguing the motion before the Court, which the Commonwealth opposed and argued against, the Judge allowed Attorney Riddle’s motion.  [Read more…]

Charged with DUI OUI at Checkpoint in Leominster MA

Leominster District Court

Client a 21 year old female from Fitchburg, MA was charged with one count of Operating Under the Influence of Liquor 1st Offense also referred to as OUI, DUI or DWI.

The client was pulled over by a state police trooper after she entered a sobriety checkpoint on Rt. 12 in Leominster.

The trooper made observations of a strong odor of marijuana coming from the vehicle, an odor of alcoholic beverage, bloodshot, glassy eyes and slurred speech.  The client was administered four field sobriety tests, which according to the trooper she failed.  The client also admitted to consuming three beers.

The client elected to take a breath test and registered a .10.  During the pendency of the case Attorney Damian Riddle requested all of the documents relative to the particular breath testing device used to test the client’s blood alcohol content or BAC.  After multiple failures by the government to produce the documents Attorney Riddle was able to have the Court order the breathalizer test result excluded.

Attorney Riddle scheduled the case for a jury waived trial and after cross-examination and argument of counsel the Court found the client Not Guilty.

Result: Client found Not Guilty

Leominster, MA DUI OUI Charges

Leominster District Court

Client a 41 year old male from Leominster, MA was charged with one count of Operating Under the Influence of Liquor 2nd Offense also referred to as OUI, DUI or DWI, and a civil infraction of improperly registered motor vehicle.

The client was pulled over at 12:40am at a “Sobriety Checkpoint” on Rt. 12 in Leominster, MA.  The trooper made observations of a moderate odor of alcohol, watery, bloodshot eyes, and the client made an admission to consuming three beers.

The client was administered three field sobriety test, which according to the Trooper he failed.  The client was also offered a preliminary or portable breath test (which is not admissible into evidence) which read a .15, almost two times the legal limit.

Attorney Damian Riddle tried the case jury waived.  After cross-examination of the trooper and argument on the deficiencies of the Commonwealth’s case, the Court found the client Not Guilty.  After trial the Court allowed Attorney Riddle’s motion to restore the client’s driver’s license.

Result: Client found Not Guilty

Operating Under the Influence of Liquor in Westminster MA

Fitchburg District Court

Client a 29 year old male from Winchendon, MA was charged with one count of Operating Under the Influence of Liquor 2nd Offense also referred to as OUI, DUI or DWI, a civil marked lanes infraction and Possession of an Open Container in a motor vehicle.

The client was pulled over by a state trooper at 1:10 am on Rt. 2 in Westminster, MA.  The trooper pulled the vehicle over for crossing over marked lanes on four separate occasions.  The trooper made observations of a strong odor of alcohol, red, glassy, bloodshot eyes, and slurred speech.

The client was administered three field sobriety test, which according to the Trooper he failed.  After arresting the client the trooper found two opened bottles of liquor in the passenger compartment of the vehicle.

Attorney Damian Riddle scheduled the case for jury trial.  After preparing for trial and the arresting trooper not showing up for trial on two separate occasions, the Court Dismissed all of the charges at the request of Attorney Riddle and the Court allowed Attorney Riddle’s motion to restore the client’s driver’s license.

Result: All charges Dismissed and the client’s license restored.

OUI DUI in Fitchburg MA

Fitchburg District Court

Client a 58 year old male from Fitchburg, MA was charged with one count of Operating Under the Influence of Liquor 4thd Offense also referred to as OUI, DUI or DWI, and Operating a Motor Vehicle with a Suspended License.

The client was pulled over on a public way in the City of Fitchburg while operating his moped.

The client was administered four field sobriety tests, which according to the Fitchburg police officer he failed. The client also admitted to consuming two “joints” and two beers.

Attorney Damian Riddle filed a Motion to Dismiss the case because the Commonwealth could not prove an essential element to both charges that the client was charged with. One of the essential elements in every operating under the influence case that the Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the defendant operated a motor vehicle. Motor vehicles are defined under the Massachusetts general laws. Attorney Riddle argued to the Court in his Motion to Dismiss that mopeds are specifically exempt from the statute which defines motor vehicles.

The Court agreed with Attorney Riddle and allowed his motion and dismissed all of the charges against the client.

Result: Charges Dismissed

What You Need to Know about Massachusetts Child Support

Massachusetts has enacted new child support guidelines as of August 1, 2013 and they shall be applied to all child support orders and judgments entered after the effective date. There shall be a rebuttable presumption that these guidelines apply in all cases establishing or modifying a child support order.

In establishing these guidelines, due consideration has been given to the following principles:

1) to minimize the economic impact on the child’s standard of living;

2) to promote joint parental responsibility for child support in proportion to, or as a percentage of, income;

3) to meet the child’s survival needs in the first instance, but to the extent either parent enjoys a higher standard of living, to entitle the child to enjoy that higher standard;

4) to protect a subsistence level of income of parents at the low end of the income range whether or not they are on public assistance;

5) to recognize that the parents should bear any additional expenses resulting from the maintenance of two
separate households instead of one,since it is not the child’s decision that the parents divorce, separate, or otherwise live separately. [Read more…]

Reasons For Spousal Support/Alimony Modification

Prior to the Alimony Reform Act of 2011 there was no statute in MA to guide lawyers, judges and litigants on who was entitled to alimony, who could be ordered to pay, how much and for what period of time.  As a result it was up to the lawyers and parties to try and negotiate and it would be up to the individual judges to decide on a case by case basis if the parties could not agree.   However, today, Massachusetts has enacted legistalion, which provides lawyers, judges and litigants with a clear guide for who can be entitled to receive alimony, who may be obligated to pay it, the potential term of an alimony award as well as the potential amount.  In order to investigate your rights relative to alimony in Massachusetts you should seek the skillful analysis of a lawyer who is well versed in family law and the alimony statute. There are many reasons why you may need to modify an alimony award in your original divorce judgment.

Remarriage or Cohabitation
In most cases, if the spouse who is receiving the support marries or even cohabitates with someone else for a period of three months or more before the alimony period ends, the support should immediately end. However, it is often up to the payor to take the other party to court, by filing a Complaint for Modification, to put an end to the support officially through the courts. This reason is one of the easiest to prove, eliminating the support payments from the date of the filing of the Complaint.

[Read more…]