Wednesday, October 29, 2014

Federal OUI In Massachusetts Lawyers Operating Influence Alcohol

If you have been charged with OUI which took place on a road owned by the Federal government, National Park Service land, place on federally owned property, including military bases or other government-owned lands or roads, such as the GW Parkway and the Pentagon parking lot then you will be prosecuted in a Federal court.


Under 36 CFR 4.23 Operating under the influence of alcohol or drugs

"(a) Operating or being in actual physical control of a motor vehicle is prohibited while:

       (1) Under the influence of alcohol, or a drug, or drugs, or any combination thereof, to a degree that renders the operator incapable of safe operation; or

       (2) The alcohol concentration in the operator's blood or breath is 0.08 grams or more of alcohol per 100 milliliters of blood or 0.08 grams or more of alcohol per 210 liters of breath. Provided however, that if State law that applies to operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol establishes more restrictive limits of alcohol concentration in the operator's blood or breath, those limits supersede the limits specified in this paragraph."

Below is a sample case of federal DUI in Massachusetts as interpreted by a lawyer in our firm.

Have you been charged with federal DUI in Massachusetts and you are wondering what the penalty is for federal DUI and need a lawyer to defend you?

Are you concerned about the consequences of being charged with federal DUI in Massachusetts and you are wondering what the penalty is for federal DUI?

For a lot of our clients, a charge of federal DUI can result in the loss of their job, their security clearance, etc.

Don’t risk going to court without a lawyer, if you have been charged with a crime of federal DUI in Massachusetts.

Our law firm has the necessary experience to assist you with this matter. We will do our absolute best to help you get the best result possible based on the facts of your case.

Joe v. United States

Facts:

Defendant sought review of the order from the United States District Court, which convicted him on involuntary manslaughter, reckless driving, and operating while under the influence of alcohol (OUI). Defendant was sentenced to 15 months in prison and one year of supervised release for involuntary manslaughter and 3 months in prison to run concurrently for each of the other convictions.

If you are facing a federal DUI case in Massachusetts, contact a SRIS Law Group lawyer for help. You can reach us at 888-437-7747

Holdings:

The Federal Court made the following holding:

  • In evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, the relevant question is whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, any rational trier of facts could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The court must consider circumstantial as well as direct evidence, and allow the government the benefit of all reasonable inferences from the facts proven to those sought to be established. The court does not weigh evidence or review the credibility of witnesses in resolving issues of substantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence need not exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.
  • The purpose of establishing "chain of custody" as a threshold requirement to admission of evidence is to establish that the item to be introduced is what it purports to be. The ultimate question is whether the authentication testimony was sufficiently complete so as to convince the court that it is improbable that the original item had been exchanged with another or otherwise tampered with. Precision in developing chain of custody is not an iron-clad requirement. Admission of evidence is not prevented just because there may be a missing link in its chain of custody, so long as there is sufficient proof that the evidence is what it purports to be and has not been altered in any material aspect. Resolution of a chain of custody question rests with the sound discretion of the trial judge.

Our law firm has the necessary experience to assist you with this matter. We will do our absolute best to help you get the best result possible based on the facts of your case.

Disclaimer:

These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.

0 comments:

Powered by Blogger.

Popular Posts

Social Icons

Email Us:

First Name:
Last Name:
Email @:
Phone #: --
Message:

Our Phone #

Massachusetts

Cambridge 888-437-7747
Worcester 888-437-7747

About Mr. Gilmore

Mr. Gilmore earned his law degree at Boston University School of Law, one of the top law schools in the country. He obtained his undergraduate degree at Assumption College with a double major in Political Science and Philosophy. Prior to attending law school, he was a Bodily Injury Claims Adjuster with a large national insurer. Mr. Gilmore’s previous legal experience includes the Cape and Islands District Attorney’s Office and the Committee for Public Counsel Services-Trial Division. More about Gilmore