Anthony M. Salerno

Attorney At Law

A Live Person Answering Your Calls 24/7
Instant Access: Save Our Number

Anthony M. Salerno

Attorney At Law

Don't Go To Court Without Us

  1. Home
  2.  » Recent Case Verdicts

Recent Case Verdicts


A Leicester man was arrested by Northborough police after an incident at Wegman’s Market. Our client had decided to park his new Harley Davidson motorcycle on the sidewalk in front of the store. Management and the client got into a heated argument which resulted in management calling the police. The client had left prior to the arrival of the police. A BOLO was put out for the motorcyclist. Police located the client a short distance away after he decided to pull over and wait for the police. He was administered a series of Field Sobriety Tests (FST) and subsequently arrested. During the jury trial we introduced evidence that our client merely wanted to protect his new bike and that management was rather aggressive. The client made the mistake of taking the FST but correctly declined a breath test. Through video evidence we obtained and provided to the jury, we were able to establish his “normal” movements were fine as opposed to the unusual movements of the FST. Remember: Cameras are everywhere. The prosecution could not convince the jury after the admission of this evidence, and as a result, our client was found not guilty. 14CR001357
Real Cases, Real People, Real Results


A 60-year-old women crashed her SUV into construction equipment parked on the side of the road. When police arrived at the scene, the client was still behind the wheel of her SUV. The officer testified that when he questioned her as to the cause of the accident, the client had no explanation. The police officer further testified that our client had an odor of alcohol on her breath, glassy eyes and slurred speech. During cross-examination we were able to highlight that the air bags had deployed and the powder like substance could have been the reason for “red blood shot glassy eyes.” Additionally our client’s statement to the officer that she had consumed a half-bottle of Bacardi was put at issue. We questioned the officer’s testimony in that he never ascertained the size of the bottle, when she may have consumed it and with whom. This all had a “watering down” effect on the prosecution’s case. Because our client was just involved in a crash, and had suffered some minor injuries, the field sobriety tests issue was mitigated. NOT GUILTY 13CR1374
Real Cases, Real People, Real Results.
– James


Our client was recently arrested at a road block, or what is referred to by prosecutors as a “Sobriety Checkpoint.” Police directed him into a parking lot where he was further examined by additional troopers. He preformed field sobriety tests (FST) and took a portable breath test. The client did not fail the portable breath test but was still arrested based upon the FSTs. He was brought into the mobile police station set up at the roadblock, where he took a breath test on the bigger machine and failed. At trial we attacked the validity of the bigger machine and were successful in keeping those failed test results out of evidence. The portable test, which he took right at his car, is not admissible in Massachusetts Courts, so that helpful evidence did not come in. We highlighted for the jury how well he drove throughout the entire time he was observed approaching the roadblock and inside the observation area. Our client weight 300 lbs., so that his performances on the FSTs were put at issue. What made this case even more interesting was that the trial judge, after each witness finished testifying, allowed the jury to ask questions of the witnesses. In 28 years of trying cases, this was the first time I had ever experienced jurors questioning of witnesses. In the end the jurors answered the ultimate question rather quickly: Not Guilty. What can been learned here is that you may want to consider not taking a portable breath test at the scene in addition to refusing the FSTs and breath test back at the station, as this evidence will surely be used in the case against you. 14CR00724


A Worcester man was a passenger in a car followed by police. Police allege the car crossed over the white dash lines between the lanes on the same side of the road. Police followed the car, running a registration check which revealed the owner had an outstanding warrant for his arrest. The police continued to follow the car into a parking lot where it had came to a stop. The officer positioned his cruiser behind the car so that it could not move. As the men emerged from the car and began to walk toward a building. Police subsequently determined that none of the men were the owner who was wanted. The officer continue to detain the men until other officers arrived. Thereafter the officer went over to the car and searched it. He located cocaine on the floor where our client had been seated. The passenger, our client, was arrested and charged with serious drug offenses.
Prior to trial, we filed a motion to suppress the search of the car. The controlling law in Massachusetts prevents warrantless searches without exigent circumstances. The police must have probable cause to believe a crime was committed, ongoing or about to occur and all of this must be at a time and place that does not allow for a search warrant to be obtained. We demonstrated to the court that the police did not have any specific articulable facts to support probable cause that a crime was committed in the car. When the officer had his initial contact with all the occupants, they had just exited the car. He further learned that none of them were the wanted owner, hence no crime and no reason to detain. Additionally, even if he had some probable cause to search the car, he had every opportunity to secure the car there and seek a search warrant before going through the car. The Court agreed and suppressed the illegally obtained evidence. With no evidence that could be used at trial, the case was Dismissed. 13CR4740.


Last May, police observed two cars parked to the left of a restaurant after hours. As the officer approached the vehicle he detected a smell of marijuana. The officer questioned the occupants subsequently having our client step from the rear seat. The officer patted down our client without finding anything illegal. The officer then searched the car and found in the back seat brass knuckles and a baggie containing six clear rocks. Additionally. the officer located a backpack in the car which yielded more drugs. Our client was arrested and charged with a series of serious drug offenses. We filed a motion to suppress the illegal search and seizure as it related to our client.
The Court allowed our motion to suppress the evidence, thereby causing the case against our client to be dismissed. We successfully argued to the Court that under Massachusetts law, ( Commonwealth v. Cruz), the odor of marijuana cannot give rise to probable cause for police to believe a crime is being committed. Without the adequate probable cause, all evidence taken thereafter was deemed illegally seized and could not be used in the case against our client. 13CR000787


A Country Fest fan was arrested and charged with Operating Under The Influence, Negligent Operation, Marked Lanes Violation and Speeding, after a night at Gillette. The client had driven all the way back from Foxboro, dropped off his friends and was heading home to Oxford when state police arrested him on Route 290 in Auburn. The police testified that he followed the client and clocked him on radar doing 78 MPH. Additionally, the police said he drifted halfway into the breakdown lane, then cut across three3 lanes, nearly striking another car before being stopped. The police testified that he observed three empty 30 racks along with a cooler and grill in the back of the pickup.
On cross-examination, we succeeded in establishing evidence that our client reacted appropriately to the emergency lights of the cruiser. His everyday movements were uneventful and consistent. The officer insisted that our client had a strong odor of booze on his breath at the time of the stop. He also testified that the odor remained at the same intensity for the next 4 hours. We confronted the officer during cross-examination as to his inventory sheet, which is used to show what evidence is taken from the scene (vehicle). There were no entries. No mention of the 30 racks, etc. In our closing argument, we told the jury that “something stinks” about this case, but nothing can stink for 4.5 hours without losing some of its smell. The jury agreed and obviously felt something was fishy about the evidence or lack thereof. NOT GUILTY 13CR7206.
Don’t Forget to Download our latest APP “Worcester BAC” Free in APP Store or Google Play. It calculates your Blood Alcohol Level for you.

East Brookfield:

A Charlton man was arrested and charged with Operating Under The Influence, Second Offense. State police were driving southbound while the client was traveling northbound. The trooper testified that as he approached the client’s pickup he observed the pickup cross over the fog line and continue there for a 100 feet. The trooper reversed direction and followed the client for a distance again observing the pickup cross over the fog line. The purpose of this testimony was to show the client could not keep his truck within his lanes and was, therefore, intoxicated. The trooper stopped the client and had him exit his truck. Initially, the client agreed to take the Field Sobriety Tests, then changed his mind, refusing all tests. He was arrested. At the station, the client again refused all breath test requests.
At trial we employed technology to aid in our defense. The courthouses do not have wifi available in the courtrooms. Using an iPhone to create a hotspot, we connected to an Apple TV unit along with our iPad. We used these devices to project Google earth onto the big screen. When we cross-examined the trooper we utilized an aerial view of the scene. Once we locked the witness into the location we dropped down into a street view. The ground level image clearly depicted that the road was narrow with only one lane in each direction. The fog line that our client may have crossed over only had a two-foot-wide breakdown lane adjacent to it. The road itself was very winding and not lighted. Almost impossible to stay within the lanes. Additionally, we brought out during questioning of the police witness that the cruiser he was in was an unmarked car, yet our client reacted immediately once the lights came on. He pulled over properly and without any difficulty. These facts along with the Google Earth images undercut the prosecution’s case. Score one for technology and one for a smart defendant who knew to refuse all tests. Not Guilty. 14CR2162
Real Cases, Real People & Real Results.


An off-duty law enforcement officer was involved in a disturbance at a local establishment. Our client had gotten off work and had met up with a colleague at a hot wings bar. While seated at the bar, another individual came in and sat next to our client on his right side. As our client turned to his left to converse with his colleague, the patron on his right continued to insert himself into their conversation. This patron had a striking resemblance to Harry Potter. Our client repeatedly told the individual to “butt out” of the conversation and basically mind his own business. Advice not taken. The next warning was, “Look, Harry Potter, if you continue to butt in you’ll get a face full of hot wings” (demonstrating how he would push his face down into his platter of hot wings). Advice not taken. What happened next was captured on the restaurant’s surveillance camera. We played the surveillance tape for the jury. As luck would have it, another customer had walked between the camera and the disturbance. The only images visible were that of Harry raising his right arm in the air causing it to appear like he was cocking his arm to throw a punch. Meanwhile our client appears in the film to be raising his arm to “block” the punch, then he gets up and moves away. Harry is next seen with his cellphone in hand and hot sauce on his face, chasing after our client as he was trying to pay his tab and leave. Under cross-examination at trial, the victim refused to answer our questions without arguing each point. He had to be instructed by the judge a number of times to just answer the questions. The one question that absolutely sent him off like a rocket was when we asked him if he got angry when our client referred to him as “Harry Potter.” The witness went off, ranting about dealing with this his whole life and how he wasn’t going to take it anymore. The jury deliberated for only several minutes before returning a verdict. It was very apparent by the fast verdict that they all had, at one time or another, the unfortunate experience of sitting next to a Harry or two. NOT GUILTY. Real Cases, Real People, Real Results 13CR00584


A 18-year-old college student and chemistry major had been placed on pretrial probation, for a period of one year, for a minor offense he was charged with. Pretrial probation merely keeps your case open for a period of time without a plea or finding entering. Oftentimes pretrial probation is a way to have a case dismissed, if there is no further involvement with the Courts. Our client contacted us after six months into his probation. He had received notice that his application for a Permanent Resident (“Green Card”) Status had been denied by U.S. Immigration due to being placed on pretrial probation. His original attorney at the time he entered the plea was unaware of the immigration ramifications. To complicate matters more, both the mother and father of the client received their Green Cards on the same day his was denied. The client came to us upon receiving his notice from immigration that he would have to leave the country by March 31, 2014. We filed an emergency motion with the Court seeking to have his pretrial probation terminated immediately so as to prevent the deportation and separation from his family. We were able to convince the Court, over objections from the prosecution, that this case presented an unusual hardship. The client’s mother and father, who are both scientists, had escaped from Russia through Israel. With the mother and father unable to return to Russia, the 18 year old faced the possibility of returning to the homeland alone to face the consequences. The judge agreed with our requests and ordered the pretrial probation terminated, thereby sparing our client deportation and keeping the family together here.
Real Cases, Real People, Real Results 13CR648


At 1 o’clock in the morning, police observed a pick-up truck parked in the opposite direction in front of the Post Office. As the cruiser passed by, police observed our client walking away from the mailboxes and enter his truck. The client slowly pulled across the road and into the proper travel lane. The police followed the pick-up through an intersection and then pulled him over. This cruiser was equipped with a dash cam and the roadside stop was recorded. The client was polite in his initial door side discussion. The police officer questioned the client as to whether he had been drinking and the client responded, “Yes.” The client was ordered out of the vehicle and requested to perform Field Sobriety Tests, all of which were recorded. The client did the Nine-Step Walk & Turn Test along with the One-Legged Stand Test to 30. He performed well on both. When the client was asked to do the Portable Breath Test, he declined and was immediately arrested. Back at the station, the client initially refused the breath test. The police repeated their request for the client to take the breath test. Eventually, the client agreed to take the test, scoring a high reading, thereby failing The Breath Test.
Prior to trial, we filed a motion to preclude the failed test results from evidence. Our argument to the Court was that our client had immediately refused the breath test, only to give in to the corrosion of the police to take it. With the breath test successfully out of evidence, the client was found NOT GUILTY.
The lesson here is, always refuse the field sobriety tests. As in this case where the tests were captured on film, even when the client passed the tests, he still got arrested. Ask yourself, “Why do the tests?” The breath test is the best evidence for the police. It is a machine that measures the percentage of alcohol in you blood and cannot be tampered with by police. Ask yourself again, “Why would you give the police the best evidence they could have against you?” This case highlights the reason why we advise: Never Take The Field Sobriety Tests and Never Take The Breath Tests. Case: 13CR00794
Real Cases, Real People, Real Results


State police charged a Worcester man with Failing To Provide a DNA Database Sample, in violation of Massachusetts General Law Chapter 22E, Section 11. The new law provides that, “…a person being required to provide a DNA sample to the State DNA Database, after receiving written notice, and who did fail to do so within one year of conviction, or release from custody, whichever occurred first, shall be punished by: jail or house of correction for 6 months or a fine of $1000 or both…” Our client had a 2006 conviction which concluded in 2007. We established in court that the written notice to our client did not even get sent out until 2012. Further, we challenged the reliability of the written notice, as it was sent to his last known address. The judge agreed with us that, and the prosecution could not establish that our client was notified in a timely manner or that he actually received notice at all. CASE DISMISSED.
Real Cases, Real People, Real results 13CR008154

Two Milford women had worked their shifts as bartenders at a local establishment. After work they had several drinks together before calling it a night. One went east while the other went west. Our client, who had gone east, drove into a State Police Sobriety Checkpoint (or call it what it really is, a road block). She had traveled along a route which unexpectedly brought her into a line of cars that were being stopped and checked by police. The client was still in her work clothes along with sandals. The police detained our client, having her perform Field Sobriety Tests (always refuse). The client was arrested and charged with Operating Under The Influence. The client wisely refused the breath test. At trial we developed evidence establishing her routine as a bartender and the handling of many drink orders throughout the evening. This was offered as a rational accounting for the alleged odor of alcohol on her. Further, the fact that police had her perform the nine-step walk and turn test along with the one-legged stand, all while in open-toe sandals, impacted the jury. The police did not see her operate in an erratic or irresponsible manner, but rather, she followed in line with all the other traffic. We got the police witness to admit the only reason the client was initially detained was due to the “odor” and not her driving. NOT GUILTY 13CR001152
Real Cases, Real People, Real Results


Several friends had gone out for an early Saturday night dinner. A couple Mai Tais later, they left to stop over at some other friend’s house. The night concluded relatively early. Our client was driving his friends home when he got stopped for speeding. The police had him get out of his car. He was asked to perform several Field Sobriety Tests. The client was arrested and charged with Operating Under The Influence of Liquor. When he was back at the police station, he agreed to take the breath test. The client registered a failing grade on the breath test.
At trial, the prosecution called the arresting officer and the breath test expert for the police department. The defense never really challenged the breath test, as we had thoroughly reviewed the machine and the test procedure, prior to trial. Our focus was on the cross-examination of the arresting officer. We elicited favorable testimony demonstrating our client’s performance on the field sobriety tests. A number of factors, indicated for the jury, that his stability was fine. Additionally, it was brought out that but for the speeding, his operation of the car was fine. The defense summons in the client’s booking DVD had recorded him throughout his time back at the police station. The client was very polite, stable and spoke very clearly. The elephant in the room was his breath test failure. A failed breath test is very difficult to overcome for a number of reasons. The judge, in his instructions to a jury, tells them that if they find a defendant fails a breath test, they should find him guilty.
In our closing argument to the jury, we focused on the theme of “Man vs. Machine.” The jury was told that they had seen with their own eyes, and heard with their own ears, the client at the police station during the booking DVD. They heard on cross-examination evidence of the client performing well on the Field Sobriety Tests. We argued to the jury to not surrender ( to a machine/Breath Test ) their human instincts gathered from their observations of the evidence.

Description: Worcester police responded to a Halloween party in the city, for reports of gunshots being fired. Upon arrival police found a man who had been shot. As other police arrived they secured the crime scene and searched for witnesses and evidence. Our client was found hiding in the corner of the property next to a hole in a fence. The police said they observed her go through the fence several times, and was eventually found crouching down next to the fence and the corner of the house. The police brought her out to the front of the house and began to question her. Just at that time, another investigator called out that he had just located a handgun under some leaves on the ground in the area where our client was seen crouching down. She was arrested and initially charged with illegal possession of a handgun.

At trial the prosecution called all the investigating police officers, along with fingerprint and ballistic experts and crime scene photographers. The defense was able to establish a significant level of reasonable doubt. The initial responding officer, under cross-examination, was unable to positively identify our client as the same individual who came through the fence the first two times. She was only identified as the person he saw crouching down when he found her. Under cross-examination, the fingerprint expert could not positively establish that the gun had not been handled by others prior to her examination or if there was some other reason that no latent fingerprints could be found on the gun. We were able to prove, through the ballistics, that the gun our client was charged with possessing was not the same gun used in the shooting. The defense established through the crime scene photos the area where the gun was located was directly below a bedroom window of another suspect. All this evidence or lack thereof, coupled with our client’s position that she ran out of the house to hide and get away from the shooting, allowed for the not-guilty verdict.
Real Cases, Real People, Real Results. 12CR008703


A women was charged with Domestic Assault With A Dangerous Weapon. The client and her husband were in the kitchen of their marital home arguing. The couple were headed for a divorce and the argument got heated. Our client was at the sink doing the dishes. The husband told police that she became upset with him and threw a butcher knife at him. Police later that night went to our client’s work and arrested her. At trial we established evidence that the husband waited nearly five hours, after our client had left the house to go to work, before he called the police. Further we proved that the knife never really came near him or that he was ever in fear of being struck by the knife. Additionally, the wife had provided us with an email the husband had accidentally forwarded to her. The email was allegedly intended for his divorce attorney. In the email the husband stated, in essence, that he would have to start putting a spin on things to get the upperhand in the divorce. His credibility at trial was seriously questioned resulting in a NOT-GUILTY VERDICT.
Real Cases, Real People, Real Results. 13CR722


A mother was charged with providing alcohol to minors. The mom allowed her daughter to host a post-prom party. The client was reluctant to host, but eventually gave in to her daughter. Prior to the party the mom/client contacted the parents of all 25 kids who were on the guest list. The client advised all the parents that there would be no alcohol allowed in her home. All the guests names and bags were checked when they arrived at the house after the prom. Shortly after the party got underway a number of uninvited kids showed up with 30 packs in hand. The client gave them the boot and the crashers simply went across the street to a parking lot. It did not take long before the police responded to the parking lot for a loud gathering. The crashers scattered upon seeing the police with some running across the street and through the client’s yard while discarding cans of beer. The police caught a couple of the kids who said they were coming from a party at the client’s house. The police then went to the client’s home, observed several of the discarded beer cans. The client informed police that the crashers were never allowed in and she did not provide any alcohol to any of the kids. That did not fly and police brought the charge of providing alcohol to minors. At court we presented a number of witnesses. The kids who were present, their parents who picked them up all provided evidence that the client took every precaution to prevent alcohol on the premises. Further, the parents confirmed that they checked out their kids and were satisfied no alcohol was consumed. The witnesses also confirmed that any discarded beer cans found in the yard were those of the crashers. ALL CHARGES DISMISSED.
Real Cases, Real People, Real Results. 13AC000412

Description: Worcester: A young Worcester man got himself involved in an extramarital affair. The affair was short lived. He attempted to break off the relationship several times unsuccessfully. The woman constantly called and texted him at work and home. Fearful it would cause problems within his marriage, he attempted to ease out of the relationship rather than have it implode. Each time the client would meet with the woman to break it off, it would end in a highly emotional encounter. At the last meeting between the parties, the woman threatened to go to police and falsely accuse the client of domestic assault and battery if he broke it off. The client had enough at that point, immediately exited her car and attempted to leave for the last time. The women pursued him, chasing him to his car, then striking and kicking both him and his vehicle. Later that night, police arrived at his home and arrested him for domestic assault and battery based upon a complaint filed by the woman.

In Court we produced numerous phone records showing hundreds of call and text messages from her. A number of the texts were threatening in nature if he broke off the relationship. Additionally, we secured the surveillance tape from the parking lot where they had met. On the tape, clear as day, was the woman striking the client multiple times and kicking the car as he attempted to leave. On the trial date, after presentation of the aforementioned evidence by us, all charges were dismissed.
Real Cases, Real People, Real Results. 13CR6190 & 13CR3500

Description: Clinton: A Worcester man was recently arrested for Operating Under the Influence, in Clinton. The client had driven at a rather fast pace as he approached the area of a high school football game. There were high intensity lighting and police cruisers’ lighting at the entrance to the football field parking lot. The client had come down a straightaway and at the last second made an abrupt left turn into the parking lot. The police officer who was on the detail, observed the client circle the lot two or three times before picking up a passenger and attempting to exit the lot. The police ordered the client to stop. He fumbled for his license and registration prior to exiting the car. The police had him complete several field sobriety tests, determining he failed all of them. He was arrested and brought to the police station. The client refused the breath test wisely.

At trial we utilized a high speed projector along with Google Earth. With the aid of the images, we demonstrated during the trial that the position of the intensity lights, along with the police cruiser, blocked the oncoming traffic’s view of the lot’s entrance on the left-hand side. The client had no idea of where the entrance was till he was actually at it, causing him to suddenly brake. Police testified that the client’s driving caused an operator traveling in the other direction to brake and skid. The officer further testified that the client failed the alphabet test along with the 9 step walk and turn. During cross-examination of the officer, we established that the client preformed the alphabet fine up to the “LMNOP” area where he ran the letters together. We suggested that since people were at one time little children, that most sing the alphabet and run these particular letters together. The officer had testified under questioning by the prosecutor, that our client had a strong odor of alcohol on his breath. During cross-examination the officer reluctantly admitted he could not tell from the odor what the client may have consumed (beer, wine, etc.), when he may have consumed it or how much he may have consumed. Further, the Google images proved that the area where the client preformed the field sobriety tests, was on a slope rather than flat surface, as the officer had also testified. The evidence developed by the defense undermined the prosecution’s case significantly.

Real Cases, Real People, Real Results. 12CR01293

Description: Worcester: A Worcester man was arrested and charged with Assault And Battery On A Police Officer, Resisting Arrest and Disorderly Conduct. City police responded to a disturbance call for loud music. The police did not have a description or BOLO for anyone involved. Upon arriving near the reported address, police observed our client in a driveway. The client, upon seeing the police roll up, turned and ran back down his driveway. The police immediately gave chase, catching the client before he got to the rear door of the house. Two officers ran him into a fence and he bounced off the fence and spun around. There police testified that the client made a fist and they felt threatened. One of the offices testified that he thought the client took a combative stance, so he attempted to knee him in the chest. The officer further testified that when he went to knee the client, the officer slipped on black ice and accidentally kneed the client in the face. The client went down stunned. When he regained his senses and attempted to get up, he was pushed over a snow bank falling to the ground. The client was struck with a night stick and struggled to prevent the officers from cuffing him. Eventually, he was cuffed. An ambulance was called to the scene to treat the client for injuries to his head, face and hands. He received stitches to the face in two places and his hand.

At trial, we established that the client was never placed under arrest or even advised until after the cuffs were on him. Without knowledge that he was being arrested, he could not be considered to be resisting arrest. Further, we proved that he had committed no crimes and was on his own property when the police observed him run back down his own driveway; therefore, no probable cause existed to pursue him. We convinced the jury that after police caught up to our client, what followed was nothing more than a repeat of Rodney King. The jury went out to deliberate only to return with NOT GUILTY verdicts within minutes. 13CR1180 Real Cases, Real People, Real Results.

Description: Worcester: A Worcester man was arrested and charged with Operating Under The Influence, Leaving The Scene and Assault and Battery. The client had gone outside to attempt to get his wife’s stuck car out of the snow bank. When he rocked the car in and out, he lost control striking three parked cars. The owner of one of the cars came out of his house and confronted the client. The client attempted to walk away only to have the neighbor block his movement. The neighbor raised his arms up causing the client to react and grab one of the neighbor’s arms. At that point police arrived only to witness the grabbing by the client. Police immediately arrested and charged the client with Drunk Driving, Leaving The Scene Of An Accident and Assault and Battery. At trial today, we were able to introduce evidence that our client had received a deep gash to his chin during the accident. Additionally, he lived just up the street and was heading home to get medical help. He was not the aggressor but rather just stood his ground and prevented the neighbor from striking him first. NOT GUILTY. Real Cases, Real People, Real Results. 12CR10229

Description: A Millbury woman had just entered her car in a parking lot adjacent to a local bar at 2 A.M. Police had responded to a call for a disturbance outside the bar. Reference was made to our client, who was seated in her vehicle. A female police officer approached our client. There was a brief conversation at the driver’s side window. Within seconds there developed a strong “difference of opinion” between the officer and our client. A back-up officer arrived and our client was involuntarily removed from her vehicle. Almost instantly she was placed under arrest for Operating Under The Influence Of Alcohol, Disorderly Conduct, Resisting Arrest, and Assault & Battery On A Police Officer. During trial, we developed evidence establishing that the parking lot actually belonged to another business which was closed at the time of the incident. We convinced the court that the status of the parking lot at that time was “private property” and our client could be considered a “trespasser.” This was important, as the law relating to Operating Under the Influence only applies to “Public Ways.” A public way is a public road or place the public has access to as invitees. There were signs posted in the parking lot stating parking for customers only (of the business, not the bar) and that all others will be towed. This notice, coupled with the time of day, made our client, technically, a trespasser. The necessary element of public way was lacking in the prosecution’s case. Additionally, the evidence did not support a conviction that our client assaulted the police officer as it was the officer who entered the car to pull our client out. NOT GUILTY. 12CR7697 Real Cases, Real People, Real Results.

Description: An 18-year-old woman was arrested and charged with a series of serious Felonies, Robbery, Larceny Over, and Conspiracy. Theses charges stem from an incident where she was in the wrong place at the wrong time with the wrong guy. The client was with a male acquaintance who asked her to contact another individual requesting they meet in a parking lot. She drove her friend to the meeting. Once at the parking lot the other individual got into her car. There was some small talk then a struggle erupted. The two men rolled out of the car onto the ground fighting. She got out and attempted to stop the fight. The men separated with her friend, yelling at her to get in the car and drive them both away. They fled the scene but where apprehended shortly thereafter. At trial we were able to put on a defense that dispelled the notion of her being the “Bonnie” in a “Bonnie and Clyde” type robbery. We were able to show that the meeting between the two males was nothing more than a drug deal gone bad. There was no evidence that our client had any prior knowledge of the drug deal or the plan to rob the guy. To have a conspiracy, there must be evidence of a mutual plan and meeting of the minds to accomplish a crime. Here there was no “Bonnie,” therefore no crime. CASE DISMISSED. 13CR0934 Real Cases, Real People, Real Results

Description: Sturbridge: Sturbridge police stopped a North Brookfield man for speeding. When police approached our client’s car, police observed two 11-year-old passengers and an empty beer bottle that rolled out from under the seat. The officer testified at trial that our client had an odor of alcohol on his breath, glassy eyes and slurred speech. The client was ordered out of the car and told to perform field sobriety tests (always refuse as there is no license ramifications for refusing field sobriety tests). After the tests, the client was arrested for Operating Under The Influence (OUI), Open Container of Alcohol in Motor Vehicle, Child Endangerment While Operating Under The Influence, and Speeding. The client was brought back to the police station where he consented to a Breathalyzer, which he failed (ALWAYS REFUSE THE BREATH TEST). At trial we introduced evidence that disputed our client’s performance on the field sobriety tests. The client was 6’4′, 350 lbs, and rather agile. The court was also provided with evidence by our office that demonstrated a significant delay in time from the point of arrest to the time of taking the breath test, so as to draw into doubt the validity of the breath tests. After a hard-fought trial, a NOT GUILTY verdict for the client on the criminal charges and just a civil responsible finding on the speeding ticket. 13CR002464 Real Cases, Real People, Real Results.

Description: Leominster: A North County man was driving through Leominster in the early evening hours. Police allege the driver was operating his motor vehicle with the fog lights on, even though the weather was clear. As a result of the police observation the client was pulled over. Unfortunately, the operator’s license was revoked for an OUI conviction. In Massachusetts, if you are convicted of operating a motor vehicle after your right to operate has been suspended for an OUI conviction, you face a mandatory jail sentence. You have to serve a minimum of 60 days. We were able to establish that our client was operating his vehicle properly with all his lights working correctly. The fact that he had his fog lights on and no other violations, did not rise to the level of probable cause so as to have a legal stop of our client’s car. Case Dismissed. 13CR480 Real Cases, Real People, Real Results

Description: Police responded to a 911 call reporting an erratic operator. The caller was following our client and provided police with his make, model and registration plate. Police caught up to the vehicle and observed its operation. Police report seeing the car drive on the shoulder of the road, then make a looping turn into, of all places, a package store. The police report approaching our client, the only occupant, and requested his license and registration. He had some difficulty producing his license. Police said they could smell alcohol on his breath and that his eyes were bloodshot. The client was asked to step from the car and as he did, police located an open cold bottle of Heineken in the cup holder. He appeared unsteady on his feet, according to the police officer’s opinion. The officer eventually arrested the client and charged him with Operating Under The Influence, (OUI). The case was looking a little shaky at this point. As we dug deeper into the case, we were able to establish that client did not read English and spoke broken English, at best. Massachusetts General Law, Chapter 263, section 5A, requires that anyone arrested and charged with OUI has the right to an independent medical exam/blood test, conducted at their own expense. You must be afforded these rights at the time of your booking so as to capture the evidence in a timely manner. We secured a copy of the police booking room DVD. Unfortunately, at the time of our client’s booking, the audio portion of the recording was not working properly. There were no Spanish-speaking officers on duty at the time of arrest and no Spanish written rights forms used in this case. We asked the court to travel back to the era of silent movies and interpret our client’s “body language” on the silent screen (booking DVD). From his actions, we convinced the court that our client could not have understood his rights to an independent medical exam/blood test and as a result was prejudiced, by not being afforded his proper rights. The court agreed. CASE DISMISSED. 12CR1581

Description: On Sunday May 5th, Ashburnham police observed a motor vehicle that did not have an up-to-date validations sticker on the license plate. Police stopped the car and requested our client’s license and registration. The validation sticker was in with his registration papers when he presented them to the officer. The client, a couple weeks earlier, had pled to a drunk driving case and received a 45-day loss of license. His attorney at the time had advised him to go through the procedures to obtain a hardship license. Driving while your license is suspended for a drunk driving conviction is a mandatory 60 days in jail, no questions asked. At a hearing in court, we were able to establish evidence that our client had at least enrolled in the first offenders alcohol education program. He had enrolled on Saturday, May 4th. We provided the court with the policy of the Registry of Motor Vehicles, that allows for application for a hardship license, once you are enrolled in the program. With his enrollment certificate in hand, our client had gone to the RMV first thing on Monday, May 6th, and obtained his hardship license. Even though it was a day late (we stressed to the court that with the RMV closed on Saturday and Sunday), this was his first opportunity to obtain the license. Further, auguring that in the interest of justice and fairness, to punish him with such a severe sanction, given the timing and circumstances, would not serve any purpose. CASE DISMISSED. 13CAC0078. Real Cases, Real People, Real Results

Description: Worcester: Police responded to a neighbor’s call of a loud party and disturbance in the neighborhood. When police arrived they found a large amount of high school kids in the driveway, yard and first floor. The music was loud and there was beer everywhere. Turns out there was a post-prom party that had swelled and gotten a little out of control. Police entered the home, seized the alcohol, and made all the kids take breath tests. Subsequently, the parents of the party host were charged with a violation of Mass. General Law Chapter 138 section 34, Furnishing Liquor to Minor. The law provides that “furnishing” means to knowingly or intentionally supply, give, or provide to or allow a person under 21 (except for their own children) to possess alcoholic beverages on the premises or property owned or controlled by the person. The law also provides for a fine of up to $2,000 or imprisonment for not more than one year, or both. At the Court hearing, we produced evidence that demonstrated our clients (the parents of the host), had taken precautions to avoid exactly what happened. We showed that the parents had reviewed the guest list with their child and followed up by contacting the parents of the original invited guests. The rules were laid out for the post-prom sleepover that included no alcohol. The parents checked in all the guest and with the party under control, the parents headed off to bed on the second floor. With the TV on to drown out the music from the first floor, the parents fell asleep. The parents came downstairs when the police arrived to find an overflow crowd of kids partying it up. At Court we introduced letters from the original guests’ parents, reinforcing the precautionary actions our clients had taken along with evidence of their location (asleep in second-floor bedroom) when the police entered the house. The evidence was clear that the clients DID NOT KNOWINGLY OR INTENTIONALLY provide or allow alcohol at the party. Additionally, evidence of social media spreading the word of the party accounted for the swell of uninvited guests and their backpacks of Bud Lite. Both parents were absolved of any criminal charges as the application for criminal complaints was not issued against either, thereby ending the case in their favor. 13SC0169. Real Cases, Real People, Real Results

Description: Framingham: Marlboro police stopped a motor vehicle for speeding, 47 mph in a 35 mph zone, at 12:30 A.M. The police officer was a rookie being trained by a more experienced officer. The police alleged that they detected an odor of alcohol on the driver’s breath. They questioned the driver as to what he may have consumed. Our client responded the he had just had a beer 10 minutes earlier. Police had him exit the car. Both officers testified that the client had a hard time exiting and had to use the door for support. Once outside the car, police attempted to have the client perform Field Sobriety Tests. The client refused to do the one-legged stand or the nine- step walk and turn tests. Police then held a pen up to the client’s eyes along with a flashlight. He was directed to follow the pen with his eyes, otherwise known as the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus Test. The client closed his eyes and refused to do the test. He was arrested and brought back to the police station. There, police attempted to pressure him into taking a breath test. They told him his license would be suspended for 180 days if he refused, and only 30 if he failed the breath test. The client smartly refused the breath test. At trial, we cross-examined the rookie police officer. It was revealed that he was on an extended break-in training period due to prior poor performance. Additionally, as the officer took the witness stand, he used his arm to support his movement to the witness chair. We highlighted for the court that the officer’s move into the witness chair was exactly the same type of move the client made to get up and out of his car. We were successful in keeping out of evidence that the client was an attorney. We thought this evidence would have been harmful to the client’s defense and allowed for reading more to his refusals. The client/attorney knew not to provide evidence against himself by complying with the order to perform field sobriety and breath tests. The prosecution failed to support probable cause for the arrest and the client was found not guilty. NOT GUILTY. 13CR0272. Real Cases, Real People, Real Results

Description: Worcester: Back in 1986, a Northbridge man plead guilty to Possession With Intent To Distribute Class B Drugs, Cocaine. His sentence at the time was 10 years in Concord Prison, suspended for two years and probationary terms. Part of his probation was to attend and complete a drug rehab program and report to probation. Just recently, the individual contacted our office for the first time. He had recently gotten arrested for a motor vehicle offense and a warrant for his arrest turned up. The court had issued a warrant for his arrest back in 1987 for probation violations. The warrant was issued due to his failure to complete the drug rehab program and his failure to report to probation. Our office was now hired to defend him on the probation surrender which, if convicted, would amount to him serving the original 10-year Concord sentence NOW! We were able to present evidence demonstrating that the rehab facility had actually closed during the time he was in attendance. Additionally, at the time when he was on probation, the probation officers visited the defendant and there were not any actual reporting requirements. We argued to the Court that our client had, in essence, achieved the original goals of his sentence. Since 1987, he had remained drug-free, worked and supported his family along with having payed all his taxes and bills. We pleaded to the Court that to send him to prison now would not be in the best interest of justice or society. A very compassionate judge spared him by DISMISSING the PROBATION VIOLATION and CLOSED THE CASE for good. 86WORC113840. Real Cases, Real People, Real Results

Description: Worcester: Undercover police had a drug store parking lot under surveillance in the early evening hours. Police observed our clients BMW SUV parked with its parking lights on. Also in the lot were two other vehicles. The drug store was closed at the time the police made these observations. When police drove into the parking lot, a passenger in our client’s vehicle looked at them, exited our client’s SUV and began walking away. The police drove by the SUV giving the appearance of leaving the lot. The passenger who had exited then turned back and re-entered the SUV. The SUV drove out of the lot in a hurry. The police were just up the street waiting and pulled the SUV over. The police said the reason for the stop was that a “dealers” license plate bracket obscured their view of the plate. Upon arrival at the SUV, police further alleged they smelled a strong odor of “raw” marijuana coming from within the car. Police ordered our client and the passenger out of the car and proceeded to search the entire car. Found in the SUV were a number of Oxycontins. The client was arrested and charged with M.G.L. Ch. 94C Section 32A, Possession To Distribute Class B Drugs. Our office filed a number of pretrial motions including a motion to suppress the search of the SUV without probable cause. The controlling law in Massachusetts does not allow a search of a motor vehicle based solely on the odor of marijuana. Additionally, the prior actions of the client and passenger did not rise to the level of suspicion to justify police action. ALL CRIMINAL CHARGES DISMISSED. 13CR0224. Real Cases, Real People, Real Results

Description: Hardwick: Police investigated a complaint of Vandalized Property. A Realtor had filed a complaint that our client was changing the locks on a property she was going to sell. Each time the Realtor had the locks changed the client would have them re-keyed. The issue stemmed in part from the fact that the property was heading into foreclosure. The Realtor claimed she was retained by the bank and had the exclusive right to sell the property. Our client’s defense was that the property had not yet been foreclosed on and she still had an ownership interest in her own property. By establishing evidence that our client had existing property rights, the court could not enter a guilty finding against her. It is not a violation of law to “vandalize” (the removal of the improperly placed locks) your own property. NOT GUILTY 12CR0737. Real Cases, Real People, Real Results

Description: Shrewsbury: Police responded to a motor vehicle accident on Route 20 in Shrewsbury. At the scene were the operator of a passenger car involved in the accident along with a witness. The witness informed police that a large pickup truck had made a left-hand turn across traffic in front of the car, striking it and then fleeing. Police followed a path of automotive fluid from the scene down the street to a driveway. Located in the driveway was a large pickup truck, leaking fluid. Police searched the immediate area for the driver and eventually went to the door of the house where the truck was parked. The truck was registered to our client, who was also the homeowner. The police had the client step outside, and subsequently charged him with Leaving The Scene Of An Accident, Failure To Use Care In Turning, Operating To Endanger and Failure To Signal. In court we were able to establish that the witness’s ability to observe the accident was impaired and thereby compromised. Additionally, police did not ascertain if our client was home alone or if the possible operator could have been inside the house. Without an ability to properly put the client behind the wheel by either the other operator or anyone else, all the charges were DISMISSED. Real Cases, Real People, Real Results 12CR01666

Description: Concord: Massachusetts State Police stopped a Sterling man after running a rolling check of his registration. The computer check revealed the client’s license was suspended for a prior Operating Under The Influence charge in another Court. The trooper charged the client with Operating After Suspension for OUI. This charge carries a mandatory 60-day jail sentence with no options for probation or other alternatives to avoid jail. We were able to convince the Court that this charge did not apply to our client. To be guilty of this offense, you must first be found guilty of Operating Under The Influence, and have your license suspended by the Court. We had defended the client in the earlier OUI and the jury found him not guilty. The suspension of his license had been in place from his refusal of the breath test at the time of arrest and prior to his trial. The client at the time of this stop was awaiting the reinstatement of his license after our not guilty OUI verdict. By demonstrating to the Court that our client did not fall under the mandatory jail case by virtue of his OUI acquittal, his Operating After Suspension case was DISMISSED. 12CR6140. Real Cases, Real People, Real Results.

Description: Auburn: Auburn police responded to an alleged hit-and-run accident and road rage complaint. The incident involved a pickup truck and car. The witness told police a pickup truck had been tailgating her at a high speed and when it passed her it struck her car. The witness further stated that the truck then made a U-turn and drove back striking the car in the “exact same spot,” then fled the scene. Police located the truck a short time later. The ignition had been punched and a screwdriver was inserted into it as a key. Police also located within the truck a cellphone. Police followed wet footprints to a nearby second floor apartment. No one answered the door at the apartment and eventually police left the scene. Utilizing the registration, the police contacted the owner of the truck, who told police that her son had been using the truck earlier. Police called back to the owner a second time by dialing “mom” from the contact list of the found phone. Police printed from registry records the owner’s son’s license photo. This was the only photo shown to the witness. Police asked the witness to identify the driver of the truck from this highly suggestive photo and no others. Eventually, police charged the son, our client, with Road Rage, Leaving The Scene, Property Damage and Negligent Operation of Motor Vehicle. Throughout the case we consistently challenged the photo identification of our client as an improper and overly suggestive “show-up” rather than a fair multi photo array as required by law. Once successful in eliminating the flawed witness identification, we moved onto to the evidence demonstrating the vehicle having been stolen (screwdriver in the ignition). The popped ignition was completely inconsistent with our client’s permissive use of his mothers truck and the lack of any finger print evidence on the screwdriver caused the case to be DISMISSED. 12CR6140. Real Cases, Real People, Real Results.

Description: Barre: In September 2012, Barre police arrested a Spencer man, charging him with Operating Under The Influence of Alcohol, Operating After Suspension, Marked Lanes Violations and Resisting Arrest. The client had to be treated as a result of injuries he received in the struggle with the police. The client was represented by a court-appointed attorney at his trial and found guilty on December 6, 2012. The client received a jail sentence with probation to follow upon his release. The police somehow came into possession of the client’s medical records for the treatment he received. The police, after reviewing the medical records, brought a second case against the client for Operating A Motor Vehicle Under The Influence of Drugs. A warrant was issued for the client’s arrest for failing to appear on the new case. The client learned of the warrant for his arrest and contacted our law offices for representation. We immediately reviewed the facts of the case and how police came to bring the new charges. There was no waiver of HIPPA privacy requirements so as to allow access to his medical records. Additionally, by the police delaying the filing of the new charges (probably waiting to see the results of the first case), they essentially attempted to prosecute the client for the same offense twice. We successfully argued that the new charges were a violation of the client’s protections under the “Double Jeopardy Clause” in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Court agreed that our client would be charged twice and twice put in jeopardy for the same actions. ALL NEW CHARGES DISMISSED. 12CR002288. Real Cases, Real People, Real Results

Description: Worcester: A Spencer man was arrested by police for drunk driving and leaving the scene of an accident. A police officer was on duty at a local night spot when he observed a truck strike a parked car and then drive away. The officer was sure he had observed a hit-and-run accident because the car struck was his. Shortly after the radio broadcast went out, our client was stopped by the police. Within minutes, he was placed under arrest and charged with Drunk Driving and leaving the scene of a property damage accident. Police noted in their report that the client had an odor of alcohol on his breath, was unsteady on his feet and failed several field sobriety tests. At trial, we were successful in having the evidence viewed in a much less damaging tone resulting in a NOT GUILTY. Real Cases, Real People, Real Results. 12CR7895

Description: Westboro: Grafton police responded to a domestic call in their town. Upon arrival they were met by a woman who requested police remove her husband from the marital home. The husband was extremely intoxicated at the time police arrived. The client argued with police that he did not want to vacate his home, for fear he would be arrested once outside or if he had to drive away. Police physically started to move the client from his home. The client raised his hands in a sign of noncompliance indicating he was not going to leave. He was immediately physically detained, put on the floor and handcuffed. He was charged with Assault & Battery on a Police Officer, Assault & Battery on his wife and Disorderly Conduct. The wife, who police had alleged was a victim, corroborated the client’s version of the incident. ALL CHARGES DISMISSED 13CR0001. Real Cases, Real People, Real Results

Description: Westborough: A Shrewsbury man who had a criminal harassment order issued against him was arrested by police for allegedly violating the order. Police believe that the client violated the order at the last place you would suspect: church! A female neighbor had obtained a criminal harassment order against our client over several allegations. While at a recent 9 o’clock Mass, the neighbor told police that the client had glared over at her while she sat in the first pew, causing her to feel terrified. The neighbor went to police after the Mass, reporting her complaints. Police immediately proceeded to the client’s home and arrested him in front of his family. At trial we presented evidence that our client had always attended the 9 O’clock Mass and normally sat in the same location each week. The neighbor did not routinely attend any particular Mass. We introduced further evidence from the priest who was present at the Mass that corroborated our client’s story as to his habits and location within the church. Based upon the priest’s testimony and additional evidence, it would not have been possible for our client to have intentionally committed a violation of the harassment order. NOT GUILTY. Real Cases, Real People, Real Results 12CR0219

Commonwealth v. MG 11CR1399
Practice Area: Criminal Defense
Date: Apr 09, 2013
Description: Ayer: An Abington woman was stopped by state police on Route 2 East in Littleton. The police allege they received a call from a “concerned motorist” that there was an erratic driver traveling down the highway. State police set up a cruiser on the side of the road while another drove down Route 2 in search of the vehicle. Police located the vehicle and pulled it over. Police noticed an odor of alcohol on the driver who was alone in the car. Police got the driver out of the car and began questioning her. The police testified that the driver was unsteady on her feet while exiting the car. We provided evidence that it was misty out and the client had on flip flops, thereby making her footing unstable. The client politely refused to answer any questions as to her consumption of alcohol. Additionally, she refused to do any Field Sobriety Tests (always a good idea as there is no penalty or loss of license or other ramifications for refusing the FST). The client also refused the breath test. Although there is a six-month loss of license for the refusal, this also is recommended for your defense. The client remained calm and polite throughout her involvement with the police but maintained her ground, refusing to give evidence against herself. Armed with all the right choices by the client, we were able to win her acquittal swiftly. NOT GUILTY Real Cases, Real People, Real Results. 11CR1399

Commonwealth v. NH 12CR3242
Practice Area: Criminal Defense
Date: Apr 08, 2013
Description: East Brookfield: A Millbury man was arrested by Webster police and charged with OUI and a Marked Lanes violation. Police responded to an accident scene. Upon arrival they discovered our client walking a short distance away. There was no one else in the immediate area but for the client. Police questioned the client as to what had occurred. The client advised police that a coyote had run in front of his car causing him to swerve off the road and strike a tree. Police detected an odor of alcohol on the client’s breath and requested he perform a series of Field Sobriety Tests (recommended that you do not agree to do any tests). Upon completion of the tests, the client was arrested. At trial we were successful in convincing the jury that our client’s performance on the Field Sobriety Tests was a result of his lack of coordination rather than being under the influence. We secured a DVD recording of the client’s movements during the booking procedure at the police station. The recording further supported our position, as the client’s normal everyday movements showed no ill effects of alcohol. NOT GUILTY VERDICT Real Cases, Real People, Real Results 12CR3242

Commonwealth v. SB 13CR-1233
Practice Area: Criminal Defense
Date: Apr 02, 2013
Description: Worcester: A Worcester man was arrested by police and charged with Domestic Assault and Battery and Threatening. The victim had alleged that our client had assaulted her in a parking lot of a big box store. In addition to the assault the victim also alleged that the client had threatened her by taking her car keys away. The victim went to the police with her story and shortly thereafter our client was arrested and charged. The victim and our client are in the middle of a divorce. During our investigation of the case it was discovered that the parking lot was equipped with surveillance cameras and the victims story did not hold water. The client was able to actually obtain charges on the “victim” for her conduct. In the end, ALL CHARGES AGAINST OUR CLIENT WERE DISMISSED. Real Case, Real People, Real Results. 13CR1233

Commonwealth v. RB 12CR461
Practice Area: Criminal Defense
Date: Apr 01, 2013
Description: Sturbridge: Two Worcester men were arrested after state police stopped their car on Route 84 in Sturbridge for an alleged tail light violation. Troopers testified that upon approaching the vehicle, they could detect an odor of marijuana coming from the interior of the car. The driver and his passenger both presented valid licenses. The two men were ordered out of the car and patted down. The search of both men revealed no evidence. The troopers then entered the car and proceeded to search the entire vehicle. Subsequently, the troopers located 650 Oxycontin tablets in the car’s air vent. After both men were booked at the State Police Barracks, they were placed in a cell that was monitored. Unbeknownst to either man, the police were able to hear their conversations acknowledging purchasing the pills in New York City. Our office filed a motion to suppress any evidence seized as a result of the illegal search of the car. At issue was the “odor” of marijuana as grounds for ordering both men out of the vehicle. The troopers were unable to establish that the odor detected was new or old. Neither could they provide evidence that the odor was from a small amount or a large amount of pot. The very same odor could not provide the exact location/origin of the marijuana. With the demonstrated lack of probable cause to search, we were successful in having all the evidence suppressed. With the evidence excluded the prosecution was unable to go forward thereby dismissing all charges. Real Cases, Real People, Real Result 12CR461

Commonwealth v. Client KL 09-CR8584
Practice Area: Criminal Defense
Date: Mar 21, 2013
Description: Worcester: A Worcester woman was indicted on Drug Trafficking and Violations of Drug Laws Within a School Zone. The charges were brought after police obtained a search warrant and raided her home that she had shared with her boyfriend. We provided evidence that supported the defense of Battered/Abused Woman Syndrome. The client had been in a domestic relationship with a man who had abused her over the course of the relationship. The client was unable to escape the grip of her abuser who controlled her life. He was an active drug dealer who involved her in his trade. Upon their arrest, he jumped bail and fled the country, leaving her to answer to the charges. After almost four years of court appearances, hearings and motions, the case came to a close. We were successful in convincing the Court to not enter any finding against the client but rather continue the case for a short period of time in a pretrial status, and then eventually having it dismissed with no charges attributed to our client. Real Cases, Real People, Real Results. 09-CR8584

Commonwealth v. Client MD 12-CR1527
Practice Area: Criminal Defense
Date: Mar 18, 2013
Description: Marlboro: A Milford man was charged by Marlboro police with striking and damaging a bank drive up, subsequently fleeing the scene. Police apprehended the client and charged him with Leaving The Scene of a Property Damage Accident. The evidence showed that the client was operating a “box-truck” with an unusually high roof. Unfamiliar with the truck and the bank building, the client did not judge the proper clearance to allow the truck to pass through. After the collision, it appeared that bank personnel assumed that a robbery was in progress and initiated the necessary precautions. The driver of the truck became frightened by all the commotion, and sought to get out of the area as soon as possible. After it was learned that this was a simple accident and nothing more, the appropriate insurances came into play to take care of the property damages. All criminal charges against the client were dismissed. Real Cases, Real People, real Results. 12-CR1527

Commonwealth v. Client FM 12-CR3535
Practice Area: Criminal Defense
Date: Mar 15, 2013
Description: Worcester: A Worcester man was recently arrested by Auburn police after a three-car accident. The client was charged with Operating Under the Influence of Alcohol. Police allege that the client had driven down a street at a high rate of speed losing control and crashing into two cars parked in a driveway. The homeowner came out after hearing the crash and called the police. The police called in their accident reconstruction team in an effort to rebuild the accident. The evidence at trial dealt with the highly technical exercises of accident reconstruction. We challenged the method by which the police reconstruction team determined the critical speed of our client’s car. The skid marks, the tool used to determine the radius of the road, along with the drag factor used to establish the friction between the tires and asphalt all proved to be suspect. With the appropriate measurements and the correct formula, we were able to demonstrate to the court that our client’s speed could have been much lower than police suggested. Additionally, we were able to diminish the effect of the Field Sobriety Tests to the point that they did not prove intoxication, thereby allowing a NOT GUILTY verdict. Real Cases, Real People, Real Results. 12-CR3535

Commonwealth v. Client BS 12-CR1455
Practice Area: Criminal Defense
Date: Mar 14, 2013
Description: A Holden man was charge with failing to register as a sex offender. Police allege the client, who was registered with Holden police, had moved to Worcester, failing to notify Holden police of his departure and Worcester police of his arrival. Registration with your local police department is required by law. We were successful in providing evidence that the client did not actually change his residence. In this case, the evidence established that the client had a dispute with his wife and temporarily stayed with a friend till things cooled down. Our investigation further revealed that it was an off-duty police officer who lived in the same neighborhood as the client. The off-duty officer had expressed to others in the past that he wanted the client out of the neighborhood. There was no secret as to who may have been the “anonymous caller” who notified police of the client’s movement. Additionally, the Holden police had no authority to charge the client with any violation outside of the town of Holden when they charged him with failing to register in Worcester. The totality of the evidence presented on behalf of our client proved strong enough, to have all the charges against him dismissed. Real Cases, Real People, Real Results. 12-CR1455

Commonwealth v Client JM 12-CR2012
Practice Area: Criminal Defense
Date: Mar 13, 2013
Description: East Brookfield: A Hopkinton man was arrested by state police and charged with OUI, Marked Lanes Violations, No License in Possession and Defective Equipment: Headlight. Troopers allege that on an early Saturday last November at 1:20 A.M., they observed the client weaving in a “zig-zag” manner crossing the center line on a number of occasions. Additionally, the vehicle the client was operating had a headlight out. After the stop of the car, the client could not locate their driver’s license. Troopers testified that the client had slurred speech and a strong odor of alcohol on his breath. When questioned by the police as to where the client was coming from, they responded a ” gentleman’s club” in the area where he had consumed some drinks. Field Sobriety Tests were administered to the client. He performed the alphabet test, which the trooper said was slurred and mumbled. The nine-step walk-and-turn test was performed on the side of the road along with the one-legged stand. The trooper testified that the client did not walk in a straight line and did not make heel-to-toe contact on the steps, along with stepping off the line. On the one-legged stand test, testimony was that the client kept his foot in the air for only 11 seconds. Through cross-examination of the police witnesses, it was established that there were a number of mitigating factors. We established that the client recited all 26 letters of the alphabet in the correct order, and that which the trooper could not understand may have been caused by his radio or passing traffic noise. Cross-examination revealed that although there was the breakdown lane line on the road, the trooper had the client walk on an imaginary line. We argued that the imaginary line used was, in fact, the client’s imaginary line and he stayed on “his” line. Further cross-examination demonstrated the 11 seconds he had his foot in the air was actually closer to 22 seconds. We were able to establish that he trooper had the client count by 1000s, such as “1001, 1002” and the pace actually timed out to at least twice the time. This case is a good example of why one should never agree to take the field sobriety tests or respond to inquires about consumption of alcohol. Fortunately for our client they were found NOT GUILTY of OUI. Real Cases, Real People, Real Results. Commonwealth v. JM 12-CR2027

Commonwealth v. Client DW 12-CR885
Practice Area: Criminal Defense
Date: Mar 11, 2013
Description: Worcester: An Upton man was arrested for OUI and a Marked Lanes Violation. Police allege that the client was driving his car at 2:20 A.M. in the Town of Upton, as he approached an intersection almost stopping in the middle, even though the light was green. The police followed him for a mile before stopping him. The police say they observed him cross over the center line then over the breakdown lane. When the client was stopped, the police activated the onboard video camera to film the client. He was asked to exit the car and perform Field Sobriety Tests. The client, 62 years old, was unable to complete the only task, the nine-step walk-and-turn tests. In fact, he performed so horribly on the videotape that it appeared he was under the influence. Police immediately arrested him. We were successful in presenting evidence to discredit the Field Sobriety Tests by contrasting them with how the client performed his normal movements and ordinary actions. It was highlighted for the jury that the client performed his everyday and natural movements with no difficulty. The creditability of a Field Sobriety Test on the side of the road at 2:20 A.M. drew strict scrutiny. Further, evidence convinced the jury that there was no causal relationship between the Field Sobriety Tests he performed and his ability to operate the vehicle. The jury deliberated for half an hour before returning a verdict of NOT GUILTY, the correct decision. 12-CR885 Real Cases, Real People, Real Results

Commonwealth v Client JO 12-CR6063
Practice Area: Criminal Defense
Date: Mar 06, 2013
Description: Worcester: A Worcester woman was charged in Worcester Court with Assault and Battery and Assault and Battery to Collect a Loan. The victim in the case alleged that our client confronted her, punching and striking her. The victim told police the incident was due to an on-going feud over money owed by the victim to the client. Our office was successful in securing witnesses to the incident. The witnesses had testified that in fact it was the “victim” who approached the client and initiated the fight. As a result of the prior testimony of the witnesses, cross-complaints issued against the victim. At the time of our client’s trial, the victim refused to testify, invoking her Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. All charges against our client were dismissed and the case terminated in her favor. Real Cases, Real People, Real Results. 12-CR6063

Commonwealth v. Client CT 11-CR5321
Practice Area: Criminal Defense
Date: Mar 05, 2013
Outcome: Jury Found Client Not Guilty on all Charges
Description: An Auburn woman was charged with OUI, Leaving the Scene and Driving to Endanger. Auburn police allege that the client rolled her car over and fled only to be found hiding up the street behind a car parked in a driveway. A civilian witness described the client as the operator of the vehicle. The evidence presented at trial by the defense revealed the roadway to be in total disrepair and the proximate cause of the accident. The client’s appearance and demeanor were also related to the accident, rather than alcohol consumption. Real Cases, Real People, Real Results. 11-CR5321

Commonwealth v. Client PF 13-CR1420
Practice Area: Criminal Defense
Date: Feb 15, 2013
Outcome: Jury Found Client Not Guilty on all Charges
Description: A Worcester man was stopped by Auburn police on Route 20 on his way home from Charlton. Police arrested him for a Marked Lanes violation and OUI, second offense. Our defense team was able to secure witness testimony along with video evidence to demonstrate the client was not under the influence. Real Cases, Real People, Real Results. 13-CR1420

Commonwealth v. Client EF 11-CR706
Practice Area: Criminal Defense
Date: Feb. 11, 2013
Outcome: Jury Found Client Not Guilty on All Charges
Description: Leominster District Court: Today the Massachusetts environmental police, (Game Wardens) along with the Holden police, prosecuted our client for eight separate criminal charges relating to firearms and hunting violations. In addition to the criminal charges, our client’s expensive collection of firearms was seized and placed in storage, accruing more than $2,500 in storage costs. Police allege that the client killed a deer out of season, used improper ammunition, baited the deer and fired his gun within 500 feet of a dwelling. These may seem like minor offenses, but the penalties are serious and extremely harsh. We were successful in establishing evidence that allowed the Court to find our client was not the violator or even present when the crimes were committed. The client was found not guilty of all charges, with his property being rightfully returned to him. A good day for him as he was vindicated. Real Cases, Real People, Real Results 11-CR706

Commonwealth v. Client HV 12-CR2397
Practice Area: Criminal Defense
Date: Feb. 08, 2013
Outcome: Client acquitted of all charges
Description: Today, The Salerno Law Group, lead by Attorney Anthony Salerno, was successful in suppressing evidence in another drug case involving constitutional issues. A Worcester man was stopped by state and Worcester police in the city. The stop was for an allegedly defective tail light. The police allege they detected an odor of “raw” marijuana coming from the car and ordered the man out of the car. Police proceeded to conduct an extensive search of the entire vehicle and all its compartments. Police found some marijuana and a very large stash of drugs and cash. We were successful in providing the Court with the controlling law and facts that established the police actions were unconstitutional in this case, and therefore all the evidence seized must be suppressed and not used against the client. We proved that the police knew the client from “past encounters” and the stop of his vehicle for a tail light was questionable. We further convinced the Court that a police officer could not distinguish the subtle difference between raw, fresh or burnt marijuana. Possession of under an ounce of marijuana is a civil violation, hence no different that a speeding ticket and no reason to order someone out of a car. Without probable cause to search the car, all evidence subsequently discovered must be suppressed to preserve constitutional rights guaranteed. Having no evidence to rely upon, the client was acquitted of all charges and his property (cash) returned. Real People, Real Cases with Real Results 12-CR2397

Commonwealth v. Client DL 11-CR1237
Practice Area: Criminal Defense
Date: Dec. 20, 2012
Description: A young Shrewsbury woman was charged with larceny from her employer. Police allege that the client, while working as a cashier, ran false credit card purchases through the register. We were successful in presenting forensic evidence that demonstrated the questioned transactions were actually gift card purchases and coded incorrectly. Case dismissed. Real Cases, Real People, Real Results DL 11-1237

Commonwealth v. Client LB 12-CR0680
Practice Area: Criminal Defense
Date: Oct. 15, 2012
Description: Clinton: Two Worcester men were arrested and charged with Larceny Over ( Felony), Trespass with a Motor Vehicle and Taking Plant Material. Police alleged that the men drove onto to the land of National Grid near the reservoir, for the purpose of digging up bushes. The men were stopped as they entered route 70. In the back of their pickup truck were 15 freshly dug bushes. We aggressively challenged the prosecution’s evidence in attempting to establish the origin of the bushes. The evidence failed to show that the bushes actually came from National Grids property as opposed to adjacent private property. With this evidence in doubt, the charges were dismissed. Real Cases, Real People, Real Results. 12-CR0680

Commonwealth v. Client AL 11-CR1701
Practice Area: Criminal Defense
Date:Jan. 11, 2011
Description: A Worcester man was stopped by state police for having a license plate light out while traveling down Route 84 in Sturbridge. Police allege that they smelled a “raw” over-powering odor of marijuana coming from the vehicle’s interior. Police searched the car and located 11 pounds of pot. Our office was successful in having all the evidence excluded from the case as a result of an illegal search by police. Real Cases, Real People, Real Results 11-CR1701

Commonwealth v. M … Worcester District Court, Docket No. 62CR6308

Commonwealth v. D … Westborough District Court, Docket No. 67CR001058

Commonwealth v. P … Worcester District Court, Docket No. 62CR5000
CHARGE: 1st Offense OUI/DUI, Speeding TRIAL

Commonwealth v. S … East Brookfield District Court, Docket No. 64CR003127
CHARGE: 2nd Offense OUI/DUI, Mark Lanes 2 DAY TRIAL

Commonwealth v. S …. Worcester District Court, Docket No., 65CR001666
CHARGE: 2nd OUI/DUI, Negligence with accident

Commonwealth v. V… East Brookfield District Court Docket No.: 64CR003791
Verdict: Not Guilty – Driver’s License Reinstated

Commonwealth v. B… East Brookfield District Court Docket No.: 64CR002172
CHARGE: Operating Under the Influence (Alcohol) with Breath Test
Verdict: Not Guilty – Driver’s License Reinstated

Commonwealth v. N… Worcester District Court Docket No.: 62CR004676
CHARGE: Operating Under the Influence (Alcohol) with Breath Test
Verdict: Not Guilty – Driver’s License Reinstated

Commonwealth v. S… East Brookfield District Court Docket No.: 64CR4263
CHARGE: Operating Under the Influence (Alcohol) with Breath Test
Verdict: Not Guilty – Driver’s License Reinstated

Commonwealth v. G… Westboro District Court Docket No.: 67CR001974
CHARGE: Operating Under the Influence (Alcohol) (Sobriety Checkpoint/Road Block)
Verdict: Not Guilty – Driver’s License Reinstated

Commonwealth v. G… Gardner District Court Docket No.: 63CR0123
CHARGES: Operating Under the Influence (Alcohol); Open Container; Possession of Firearms
Verdict: Not Guilty – Driver’s License Reinstated

Commonwealth v. F… Worcester District Court Docket No.: 62CR2162
CHARGE: Assault & Battery (at nightclub)
Verdict: Not Guilty

Commonwealth v. G… Worcester District Court Docket No.: 62CR1167
CHARGE: Police Officer charged with Assault & Battery (with a Gun)Verdict: Not Guilty

Commonwealth v. C… Worcester District Court Docket No.: 62CR011162
CHARGE: Attorney charged with Possession of Class B Cocaine
Verdict: Not Guilty

Commonwealth v. L… Worcester District Court Docket No.: 62CR001977
CHARGE: Multiple Motor Vehicle Offenses and Forfeiture
Verdict: Dismissed and Forfeiture Money returned

Commonwealth v. O… Worcester District Court Docket No.: 62CR 003852
CHARGE: Possession with Intent to Distribute Class B Cocaine – Wire Tap Case
Verdict: No Finding against our client


Commonwealth v. D… Superior Court Indictment No.: 00254

Attorney Salerno prevailed on a Superior Court jury trial in a case that charged his client with attempting to blow up a police detective bureau where drugs were being held as evidence against his co-defendants. A number of national experts from the FBI testified for the Commonwealth.

Verdict: Not Guilty

Commonwealth v. M… Superior Court Indictment No.: 00365

Attorney Salerno won a Superior Court case with national notoriety on behalf of his client who was named by a popular magazine as “Bachelor of the Year.” Charges involved use of the “date rape drug.” The Commonwealth used an expert FBI agent as a witness and the case was featured on the television show Inside Edition.

Verdict: Not Guilty

Commonwealth v. L… Superior Court Indictment No.: 00215

Attorney Salerno was victorious in a jury trial wherein a young woman hid her pregnancy from everyone and subsequently delivered her full-term baby at home in her bathroom.

Verdict: Not Guilty

Commonwealth v. S… Superior Court Indictment No.: 00018
INDICTMENT CHARGE: Charges of Rape and Indecent Assault & Battery against a Massachusetts State Trooper

Attorney Salerno successfully defended an active Massachusetts state trooper who was charged in this case.

Verdict: Not Guilty