Erkan & Sullivan Urges Massachusetts Drivers With 2011-2019 OUI (DUI) Cases to Seek Legal Review

Andover, Massachusetts – Erkan & Sullivan is urging Massachusetts drivers whose operating under the influence cases involved a Draeger Alcotest 9510 breath test between June 1, 2011, and April 18, 2019, to seek an individual legal review.

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s April 26, 2023, decision in Commonwealth v. Hallinan, 491 Mass. 730 (2023), established a framework for defendants seeking to withdraw guilty pleas or admissions to sufficient facts, or obtain new trials, following misconduct within the Massachusetts State Police Office of Alcohol Testing.

Under the ruling, affected defendants may receive a conclusive presumption of egregious government misconduct when seeking post-conviction relief. The breath test result also cannot be used in a subsequent trial.

However, relief is not automatic. A person seeking to withdraw a guilty plea or admission must still show a reasonable probability that the breath test evidence and undisclosed misconduct influenced the decision to resolve the case. A person convicted after trial must meet the applicable requirements for a new trial. Courts evaluate each case based on its facts, evidence and procedural history. 

The ruling may also help people who accepted a plea because they believed the breath test evidence left no realistic way to contest the charge. 

Commonwealth v. Hallinan Created a Path for Review

Lindsay Hallinan admitted to sufficient facts on an OUI charge in 2013 after a Draeger Alcotest 9510 reported a blood alcohol concentration of 0.23%. She later retained Murat Erkan, a partner at Erkan & Sullivan, to challenge the disposition after misconduct within the Massachusetts State Police Office of Alcohol Testing came to light. 

Erkan represented Hallinan throughout the post-conviction proceedings and the appeal before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. In Commonwealth v. Hallinan, SJC-13301, 491 Mass. 730 (2023), the court reversed the denial of her motion and established standards other defendants may use when seeking review of cases involving affected breath test evidence. 

“Many people made life-changing decisions because they believed the breath test evidence against them was reliable and could not be challenged,” said Erkan, a partner at Erkan & Sullivan. “Anyone whose case involved an Alcotest 9510 during this period should have the record reviewed rather than assume nothing can be done.”

Individuals may want to contact Erkan & Sullivan for a case review if they: 

• Took a breath test using a Draeger Alcotest 9510;
• Pleaded guilty to the OUI charge;
• Admitted to sufficient facts and accepted a CWOF;
• Were convicted after a trial where the breath test result was introduced.

Not every case will qualify. Eligibility and available relief depend on the facts, evidence and procedural history of each case. 

People who believe an earlier Massachusetts OUI case involved an affected breath test may contact Erkan & Sullivan for a case evaluation at (978) 647-3685 or visit https://www.es.legal/.

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Commonwealth v. Hallinan
491 Mass. 730 (2023)