Matthew B. Nichols, Esq.

Drunk Driving
( OUI / DUI / DWI )
Defense Information

Sponsored by Nichols & Webb, PA
1-888-703-5421

"When pleading guilty to a DUI is not a viable alternative"^SM

Sample Drunk Driving Cases Handled by Matthew B. Nichols, Esq.

OUI Case 17

State v. J.W.

Defense Attorney: Matthew B. Nichols

Offense: Operating Under the Influence (OUI, DUI, DWI)

Maximum Sentence: 364 days in jail (minimum 48 hours in jail, 90 day license suspension, $400 fine)

Synopsis:

Client was observed by a Game Warden in a marked Department of Inland Fisheries and Game truck operating erratically on Interstate 95 just north of Augusta. Specifically, the warden testified that client almost ran him off the road and after stopping client the warden testified that he smelled a strong odor of liquor and that client had urinated in his pants. The warden subsequently asked client to exit the vehicle and perform some field sobriety tests for 2 state troopers who arrived a few minutes later. The warden and 2 state troopers testified at trial that client was extremely intoxicated and unable to perform any of the field sobriety tests without a great degree of difficulty. Client was subsequently arrested and submitted to an intoxilyzer test which revealed a blood alcohol concentration of 0.16% B.A.C.

Client testified that he did admit to consuming 6 to 8 beers from western Massachusetts to the point at which he was stopped. Client further testified that he had not urinated in his pants, rather he had spilled a tin of Kodiak (chewing tobacco) onto his lap and that his erratic operation was the result of trying to open that fresh tin. Client further testified that he still had remnants of chewing tobacco in his mouth at the time the breath test was administered. Client’s assertion was confirmed by “an invalid sample” error prompt on the intoxilyzer on his first breath attempt.

The State’s chemist testified on behalf of the prosecution and the defense also called an expert witness to indicate that the client’s true blood alcohol level at the time operation was substantially below .08% according to his reported drink history and that the purported test result was artificially inflated due to the presence of chewing tobacco in his mouth. The defense also presented evidence that the calibration check conducted on the intoxilyzer following client’s test failed.

Verdict: Not Guilty

You can read other cases by clicking below

Get a Free Evaluation of your drunk driving case Now