Breath Test Reversal Decision:
Massachusetts SJC Ruling Opens the Door for Thousands
of OUI Defendants to Challenge Alcotest 9510 Results
Massachusetts’ highest court, the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC), issued a major decision that affects approximately 27,000 people who either entered a plea or were convicted of operating under the influence (OUI). The ruling makes it significantly easier for individuals convicted on the basis of a breath test administered between June 1, 2011 and April 18, 2019 to succeed on a motion for a new trial or a motion to withdraw a guilty plea.
If your OUI case during that window rested on results from the Alcotest 9510 breath-test machine, this decision may give you a powerful new path to challenge the conviction or admission to sufficient facts.
What Did the Supreme Judicial Court Hold?
The SJC ruled that misconduct by the Office of Alcohol Testing (a division of the Massachusetts State Police Crime Laboratory) violated the constitutional rights of roughly 27,000 people who pleaded guilty to an OUI offense or were convicted after trial. Anyone whose conviction rested on breath-test results from an Alcotest 9510 machine between June 1, 2011 and April 18, 2019 is entitled to “a conclusive presumption of egregious government misconduct.”
Under Massachusetts law, a defendant ordinarily cannot withdraw a guilty plea or obtain a new trial based on government misconduct unless that misconduct was so egregious that it rendered the plea involuntary. The defendant must ordinarily prove two things:
- Egregious government conduct occurred before the defendant pleaded guilty; and
- The misconduct influenced the defendant’s decision to plead guilty.
Because of the SJC’s ruling, defendants whose cases fall within the relevant date range and involved Alcotest 9510 results no longer have to prove the first element. The court has already conclusively established that egregious government misconduct occurred. The only remaining question is whether that misconduct influenced the decision to plead guilty or to admit to sufficient facts.
What Does It Mean to Be “Influenced” to Plead Guilty?
The case that reached the SJC illustrates the standard. A woman named Lindsay admitted to sufficient facts on a second-offense OUI-liquor charge arising from a November 2013 arrest. She decided to resolve the case because a breath test showed a blood-alcohol concentration of 0.23%—nearly three times the legal limit of 0.08%. Her attorney advised her that she could not win at trial and that a plea was the wiser course. She followed that advice.
The SJC held that this was enough to establish that the government misconduct influenced her decision. She was therefore entitled to withdraw her admission to sufficient facts (the functional equivalent, for these purposes, of a continuance without a finding or guilty plea).
What Was the Misconduct?
An investigation that became public in 2019 revealed that the breathalyzer machines used across Massachusetts—specifically the Alcotest 9510—had not been properly calibrated. The Office of Alcohol Testing attempted to conceal the problem and was not truthful about the machines’ failure rates. As a result, the test results that prosecutors relied on in thousands of cases were scientifically flawed.
The scandal triggered extensive litigation. For a period of time, most district attorneys in Massachusetts stopped using breath-test results in criminal prosecutions while the reliability issues were sorted out.
What Should You Do If This Ruling Applies to You?
If you were convicted of OUI, or admitted to sufficient facts for an OUI, between June 1, 2011 and April 18, 2019, and the case rested in whole or in part on Alcotest 9510 breath-test results, you may have grounds to file a motion for a new trial or a motion to withdraw your plea.
Whether pursuing that relief is in your best interest depends on your individual circumstances—including the strength of the remaining evidence, the collateral consequences you are still facing (license suspension, ignition interlockrequirements, employment or professional-licensing issues, immigration consequences, and the risk of a worse outcome on retrial). An experienced Massachusetts OUI defense lawyer can evaluate the full picture and advise you on the risks and potential benefits.
Protect Your Rights
If you or a loved one was charged with or convicted of an OUI based on a breath test during the critical window, or if you are currently facing OUI, DUI, or DWI charges in Massachusetts, do not assume the breath-test evidence is reliable or unchallengeable. Early legal review can make a decisive difference.
Contact Attorney William J. Barabino for a confidential consultation. Call 781-393-5900 to discuss your case and available defenses.
Related Reading on This Site
