In a recent case wherein his client was prosecuted for improper storage of a firearm, Attorney Smith prepared and litigated a motion to dismiss.   Using new precedent from the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, he argued that the actions of his client did not actually constitute “storage” within the meaning of that offense.   Result:  Motion to Dismiss ALLOWED.

Attorney Smith successfully defended a client in an exceedingly challenging operating under the influence (drunk driving) case involving a major automobile accident.
Attorney Smith was able to keep his client’s blood alcohol content test results (which were high) taken at the hospital from being introduced against him at trial. He argued to the judge that the Commonwealth had violated discovery rules and thus should not be allowed to introduce them. The judge agreed.
He also successfully argued that all evidence obtained by the prosecutors as a result of a motor vehicle accident reconstruction that had been conducted by the police was inadmissible.  Result: Client found NOT GUILTY at trial!

Attorney Smith’s client, when represented by a different lawyer, had been convicted of first degree murder after jury trial, receiving a mandatory life sentence without parole.  Attorney Smith then represented the client in her appeal to the state’s highest court.  Result:  Conviction overturned and client awarded a new trial.

Attorney Smith’s client was charged with operating under the influence of alcohol 2nd offense and negligently operating a motor vehicle so as to endanger.  The police said the breathalyzer results were that our client’s blood alcohol was .16 (twice the legal limit), that our client was staggering after exiting the car when ordered to do field sobriety tests, that our client failed those tests and more. Attorney Smith filed and litigated a motion to exclude the breathalyzer results, which the judge allowed.  Then, he took the case to jury trial.  Result:  Not guilty verdicts on all charges.

After taking to trial a subsequent-offense drunk driving (“OUI”) case on behalf of his client, Attorney Smith then successfully argued on appeal that our client’s conviction was unconstitutionally-obtained by the state because our motion to suppress all of the evidence should have been allowed before trial. Result: The decision made new law, holding that police in Massachusetts may not lawfully stop motorists because there are small objects dangling from their rearview mirror.  Judgement of not guilty entered on behalf of our client by the higher court.

Client was charged with drunk driving. Attorney Smith prepared and litigated an extensive motion to throw out the breathalyzer test results on the grounds that the way the police administered the test was legally invalid. Result: Despite the prosecutor’s claim that the evidence against our client was overwhelming, because of our motion, the prosecution offered dismissal of the drunk driving charge and amendment to negligent operation and a 6 month continuance without any guilty finding was imposed then resulted in dismissal thereafter.

Client was charged with drunk driving in a town outside of Boston. Attorney Smith prepared and litigated a motion to suppress the field sobriety tests on the grounds that our client had given the legal equivalent of a refusal to take the tests, despite his not having actually expressed any such refusal to the officers. The judge allowed Attorney Smith’s motion, throwing out the majority of the prosecution’s evidence against our client.

Our client was an employee at a large national retailer. He was wrongfully accused by his employer of having stolen from them, was wrongfully fired, and then wrongfully prosecuted, by his former employer. Attorney Smith successfully handled the matter in favor of our client against his employer in both a trial court and an administrative agency.

Our client was in a major automobile accident, suffering head trauma and other injuries. When the police arrived, they reported that there had been a strong odor of alcohol on our client’s person and in the vehicle and so they charged her with drunk driving. We filed extensive discovery motions to obtain, among other things, the video of our client’s booking at the police station. The police then ultimately responded that the booking video had been lost or destroyed. Attorney Smith then filed a motion to dismiss the charges on these grounds, which was allowed in full by the judge.

A young client of ours was facing serious felony charges in the District Court for vandalism resulting in substantial monetary loss to a commercial lot. After the client’s two codefendants had already admitted to the alleged offense, in essence, they were ordered by the court to pay large amounts of restitution. However, Attorney Smith investigated the matter fully, including interviewing one of the owners of the property. Having done so, he established at the probable cause hearing that, in fact, an agent of the owner had given full permission for our client and his friends to demolish the property- having thought it had been abandoned by the owner. As a result, the court issued no charges against our client.

Despite our client’s having been captured on video cursing repeatedly at the police at booking, and with such evidence having been claimed by the prosecutor as strong evidence of intoxication, Attorney Smith obtained a not guilty verdict for our client at trial, arguing that the words, while arguably inappropriate, were, in fact, more consistent with someone who had been upset at having been wrongfully arrested for drunk driving.

Before having been represented by us, a client in his twenties was convicted in Superior Court of very serious drug trafficking charges and given a 10 year mandatory minimum sentence to state prison. Attorney Smith handled his appeal and won, successfully arguing that his conviction should be reversed because the prosecution had not offered sufficient evidence as to the composition and weight of the controlled substances.

Attorneys Smith and O’Sullivan represented a retired real estate developer who had a massive outstanding civil judgment entered against him and was charged with contempt of court for its non-payment. They litigated the matter exhaustively and vigorously in the trial courts and then in both the Appeals Court and Supreme Judicial Court, first successfully obtaining a stay of execution of jail sentence, and then resolving the matter in such a way as to keep the client from having to serve the contempt.

Before our representation, our client was convicted of cocaine trafficking and given a very lengthy mandatory sentence. Attorney Smith handled his appeal and won, successfully arguing that the state had not provided sufficient evidence as to the weight of the substance aside from the improperly-admitted state police chemist’s report.  Result:  Not guilty judgment entered on behalf of client.

Client, a member of the active military, retained us to represent him in his child support modification case. Though having duly paid his child support obligations, wife sought to have them substantially increased, and at what would have been a severe hardship to our client. After the trial judge ruled against the wife’s request for modification, she appealed. We prevailed in the appeal, successfully arguing that the trial judge had properly followed the support guidelines and the applicable case law.

Client was convicted, before our handling the matter, of possession of drugs with the intent to distribute, with a mandatory minimum sentence. Attorney Smith represented him on appeal. He and was able to get his client’s sentence vacated on the grounds that the state had, in fact, failed to present legally sufficient evidence that he was within a school zone- this despite the fact that the issue had not even been raised by client’s original lawyer.

Our client retained us after their dog had been ordered by a local town to be restrained due to its alleged bothering of pedestrians. Attorney Smith represented the client, a former law enforcement official, before the town’s select-board. After that governing body found against our client and imposed the requirement that our client must install a large, extremely expensive structure within which to keep their dog when outside, Attorney Smith took the matter to the District Court having jurisdiction. There, he argued that the order the town had entered exceeded the town’s lawful authority. The court agreed and vacated the town’s order.

Client was convicted, after having been represented by a different attorney, on very serious assault with a dangerous weapon charges. He was then sentenced under the state’s habitual offender law. Advancing what was then a completely novel legal argument, Attorney Smith successfully argued on appeal that his client’s conviction was invalid because prior federal criminal cases should not be interpreted as predicate offenses under the state’s habitual offender law.

CALL (774) 317-9287

CLICK HERE for The Law Office of William S. Smith on FACEBOOK !

This is merely a small sampling of a select few of our past cases. They are set forth solely for illustrative purposes of some the types of matters we have handled and as examples of the results we have obtained for our clients in some cases. No lawyer, however, can guarantee any specific results in any client’s case. The facts, relative strengths and weaknesses of a client’s case, and the applicable law, all vary from matter to matter.

Serving Holden, Worcester, Worcester County, Central & Western Massachusetts, Westborough, Shrewsbury, Auburn, Rutland, Paxton, Spencer, Leicester, Brookfield, Barre, Oakham, Hubbardston, West Boylston, Sterling, Clinton, Fitchburg, Leominster, Lunenberg, Gardner, Princeton, Westminster, Winchendon, Lancaster, Boylston, Berlin, Framingham, Lowell, Littleton, Acton, Ashland, Ayer, Berlin, Bolton, Boston, Boylston, Clinton, Concord, Fitchburg, Grafton, Harvard, Holliston, Hopkinton, Hudson, Lincoln, Lowell, Lawrence, Haverhill, Salem, Chelmsford, Carlisle, Luneneburg, Marlborough, Milford, Natick, Northborough, Shrewsbury, Southborough, Stow, Sudbury, Upton, Waltham, Wayland, Wellesley, Westborough, Weston, Boston, Cambridge, Allston, Brighton, Newton, Needham, Brookline, Chestnut Hill, Waltham, Metrowest Boston, Amesbury, Andover, Avon, Belmont, Beverly, Boxford, Braintree, Brookline, Burlington, Cambridge, Canton, Carlisle, Cohasset, Concord, Danvers, Dedham, Dorchester, Dover, Franklin, Gloucester, Holbrook, Ipswich, Lexington, Lynn, Lynnfield, Marblehead, Marshfield, Medfield, Medway, Melrose, Methuen, Middleton, Millis, Newburyport, Norwood, Peabody, Plymouth, Quincy, Randolph, Rockport, Saugus, Scituate, Sharon, Sherborn, Stoughton, Sudbury, Swampscott, Topsfield, Walpole, Wrentham, Wayland, Wellesley, Weston, Weymouth, Winchester, Cape Cod and all other areas of Massachusetts.

• HOLDEN MA WORCESTER MA ATTORNEY LAWYER CRIMINAL DEFENSE DRUNK DRIVING OUI DWI DUI DRUG OFFENSE PERSONAL INJURY CAR ACCIDENT EMPLOYMENT LAW EDUCATION LAW APPEALS WRONGFUL CONVICTION