For more information about the types of drunk driving charges attorney Casale has handled or how our firm can help you, please see the case summaries below or contact our Massachusetts office today.

  • OUI – Not Guilty – Negligent Operation – Not Guilty – Palmer District Court Trial
  • OUI – Not Guilty – Negligent Operation – Guilty
  • OUI – Not Guilty – Negligent Operation – Not Guilty
  • OUI/DUI Liquor – Not Guilty – Trial By Jury
  • OUI/DUI Liquor – Not Guilty – Jury Waived Trial
  • OUI/DUI Liquor – Not Guilty – Jury Trial
  • OUI/DUI Alcohol – Not Guilty
  • OUI/DUI with Serious Bodily Injury – Not Guilty
  • OUI/DUI Drugs (4th Offense) and Possession Class A (6th Offense) – Both Charges Dismissed
  • OUI/DUI – Not Guilty – License Reinstated by Judicial Order
  • OUI/DUI – Judge Takes Verdict Away From Jury to Order Not Guilty
  • OUI/DUI – Not Guilty – Jury Verdict
  • Operating Under the Influence of Alcohol – Not Guilty; Leaving Scene of Property Damage – CWOF
  • OUI/DUI Reduced to Negligent Operation – CWOF

OUI – Not Guilty – Negligent Operation – Not Guilty – Palmer District Court Trial – December 3, 2014

At approximately 2:00 a.m., police from two surrounding towns as well as EMTS are dispatched to the scene of a single motor vehicle accident that took out three utility poles in an area commonly referred to as Whiskey Hill. Ware P.D. and Palmer P.D. arrive at the scene to find our client, a single white male, speaking to a couple who reported the accident. They identify our client as the operator. Police testify that he was staggering and mumbling with slurred speech and appeared disoriented. The vehicle, registered to our client, was found on its roof with live utility lines still on the vehicle. The passenger compartment was compressed from the rollover. Police interview our client as he is placed on a stretcher and transported by ambulance to the local hospital where his blood was drawn. Four police officers from two different towns testify that our client admitted that he was the operator of the motor vehicle and medical records introduced into evidence reveal a blood alcohol level of .22, nearly three times the legal limit of .08.

OUI – Not Guilty – Negligent Operation – Guilty (Judge Recommends No Loss Of License) – Holyoke District Court – April 16, 2014 – Jury Trial

Our client, a 25-year-old male, was charged on February 23, 2013, with OUI Liquor, Negligent Operation and Marked Lanes Violation in the Holyoke District Court. The case was tried before a jury on Aril 16, 2014. In February of 2013, our client was traveling Southbound on Rt. 91 at approximately 3:05 a.m. when a state trooper came up from behind. In the police report the trooper wrote that he observed our client traveling in the right lane at between 45-50 mph in a 65 mph posted area. The trooper indicated that he followed our client for approximately 1 mile, during which time, he observed the vehicle “cross well over the fog line and the lane line no less than 10 times.” The trooper activated a stop and detected a strong odor of alcohol coming from the vehicle. He asked our client to exit the vehicle and perform Field Sobriety Test (F.S.T.). Our client complied. The trooper testified that he asked our client to perform the 9-Step Walk & Turn and the One-Legged Stand Field Sobriety Tests. The trooper testified that our client failed both of these tests, failing to walk the return 9 steps as directed, failing the turn as directed and raising his arms for balance. He also testified that our client almost stumbled and fell during this test. On the one-legged stand, he testified that our client started counting 2 seconds before lifting one leg and that he could only hold his leg up for 10 of the requisite 30 seconds. Our client was taken to the station where he agreed to the Breath Test and blew a .11 and a .12. At an earlier hearing attorney Casale challenged the admissibility of the Breath Test evidence arguing that the trooper had failed to observe our client for the requisite 15 minutes prior to administering the test. This Observation Period is necessary to ensure that the defendant not burp or cough or do anything that may cause alcohol from his stomach to rise into his mouth and therefore skew the test. The body naturally produces alcohol, and this cannot be co-mingled with the mouth alcohol or the breath test results will be inaccurate. In our challenge, the officer admitted that he did not have specific recollection of this requisite observation period and tried to rely upon his standard operating procedure to say that he must have acted properly in this instance. The judge agreed with Attorney Casale and the Breath Test evidence was suppressed. On cross examination at trial Attorney Casale queried the severity of our client’s marked lanes violations, given the fact that the trooper observed over 10 violations over the distance of about a mile before stopping the vehicle. Similarly, attorney Casale was able to elicit from the trooper how many things our client did right in taking the Field Sobriety Tests, where the Commonwealth had only highlighted the deficiencies. As it turned out, our client got a lot more right than wrong. The jury was out less than 30 minutes and returned with a verdict of not guilty on the OUI Liquor charge and a guilty on the negligent operation charge. The judge found our client not responsible for the Marked Lanes violation and upon a request by Attorney Casale, made a recommendation that the registry of motor vehicles not suspend our client’s license for the 60 days that the negligent operation statute calls for. The client was elated to leave the court with no loss of license, a not guilty for OUI and not responsible for the marked lanes violation. For analysis of many of the issues that arise at these trials go to our Blog at

OUI – Not Guilty – Negligent Operation – Not Guilty – E. Brookfield District Court – April 14, 2014

Our client, a 23-year old female, was charged with OUI Liquor and negligent operation in the Dudley District Court. The case was transferred to the East Brookfield District Court for jury trial on Aril 14, 2014. In May of 2013 our client was returning home from a friend’s house when she drove straight into a piece of heavy machinery called a “grader” that was parked off of the side of the road in Charlton, Massachusetts. Police responded and found our client sitting by the side of the road on a stone wall. They asked her several questions, including whether or not she had consumed alcohol that evening, to which she readily admitted having one drink with dinner a couple of hours ago. She was given a series of field sobriety tests, which in the opinion of the arresting officer, she failed. She was taken into custody and charged. At trial on direct examination, the police officer testified that our client had no good explanation as to why she struck the grader. The air bags of her vehicle had deployed, and the windshield had shattered. The police officer testified that our client was somewhat unstable on her feet, that her speech was somewhat slurred and that he detected an odor of alcohol coming from her breath. He testified that she had failed to touch heel to toe on the 9-Step Walk & Turn, that she failed to recite the alphabet properly as directed and that although she had kept her foot raised for 30 seconds as instructed, she had failed to count out load as she did so and that she raised her hands for balance throughout the test. What he failed to establish was that our client was the Operator of the vehicle. In Massachusetts, in order to be convicted for OUI, the Commonwealth must prove three elements beyond a reasonable doubt; 1) Operation, 2) Public Way; and 3) Impaired ability to drive or a blood alcohol reading of .08% or greater. In Commonwealth v. Leonard, 401 Mass. 470, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts established that the admission of a defendant alone, without corroborating evidence, is insufficient to establish the element of Operation. This element is also a requisite in the charge of Negligent Operation. Since the officer arrived on the scene after our client was already seated on the nearby wall, no one at trial could testify that they had observed her as the Operator of the vehicle. No one testified that the vehicle was registered to our client, how soon after the accident the police officer arrived on scene and certainly not that anyone had actually seen our client driving the vehicle. As a result, before even getting to the question of whether or not our client’s ability to drive was or was not impaired, the verdict of Not Guilty was rendered for the failure of the prosecution to establish the requisite element of Operation on each charge. Our client was found Not Guilty on each charge. For more Case Summaries as well as Client Testimonials and information on attorney Casale and other Massachusetts charges go to Gregory Casale Attorney At Law .

UI/DUI Liquor – Not Guilty – Fitchburg District Court – September 9, 2009 – Trial by Jury

A 54-year-old male was cruising on his motorcycle while listening to music with ear buds in his ears when he was pulled over by Harvard P.D. The officer claimed he had traveled perilously close to two pedestrians while speeding at 51 in a 35 mph zone. The officer boasted he had numerous advanced OUI detection and training classes, was an OUI investigation instructor and that he had conducted hundreds of OUI investigations for over 23 years, implying that his credentials made him infallible in OUI detection. The officer then testified how poorly our client had performed the Field Sobriety tests by starting the 9-Step Walk & Turn too soon, missing every step heel to toe by more than 6 inches, and using his arms for balance. Additionally, the officer noted that our client made an “improper turn” after the outbound nine steps and only walked eight steps in return. As if the first field sobriety test failure were not enough, the officer then testified that our client did even worse on the One-Legged Stand, raising his foot only a couple of inches from the ground, failing to count out the seconds, and then putting his foot down right away while using his arms for balance. The officer also testified that our client admitted to a couple of beers before leaving his house, a few more, and then a couple of drinks earlier at his buddy’s house. All of this damaging testimony took only 20 short minutes. Cross-examination by attorney Casale took far longer and produced a far different picture. Under cross-examination, attorney Casale was able to have the officer admit that he himself observed our client operating his motorcycle for over a ½ mile without exhibiting any erratic operation whatsoever. He further admitted that the pedestrians were fully within the breakdown lane and that our client never left his proper lane of travel. He then admitted that our client stopped in a safe and proper manner, with no difficulties alighting from the motorcycle. Attorney Casale turned the officer’s credentials against him by having him admit that he had practiced the field sobriety tests hundreds of times but had provided our client no practice opportunity whatsoever. In the end, the jury deliberated less than an hour and rendered verdicts of not guilty on all counts.

OUI/DUI Liquor – Not Guilty – Westboro District Court – May 16, 2013 – Jury Waived Trial

A 26-year-old Shrewsbury man was charged with OUI liquor and marked lanes violations. His blood alcohol was .11% according to the breath test and when asked by the arresting officer, “So you really shouldn’t have been driving” he replied, “I guess not.” During the booking procedure the defendant also admitted that he had smoked some marijuana about 1 hour before the arrest. In addition, police found several pipes and less than one gram of marijuana in his vehicle. In a motion, attorney Casale successfully argued that the breath test evidence should be suppressed because the breath test operator used an alcohol-based hand sanitizer to clean his hands just before conducting the test. The court agreed. Without the BT evidence, the prosecution made great issue of the defendant’s admission to smoking marijuana and argued that the marijuana had contributed to the impairment caused by the alcohol. Attorney Casale successfully argued that there is no standard to determine what, if any, amount of marijuana impairs operation of a motor vehicle, that the defendant was charged with OUI liquor and that the arresting officers had no ability to determine the effects of an undetermined amount of marijuana on the defendant’s ability to drive safely. The judge agreed and found our defendant not guilty of OUI liquor.

OUI/DUI Liquor – Not Guilty – Worcester District Court – March 20, 2013 – Jury Trial

A 22-year-old Assumption College student was stopped on campus at 1:30 a.m. for driving over the yellow line and not having his head lights on. Assumption Police allege that the student was almost falling down while trying to perform Field Sobriety Tests and that he had admitted to consuming four beers. Under cross-examination, attorney Casale was able to put a much more benign spin to the field sobriety results and relentlessly questioned the officer as he tried to dodge questions about the rules and regulations pertaining public access to the campus and the maintenance of the roadways. The judge denied attorney Casale’s motion to find that the roadway within the Assumption campus is not a “public way” as defined under Massachusetts. Despite numerous earlier rulings in this same Worcester District Court that agreed with attorney Casale’s assertion regarding the roadway, this judge disagreed, and the case went to verdict. The jury deliberated less than 20 minutes before finding our client not guilty.

OUI/DUI Alcohol – Not Guilty – Worcester District Court – February 27, 2013 – Jury Trial

A 23-year-old woman was charged with operating under the influence of alcohol. On direct examination, under the safe harbor questioning of the DA, the arresting officer testified that at 1:30 a.m., after observing one headlight out, that he followed attorney Casale’s client and observed her to be swerving within her lane and speeding. He pulled her over, administered four field sobriety tests (FST), and arrested her for OUI. Attorney Casale was able to have one of the FSTs excluded from evidence. Then, under a more heated cross-examination, the officer conceded that the defendant actually passed one FST and took the other two with bare feet on rough pavement on a dark road, lit only by take down and spot lights of the cruiser focused directly on the defendant. Attorney Casale artfully picked apart the arresting officer’s testimony on cross-examination and showed the jury that there were in fact more “clues of sobriety” than there were clues of the defendant’s impaired ability. The jury was out no more than 10 minutes and returned with a verdict of not guilty.

OUI/DUI With Serious Bodily Injury – Not Guilty – Framingham District Court – Jury Verdict

Police and emergency medical teams transported two people to the hospital from this two-car collision in Framingham. Our defendant was charged with running a stop sign and operating under the influence of alcohol. He allegedly broadsided another vehicle while intoxicated causing serious bodily injury to the passenger of the other vehicle. The passengers of both vehicles were brought to the hospital for treatment. Our client was arrested at the scene and charged with operating under the influence of alcohol. Later the charge was amended to the much more serious offense of operating under the influence causing serious bodily injury. Attorney Casale was able to block highly damaging testimonial evidence from one passenger and draw suspicion to the allegations of serious bodily injury through intense cross-examination of the other passenger. Although the police destroyed the booking video, which was the one piece of evidence that was favorable to the defendant, attorney Casale was able to use this to our client’s advantage as evidence of a shoddy investigation by the police. This coupled with the suspicious motives of the government’s star witness, drawn out under cross-examination, provided sufficient reasonable doubt for the jury of six to find our client not guilty and acquit him after a full day of trial, but a mere 20 minutes of deliberation.

OUI/DUI Drugs (4th Offense) And Possession Class A (6th Offense) – Both Dismissed – Westboro District Court
The defendant, a 54-year-old gentleman, was taken out of his vehicle by police and paramedics who arrived on scene to find the defendant’s vehicle parked horizontally across the road pointing into the woods after an apparent accident. Found in plain view in the vehicle were 10 full bags of what appeared to be heroin, numerous empty heroin bags, 10 hypodermic needles and a soda can ripped in half with burn marks on the bottom, all of which was taken into evidence. The defendant was taken to UMASS and police applied for complaints for OUI Drugs and Possession Class A, Subsequent Offense. Despite five previous OUI arrests, three of which resulted in convictions and six previous convictions for Possession Class A and/or Possession Class A, Subsequent Offense, several of which resulted in a one-year jail term, attorney Casale was able to have the charges issued as straight OUI Drugs and Possession Class A, dropping the “subsequent offense” designations. In the District Court, despite the defendant’s seven-page CORI (Criminal Offender Record Information), attorney Casale was able to get all charges dismissed upon a showing that defendant had entered and completed detoxification and aftercare, was now living in sober housing and had produced several clean drug screens. Instead of serving time in jail and losing his license for 10 years or more, he is now clean and sober with a valid Massachusetts license with all charges dismissed.

OUI/DUI – Not Guilty – License Reinstated By Judicial Order

Westboro District Court. In this case, the 25-year -old male was stopped by local police on Route 9 for speeding. The officer reported observations of a strong odor of alcohol, bloodshot and glassy eyes. The officer deemed that the defendant failed a variety of field sobriety tests. Our client was arrested and charged with operating under the influence of alcohol (OUI) and speeding. At trial, attorney Casale obtained a verdict of Not Guilty and upon attorney Casale’s motion, the judge ordered our client’s license to be reinstated, despite his refusal to take the Breath Test.

OUI/DUI – Judge Takes Verdict Away From Jury To Order Not Guilty – Milford District Court (Worcester Trial Court)

A 37-year-old man was charged with operating under the influence of alcohol after an anonymous caller informed police that the car was seen operating erratically on Route 495. The officer claimed that defendant failed multiple Field Sobriety Tests and blew a .10 on the Breathalyzer test. Attorney Casale convinced the judge that despite the defendant’s taking both the field sobriety tests and the breath test, that the District Attorney had failed to prove all elements of the crime and that he should direct the verdict himself. The judge agreed and found our client not guilty on all charges.

OUI/DUI – Not Guilty – Jury Verdict – Westboro District Court

In this matter, a 26-year-old man was stopped on Route 9 for speeding. The officer stated that when speaking with the defendant, he noticed that his eyes were red and glassy, and his speech was slurred. The officer also claimed to detect a strong odor of alcohol emanating from the vehicle. The defendant was ordered to exit the vehicle and perform multiple field sobriety tests. The officer claimed the defendant was unable to pass these tests and refused to take the breathalyzer test. The defendant was arrested and charged with operating under the influence and speeding. Attorney Casale successfully convinced a six-person jury to find the defendant not guilty of operating under the influence of alcohol.

Operating Under The Influence Of Alcohol – Not Guilty; Leaving Scene Of Property Damage – CWOF – Westboro District Court
A 17-year-old young man was charged with operating under the influence, leaving the scene of property damage and marked lanes violation. After admitting to the police that he had operated the vehicle, failing multiple field sobriety tests and blowing a .13 and .14 on the breath test, at trial, attorney Casale convinced the judge that he should find our client not guilty of operating under the influence and leaving the scene of property damage.

OUI/DUI Reduced To Negligent Operation – CWOF – Westboro District Court
A 26-year-old man was stopped for driving under the speed limit and weaving. A registration check also showed that the vehicle was not properly inspected. The officer claimed to smell a moderate odor of alcohol emanating from the vehicle. The defendant was asked to perform multiple field sobriety tests, which the officer claimed that the defendant failed. The defendant was subsequently charged with operating under the influence, unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle and no inspection sticker. Attorney Casale successfully negotiated with the District Attorney’s office to have the OUI reduced to negligent operation of a motor vehicle which was continued without a finding (CWOF) for one year and then dismissed. The defendant was found not responsible for no inspection sticker and the unlicensed operation charge was dismissed.

Contact Worcester Attorney Gregory Casale Now
Do not hesitate to get in touch with the office of Worcester, Massachusetts, criminal defense lawyer Gregory Casale. We answer the phones 24 hours daily. Contact us by calling 508.752.7500 or 877.752.7501.

Lawyer Gregory Casale | Top Attorney Personal Injury

How Can We Help You?

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Scroll to Top