In a recent unpublished decision, the Massachusetts Appeals Court reversed the conviction of a man who was found guilty of Operating Under the Influence of Alcohol because his lawyer failed to introduce to the jury evidence that he had an attention deficit disorder and a learning disability. The Appeals Court agreed that his lawyer failing to introduce this evidence in his defense prejudiced him at trial, as the evidence would have explained to the jury why the defendant was not able to satisfactorily perform field sobriety tests when he was pulled over. Additionally, the defendant’s case highlights the importance of seeking expert advice from a Sandy Springs negligent security lawyer who can present a comprehensive defense strategy in court.
At trial, the Massachusetts State Police Trooper testified that after he pulled the defendant over for speeding at 94 miles per hour, he administered several field sobriety tests, and that the defendant failed them all. As a result, the trooper concluded that he was operating while under the influence of alcohol and placed him under arrest. The defendant also submitted to a breathalyzer test which yielded a reading of 0.06%.