OUI/DUI/Drunk Driving Attorney | Boston, MA Defense Lawyer

Scully & Lagos are experienced, aggressive criminal defense lawyers who concentrate on Drunk Driving defense

A drunk driving charge can have serious consequences including license loss, probation, or even jail. If you have been charged with this offense the lawyers at Scully & Lagos can help. They are skilled advocates in the courtroom and trusted counselors in the conference room. Scully & Lagos will answer all of you questions and thoroughly prepare your case so that you gain every advantage in court. If your case goes to trial, they will cross examine law enforcement on every aspect of the allegation, exposing all of the inconsistencies, improbabilities and of course the downright lies.

Attorney Liam Scully has been defending OUI/DUI/DWI cases for 18 years and has a proven track record of success. Attorney Lagos, named a rising star by Super Lawyers, has become equally good at winning these cases for our clients. Together Scully & Lagos have combined to win 23 of their last 24 OUI/DUI/DWI trials.

Below Is a Survey of Recent Cases Successfully Defended by Scully & Lagos

OUI Second Offense: Dismissed
Open Container Violation: Dismissed

Commonwealth v. John Doe, 1655CR00967

Client was pulled over by a Douglas Police Officer based on a motorist complaint of impaired driving. The officer claimed that Client fumbled to produce his license and registration, handing over a credit card instead, and then saying my bad when confronted by mistake. The officer claimed that Client had an odor of alcohol coming from his breath, that client slurred his speech, and was unable to explain where he was. When asked why he was driving all over the road, client claimed he was probably texting. Officer ordered Client out of the car and asked him to perform field sobriety tests. Officer claimed Client was slow and unsteady on his feet and needed to lean against his car to maintain balance. Client, who had twice before been charged with OUI resulting in one prior conviction, refused to perform field sobriety tests and refuse the breathalyzer. Scully & Lagos were successful in litigating a motion to suppress the motor vehicle stop on the basis that the police did not have a reasonable suspicion or probable cause justifying it. After this motion was allowed, the Commonwealth was left without sufficient evidence to proceed so the case was dismissed.

OUI, 2ND OFFENSE: Not Guilty

Commonwealth v. John Doe, 15-1585

Client accused of hitting a guardrail causing extensive damage to front bumper and nearly hitting other cars on the road at 4 AM. Client submitted to a breathalyzer, which was over the legal limit, and allegedly failed field sobriety tests. Counsel successfully excluded the breathalyzer and the jury returned a verdict of not guilty.

OUI-Drugs: Dismissed
Possession of Class C Substance: Dismissed

Commonwealth v. Jane Doe, 1655CR00967

Client was arrested by State Police after a motor vehicle accident on Route 93. According to the trooper Client was unsteady on her feet, had bloodshot and glassy eyes, slurred speech and failed three field sobriety tests: The Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus, the Nine Step Walk and Turn, and the One Leg Stand. She smartly declined to participate in any further testing. After placing her under arrest police discovered several types of prescription pill bottles and pills in her purse, as well as what was characterized as a drug kit. The prosecutor would not offer any deal prior to trial, but on the trial date he was unable to produce the drugs allegedly seized from Client or the chemist from the state police crime lab who had tested the drugs. Accordingly, they had no way to prove that the pills in question qualified as Class C controlled substances as alleged. Case Dismissed.

OUI, 1ST OFFENSE: NOT GUILTY

Commonwealth v. Jane Doe, 1659CR002632

Client was charged with operating under the influence of alcohol first offense in Plymouth District Court. A Marshfield police officer stopped client at 1:40AM after allegedly observing her illegally stopped in the middle of Route 139. The officer noticed that client had a slight odor of alcohol and admitted to having one drink. Client passed her first field sobriety test: The alphabet test. However, she failed the next two field sobriety tests: The one leg stand test and the nine step walk and turn test. As a result, the officer arrested client. At trial the defense focused on the lack of observation of the client’s operation of the motor vehicle, the client’s excellent booking video, and the fact that client suffered from physical ailments which made the results of her field sobriety tests difficult to evaluate. Verdict: Not Guilty.

OUI, 2ND OFFENSE: NOT GUILTY
NEGLIGENT OPERATION OF A MOTOR VEHICLE: NOT GUILTY

Commonwealth v. Jane Doe, 1655CR00259

Client was charged in Stoughton District Court with OUI 2nd Offense and Negligently Operating a Motor Vehicle. The facts alleged by an Acton Police Officer were that my client sped through a stop sign at 3AM, crashing over a cub and down into a gully behind a public building. According to the officer my client had a strong odor of alcohol on his breath and failed two field sobriety tests at the scene: the one leg stand test and the walk and turn test. Client was arrested but smartly declined the breathalyzer. The case was transferred from Stoughton to Dedham District Court for trial. The defense evidence included: Several witnesses who witnessed the client had only been moderately drinking much earlier in the evening, google earth images of the road where the accident occurred, a video reconstruction of the drive client had made successfully prior to the accident. And persuasive evidence that the defendant was not intoxicated but merely had dozed off at the wheel for a second just before the accident.

OUI, 1ST OFFENSE: NOT GUILTY
NEGLIGENT OPERATION OF A MOTOR VEHICLE: NOT GUILTY

Commonwealth v. Jane Doe, 1556CR0052477

Client was charged with operating under the influence of alcohol first offense and negligent operation of a motor vehicle in Quincy District Court. A Weymouth police officer stopped client at 1AM after allegedly observing her driving in an erratic and unsafe manner. The officer also claimed that client was unable to perform several field sobriety tests including the alphabet test and the one leg stand test. Client admitted to drinking three glasses of wine earlier in the evening but smartly declined to take the breathalyzer test. At trial the defense presented a video tape and still photographs showing a 31 minute drive that the client had taken prior to being stopped which cast considerable doubt on the officer’s description of client’s driving. Importantly, there was a booking tape that was sought by defense, but lost by the police. As a result at trial the defense was able to utilize a very favorable jury instruction about lost or destroyed evidence. Verdict: Not Guilty on both counts.

OUI, DUI DRUGS: NOT GUILTY

Commonwealth v. John Doe,15-CR-4862

In this case, the defendant is charged with Operating Under the Influence of Drugs. The Commonwealth has not specified what drug it alleges the defendant consumed. Nonetheless, the State Police allege the following facts: On November 11, 2015, at approximately 10:20 PM, the defendant drove into a detail set up and “nearly” struck a Sergeant’s cruiser. Officers stopped the defendant, and he complied with all orders. According to the state Trooper the defendant’s speech was not slurred, however he opined that the defendant’s voice was “raspy.” The trooper believed that the defendant’s eyes were “glassy and slightly bloodshot” and that “ his pupils seemed constricted.” The trooper also observed that the defendant was sweating, but said that he was cold. He told officers he had not had anything to drink, and officers did not smell alcohol on the defendant’s breath.

Nonetheless, the trooper decided to perform the tests for operating under the influence of alcohol. The trooper claimed that the defendant failed the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus, the Nine Step Walk and Turn, and the One Legged Stand. The trooper placed the defendant under arrest for operating under the influence of drugs. After placing the defendant under arrest, officers searched the defendant’s car. Inside the car, officers found three syringes that did not have any residue and were not tested. They also found a “small pipe in the shape of a cigarette with what appeared to be burnt marijuana.” Officers did not know whether the marijuana was recently smoked, and do not indicate where the pipe was found. During booking, officers claimed to have seen “fresh” track marks on the inside of the defendant’s arms. There was no drug recognition expert on scene, nor was any of the alleged paraphernalia tested.

At trial the Commonwealth called a drug recognition expert (DRE) who attempted to offer opinion testimony that the defendant was under the influence of drugs. However, the DRE had never actually examined the defendant or followed his own protocols as to how to perform a proper drug recognition evaluation. This testimony was admitted over defense counsel objection, and in truth should have been excluded. However, even with this testimony the Commonwealth’s case was full of holes and the defendant was found not guilty. Bottom line- the Commonwealth could not prove what kind of drug the defendant may have been on even with the testimony of a drug recognition expert.

OUI, DUI: DISMISSED

Commonwealth v. John Doe,15-CR-4862

Client was charged with OUI-DUI in Plymouth District Court after a store clerk called 911 reporting an alleged drunk driver had just left the store. Less than a minute later police stopped client driving away from the store. The defense filed a motion to suppress the stop on the basis that the 911 caller did not get a good look at the car. The court allowed the motion to suppress which left the prosecution without any evidence it could introduce at trial relative to the alleged condition of the client being under the influence. That ultimately led to a dismissal of the case.

OUI – DRUGS: NOT GUILTY
NEGLIGENT OPERATION OF A MOTOR VEHICLE: NOT GUILTY
MARKED LANES VIOLATION: NOT RESP.

Commonwealth v. John Doe, 14-CR-2687

Client was charged with OUI drugs in Plymouth District Court. Police followed client home at 2:30 AM and alleged that he travelled 20 MPH over the speed limit, crossed over the yellow line and appeared under the influence of drugs. Inside the car a small amount of narcotics and purported drug paraphernalia were recovered. The client was also accused of failing numerous field sobriety tests. At trial the defense countered that the client was purposefully driving over the yellow line because it was dark and the road had no shoulder. The prosecution was unable to prove that the client was under the influence of drugs and was found not guilty. The judge found the alleged evidence of speeding unpersuasive and found client not responsible for that charge as well.

OUI/DUI 3rd OFFENSE: NOT GUILTY
NEGLIGENT OPERATION OF A MOTOR VEHICLE: NOT GUILTY
MARKED LANES VIOLATION: NOT RESP.

Commonwealth v. John Doe, 14-CR-31866

2ND OFFENSE OPERATING UNDER
THE INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL: NOT GUILTY

Commonwealth v. Jane Doe, 1415CR3794

Client was charged with drunk driving in Whitman, MA at 11PM. Police alleged that Client was driving while intoxicated based on observations that she had an odor of alcohol, bloodshot eyes and admitted to having four drinks. Police had her submit to four field sobriety tests, which they claimed she failed: The alphabet test, counting backwards test, nine step walk and turn, and one legged stand. However, skillful cross examination of two police officers in court exposed that that their conclusions were inaccurate and the jury found the defendant not guilty after deliberating for less than ten minutes.

OUI, 1ST OFFENSE: DISMISSED
LEAVING THE SCENE OF PROPERTY DAMAGE: DISMISSED

Commonwealth v. John Doe, 1315CR6737

Client accused of driving under the influence of alcohol and leaving the scene of a minor collision with another vehicle. Counsel successfully argued for pretrial diversion given client’s status as an army veteran, resulting in dismissal of the charges.

OUI, 1ST OFFENSE: DISMISSED
POSSESION OF DRUGS: DISMISSED

Commonwealth v. John Doe, 1203CR580

Client accused of driving under the influence of heroin. Counsel successfully argued to the court that the Commonwealth could not prove their case and prevailed on the trial date.

1ST OFFENSE OPERATING UNDER
THE INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL: DISMISSED

Commonwealth v. John Doe, 14CR3794

Client was charged with drunk driving Route 2 in Concord, MA when he was stopped at a road block operated by State Police. Police alleged that the client admitted to drinking, was slurring his speech and failed a portable breathalyzer. Police also alleged that client failed two field sobriety tests: the one legged stand and the nine step walk and turn. Police did admit that he passed the alphabet test. Just prior to trial the state trooper admitted to defense counsel that the case against the defendant was weak. The defendant had no criminal record and was a military veteran. The case ended up getting dismissed pursuant to the Massachusetts Valor Act.

OUI, 2ND OFFENSE: NOT GUILTY

Commonwealth v. John Doe, 1103CR0162

Client was charged with OUI, 2nd Offense. Officers alleged bloodshot eyes, odor of alcohol, and slurred speech. However, client only spoke Spanish. At trial, the officers admitted that they most likely did not understand client due to the language barrier and not because of the alleged alcohol consumption. Client was acquitted and relieved of the potentially adverse immigration consequences.