Drunk Driving . . .
Our client was charged with a second offense of drunk driving with the possibility of 2.5 years in jail, up to $10,000 in fines and a two (2) year loss of his driver's license.
Prior to being stopped by the police for alleged erratic driving, the client had successfully traveled approximately 5 miles on a narrow, unlit, winding, rain-soaked, fog-laden, undulating road. At the trial, we presented more than a dozen color photographs of the treacherous roadway using a computer projection on a wide-screen viewer for the court.
The government relied upon the testimony of the arresting officer who said our client had failed field sobriety tests. After a vigorous cross-examination, the arresting police officer conceded she did not administer the field sobriety tests in a fair manner. Our trial strategy was that the best evidence that the client was not impaired to operate a car was that he successfully navigated the perilous roadway prior to being stopped.
The Judge acknowledged that, “the computer-generated pictures were worth a thousand words,” commented upon the quality of our computer-generated video presentation, and pronounced the client not guilty.
This case demonstrates the effective use of current computer technology coupled with creativity and a willingness to leave the office to examine the scene of the (alleged) crime.
Possession of a Large-Capacity Weapon
The client allegedly shot the victim in the posterior area and faced the possibility of more than ten (10) years in prison. There were no eyewitnesses to the shooting. Since the victim was shot in the posterior area, he obviously did not see who shot him, but our client was the only person in the room. The emergency room doctor diagnosed the injury as a gunshot wound. However, the bullet was never extracted from the victim and remained inside the victim at the time of the trial.
At trial we did not concede that the projectile inside the victim's body was a bullet. The government attempted to prove it was a bullet using the testimony of the emergency room doctor. The doctor had worked for years in the emergency room of a busy Philadelphia hospital and testified he had seen hundreds of gunshot wounds. (This doesn't say a lot for Philadelphia.) The doctor tried to testify the x-rays showed that the oval-shaped object embedded in the victims body was a bullet. We were successful in keeping the x-ray evidence out because, according to a little-known Massachusetts law, the doctor was not qualified to give an opinion about x-rays. We also made evidentiary objections as to the doctor's qualifications to give an opinion that the object was a bullet. After all, he was a doctor and not a ballistician. The Judge agreed with our evidentiary argument and pronounced our client not guilty.
Personal Injury
Rental Car Company
Substantial Recovery
We cannot discuss this case because the international car rental company we settled the case against required a secrecy agreement. But it did involve obtaining monies for the client far in excess of the available automobile insurance coverage. This was obtainable because of a novel and unique theory of liability against the car rental company. The amount in excess of the available insurance coverage was paid by the car rental corporation—an extremely rare situation.
Personal Injury
Low-Speed (2 mph) Rear-End Impact
Verdict for the Client: $38,921
Our client was in stop-and-go traffic and was rear-ended by the defendant. There was barely any noticeable damage to our client's car; however, she did sustain some whiplash-type injury to her back. The insurance company for the wrongdoer offered to settle the case for $5,000. We filed a lawsuit against the wrongdoer for negligence and against his insurance company for unfair insurance claims settlement practices in violation of Massachusetts Consumer Protection Laws.
After a trial against the wrongdoer for negligence, our client was awarded $38,921 for her injuries. The court will eventually decide whether the insurance company's offer of $5,000 was fair and, if it was not fair, whether to double or triple the award. The matter is presently pending an appeal.
