Criminal Case Results - Law Firm The Law Office of Glickman, Sugarman, Kneeland & Gribouski Attorneys Worcester, Massachusetts

James J. Gribouski

Central District Court of Worcester, Worcester, Massachusetts, January 13, 2012
Client, a twenty-eight year old Sutton, Massachusetts man was stopped for speeding by a Douglas Police Officer. At the stop, the officer asked the client to perform a nine step walk and turn and a one-legged stand exercise. The officer believed that the client did not perform these tests satisfactorily and placed him under arrest for OUI/DWI.

Attorney Gribouski obtained the videotape of his client’s booking, which showed that his client had no symptoms of intoxication. Additionally, at trial, Attorney Gribouski was able to get the arresting officer to admit that there was nothing wrong with his client’s driving other than the speeding. The judge acquitted Attorney Gribouski’s client and ordered the Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles to restore his license to operate.
Central District Court of Worcester, Worcester, Massachusetts, January 12, 2012
Client, a twenty-one year old, Worcester, Massachusetts college student was arrested by the Quinnsigamond Community College Police after a traffic stop. He was charged with assault and battery on a police officer, resisting arrest and disorderly conduct.

Attorney Gribouski was able to obtain a cruiser video of the incident and after reviewing it was able to convince the prosecutor to dismiss the assault and battery and also, the resisting arrest charge. His client’s case was then continued without a finding for six months, which would result in a dismissal of the charges.
Central District Court of Worcester, Worcester, Massachusetts, January 10, 2012
Attorney James J. Gribouski’s client was stopped by an officer of the Douglas, Massachusetts Police Department after a citizen had flagged the officer down and said Attorney Gribouski’s client had stumbled across the street and entered his motor vehicle. The officer allegedly observed the client cross the center line on three occasions. He then pulled him over.

After asking the client to perform field sobriety tests the officer placed him under arrest for OUI/DWI and operating to endanger. Attorney Gribouski obtained the videotape of his client’s booking. Upon reviewing the tape, Attorney Gribouski filed a motion to suppress the audio portion of the tape because the police officer did not provide his client a hearing impaired interpreter pursuant to M.G.L. c. 221 § 92 A. The motion was allowed and thus the jury was not allowed to hear his client’s slurred speech at the time of booking.

At trial, the officer testified that Attorney Gribouski’s client fell against his vehicle both while walking and during the nine step walk and turn field sobriety test. Attorney Gribouski argued to the jury that the videotape showed that his client had no difficulty with his balance at all and thus the officer’s testimony was not credible. The jury agreed and found Attorney Gribouski’s client not guilty in less than minutes.
Central District Court, Worcester, Massachusetts, January 5, 2012
Client, a sixty-three year old South Carolina man was stopped on Route 146 in Sutton, Massachusetts by a Sutton Police Officer for speeding and failing to stay within the marked lanes. The officer then had Attorney Gribouski’s client perform a nine-step walk and turn test and a one legged stand tests. The officer believed that Attorney Gribouski’s client performed these tests unsatisfactorily and placed him under arrest for OUI/DWI.

Recognizing that these two tests are not valid for individuals with back or inner ear problems, Attorney Gribouski obtained medical records indicating that his client was suffering from both of these acclimates at the time of the field sobriety tests. Attorney Gribouski also obtained the booking video of his client. This video showed that shortly after arrest his client was not exhibiting any symptoms of intoxication. Armed with this evidence Attorney Gribouski was able to win an acquittal for his client at trial.
East Brookfield District, East Brookfield, Massachusetts, December 14, 2011
Client a twenty-six year old Berlin, Massachusetts woman was stopped by an officer for the Paxton Police Department for allegedly not staying within her lane. After stopping her, the officer asked her to stop from the vehicle which she did without difficulty. He then had her perform two filed sobriety tests which he believed she failed and placed her under arrest for OUI/DWI.

Attorney Gribouski obtained the audio video of his client’s booking procedure and determined that it contradicted the officer’s testimony that his client was slurring her speech and was unsteady on her feet. He recommended that his client take the case to trial she did and was found not guilty.
Central District Court, Worcester, Massachusetts, November 9, 2011
Client, a twenty-five year old Worcester, Massachusetts woman was involved in a minor motor vehicle accident on Route 495 in Southborough, Massachusetts. A Massachusetts State Trooper responded to the scene and reported that Attorney Gribouski’s client was unable to perform two of the three field sobriety tests.

He thus placed Attorney Gribouski’s client under arrest. Once at the State Police Barrack’s a breath test was administered. Attorney Gribouski obtained a booking video which showed that the police did not follow proper procedures in the administration of the breath test. He was thus able to convince a judge to exclude the test results from evidence. Without the test results, the Commonwealth was left with a very weak case and accordingly, Attorney Gribouski’s client was acquitted.
East Brookfield District Court, East Brookfield, Massachusetts, November 2, 2011
Client, a forty-nine year old Athol, Massachusetts man was arrested by the Oakham Police Department after allegedly violating an abuse prevention order. He had allegedly driven by his estranged wife’s home in violation of a one hundred yard stay away order.

After investigation, Attorney Gribouski was able to locate GPS tracking records that were maintained by his client’s employer. These records indicated that his client was not in Oakham at the time his wife claimed he was driving by. After trial, the judge acquitted Attorney Gribouski’s client.
Central District Court, Worcester, Massachusetts, October 27, 2011
Client, a sixty-seven year old Paxton, Massachusetts man was stopped by a Massachusetts State Trooper after a citizen called and claimed that Attorney Gribouski’s client had almost been involved in three accidents. After the stop, the Trooper asked Attorney Gribouski’s client to perform three field sobriety tests, which the Trooper believed were failed. The Trooper then placed Attorney Gribouski’s client under arrest for OUI/DWI.

Attorney Gribouski conducted an investigation and discovered that this citizen had called 911 to report erratic operators on at least five occasions. He also was able to discover that this citizen was employed in three different capacities for two area police departments. He was further able to discover that this citizen had enrolled in a part-time police academy with hopes of becoming a police officer.

Attorney Gribouski reviewed the police reports and discovered that two of the field sobriety tests, the nine-step walk and turn and the stand on one-leg are not necessarily valid for individuals over 65 years of age. He additionally determined that the third, the alphabet, was not properly administered.

Due to the above, Attorney Gribouski was able to effectively cross-examine both the citizen and the Trooper and discredit their testimony. A jury returned a not guilty verdict in less than thirty minutes.
Worcester District Court Worcester, Massachusetts October 5, 2011
Attorney James J. Gribouski's client was charged with five counts of statutory rape. After several months of discovery and preliminary hearings, Attorney Gribouski was able to convince the prosecutor to reduce two of the counts to simple assault and battery and dismiss the remaining three counts. Attorney Gribouski's client was then placed on probation for three years.
District Court of Worcester, Worcester, Massachusetts, October 5, 2011
Attorney James J. Gribouski’s client was charged with five counts of statutory rape. After several months of discovery and preliminary hearings, Attorney Gribouski was able to convince the prosecutor to reduce two of the counts to simple assault and battery and dismiss the remaining three counts. Attorney Gribouski’s client was then placed on probation for three years.
Worcester Superior Court Worcester, Massachusetts September 30, 2011
Attorney Gribouski’s client, a forty-six year old Ashburnham, Massachusetts woman was charged with six counts of larceny over $250. It was alleged that while working as a bookkeeper she converted $278,000 to herself over a six year period.

Attorney Gribouski was able to conduct extensive discovery in an attempt to minimize the sentence that his client might receive. After several months of discovery, Attorney Gribouski was able to negotiate a plea to probation and restitution. His client thus did not spend one day in jail despite the theft of such a large amount of money.
Superior Court of Worcester, Worcester, Massachusetts, September 30, 2011
Attorney Gribouski’s client, a forty-six year old Ashburnham, Massachusetts woman was charged with six counts of larceny over $250. It was alleged that while working as a bookkeeper she converted $278,000 to herself over a six year period.

Attorney Gribouski was able to conduct extensive discovery in an attempt to minimize the sentence that his client might receive. After several months of discovery, Attorney Gribouski was able to negotiate a plea to probation and restitution. His client thus did not spend one day in jail despite the theft of such a large amount of money.
Central District Court of Worcester, Worcester, Massachusetts, September 8, 2011
Client, a forty-seven year old woman was arrested for an OUI/DWI by a Massachusetts State Trooper after being stopped at a sobriety checkpoint in Shrewsbury, Massachusetts. Attorney Gribouski obtained the police report and booking video and determined that his client should go to trial. At trial, Attorney Gribouski was able to convince the judge that the Commonwealth had not proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt and that his client should be found not guilty. The judge then ordered the Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles to reinstate his client's right to operate.
Central District Court of Worcester, Worcester, Massachusetts, September 1, 2011
Client, a fifty-five year old Holden, Massachusetts man was stopped for operating erratically on Route 290 in Worcester, Massachusetts. After failing several field sobriety tests, he was arrested by the Massachusetts State Trooper. He then told the Trooper that he had taken suboxone. He was then charged with operating under the influence of drugs.

Attorney Gribouski recognized that suboxone is not a drug that is prohibited by the OUI Drugs Statute. As a result, he filed a motion to dismiss to the charge. After a hearing a judge agreed and the charge was dismissed.
East Brookfield District Court East Brookfield, Massachusetts August 17, 2011
Client, a thirty-six year old, Oxford, Massachusetts man was arrested for OUI/DWI after returning to his home. A police officer arrived approximately two minutes later and claimed he had observed Attorney Gribouski’s client back into his driveway.

Attorney Gribouski obtained a copy of a dispatch tape, which clearly indicated the police officer was requesting information to locate the driver and thus could not have observed the operation of the motor vehicle. An element of operating under the influence is that the operation must be on a public way. Attorney Gribouski was able to win an acquittal of his client armed with the tape. The judge then restored his client’s right to operate which had been suspended due to this client’s refusal to take a breath test.
Central District of Worcester Worcester, Massachusetts July 21, 2011

Client, a forty-three year old Douglas, Massachusetts man was stopped by a Douglas police officer after a citizen called the police and said he was all over the road. The police officer further stated that Attorney Gribouski's client crossed the center lines and nearly struck an oncoming police cruiser.

After being stopped, the officer stated that Attorney Gribouski's client appeared confused, lacked manual dexterity, fumbled while looking for his license and registration, had a strong odor of alcohol about him and was slurring his speech. As a result, he was arrested for OUI/DWI.

At trial Attorney Gribouski cross-examined the arresting officer and demonstrated to the jury that due to police negligence, a videotape of his client's booking, which occurred within ten minutes of his client's arrest, had been destroyed. He was able to argue to the jury that this was the most definitive piece of evidence in the case and the fact that the police had destroyed it should be held against them. The jury returned a verdict of not guilty within fifteen minutes of beginning deliberations.
Central District Court of Worcester Worcester, Massachusetts July 13, 2011

Client, a twenty-four year old Douglas, Massachusetts man was arrested by the Douglas Police Department after an automobile accident for OUI/DUI. He was brought to the Douglas Police Department where he elected to submit to a breath test and received a reading of .10, which is over the legal limit of .08.

Attorney Gribouski obtained the booking video of his client's arrest and discovered there were improprieties in the administration of the breath test. At trial, he was able to get the officer who administered the test to admit that these improprieties may have had an effect on the reading of the breath test. He was also able to get the officer to admit that she had no idea what his client's blood alcohol content was at the time of the operation of the motor vehicle, which is the operative time for the statute.

At the close of the Commonwealth's evidence, Attorney Gribouski's argued that the Commonwealth had not proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The judge agreed and found his client not guilty.
Uxbridge District Court Uxbridge, Massachusetts July 12, 2011

Client, a forty-two year old Douglas, Massachusetts man was approached by a Douglas Police Officer after arriving home from a local bar. The officer smelled alcohol on Attorney Gribouski's client's breath and believed him to be unsteady on his feet. He then arrested him for OUI/DWI.

Attorney Gribouski's client elected to take a breath test and registered a .15, nearly twice the legal limit of .08. Attorney Gribouski obtained the booking video and determined that the breath test had been improperly administered. He thus filed a motion to exclude the breath test results from trial which was allowed.

At trial Attorney Gribouski was able to demonstrate through cross-examination that his client had been driving perfectly fine before being approached by the police officer. Additionally, he was able to show the videotape to demonstrate that his client was speaking fine and was having no difficulty with balance. Attorney Gribouski argued to the judge that based upon the above evidence, the Commonwealth did not prove the case beyond a reason doubt. The judge agreed and found his client not guilty.
Central District Court of Worcester Worcester, Massachusetts June 22, 2011

Client, a forty-seven year old Uxbridge, Massachusetts woman was stopped by an Uxbridge Police Officer for allegedly running a red light. After giving her field sobriety tests, the officer arrested her for OUI/DWI.

Attorney Gribouski reviewed the police report and its description of the field sobriety tests. The officer indicated that Attorney Gribouski's client had informed him that she had a sciatic nerve problem in her leg. Attorney Gribouski was aware that the one legged stand test and the nine-step walk and turn test may not be valid for individuals with problems with their legs or back. He thus recommended that his client take the case to trial. At trial he effectively cross-examined the arresting officer about the invalidity of these tests. His client was then found not guilty. The judge also ordered that Attorney Gribouski's client's license to operate be reinstated, as it had been previously suspended for the refusal of the breath test.
Central District Court of Worcester, Worcester, Massachusetts, June 17, 2011
Client, a fifty-two year old Mendon, Massachusetts man was stopped by a Sutton, Massachusetts police officer for allegedly not moving into the passing lane when passing an emergency vehicle on the side of the road. After speaking with Attorney Gribouski’s client, the officer placed him under arrest for OUI/DWI.

Attorney Gribouski obtained the videotape of his client’s booking, which showed that his client was not unsteady on his feet and responded approximately to all questions. After trial, Attorney Gribouski’s client was found not guilty. The judge further ordered that his client’s license should be reinstated.
Central District Court of Worcester,Worcester, Massachusetts,May 25, 2011 - Client, a sixty-nine year old Douglas, Massachusetts man was stopped for failure to stop at a stop sign. An officer of the Douglas Police Department pulled Attorney Gribouski's client from the motor vehicle and then had him perform field sobriety tests. After these tests, he was placed under arrest and brought to the Douglas Police Department where he took a breath test, which registered a .09 which is over the legal limit of .08.

Attorney Gribouski obtained the booking video, the breath test machine maintenance records and his client's medical records documenting his client's permanent disability due to leg and back problems. Attorney Gribouski was aware that the field sobriety tests performed by his client were not valid for individuals over sixty-five years of age and for individuals with leg and back problems.

At trial, Attorney Gribouski, during cross-examination, was able to get the arresting officer to acknowledge that he did not know what his client's blood alcohol level was at the time of operation. He was further able to get the arresting officer to acknowledge that it was likely below .08 due to the rate of absorption of alcohol. Attorney Gribouski's client was found not guilty.
Central District Court,Worcester, Massachusetts, May 24, 2011 Client a fifty-six year old woman was stopped at a Massachusetts State Police sobriety checkpoint in Auburn, Massachusetts. After performing a series of field sobriety tests, she was arrested by an Auburn Police Officer and brought to the Auburn Police Department for booking.

Attorney Gribouski discovered that his client's physical condition prevented her from adequately performing field sobriety tests. He additionally obtained the videotape of his client's booking, which revealed that she was not slurring her speech and was not unsteady in any way. At trial she was found not guilty.
United States Federal District Court,Worcester, Massachusetts, May 13, 2011 Attorney Gribouski's client was charged with possession of child pornography in the Federal District Court, as the FBI executed a search warrant of his computer. Attorney Gribouski was able to convince the United States Attorney's Office to not charge his client with the distribution of child pornography despite the fact that file sharing software allowed others to remotely view his client's collection. If his client had been charged with distribution, his client would have been facing a minimum mandatory 5 year Federal prison sentence.

Despite being charged with possession rather than distribution, his client was still facing a guideline range of 57-71 months in prison. Attorney Gribouski conducted extensive research on the application of the guidelines in this case, as well as consulted with psychological experts. As a result, he was able to convince the judge to reduce the sentence to 37 months.
Central District Court of Worcester, Worcester, Massachusetts, May 10, 2011 Client, a twenty-two year old Worcester, Massachusetts man was a passenger in a motor vehicle that was stopped by a Massachusetts State Trooper for a defective headlight. After requesting identification from the driver and Attorney Gribouski's client, the Trooper ordered Attorney Gribouski's client to exit the motor vehicle. He then conducted a pat frisk and located a loaded firearm on Attorney Gribouski's client. He was then charged with carrying a loaded firearm, armed career criminal and possession of a firearm with a license. These charges carried the potential penalty of a minimum mandatory state prison sentence.

Attorney Gribouski was first able to convince the prosecutor to dismiss the career criminal charge, which reduced the mandatory minimum sentence to 18 months. Attorney Gribouski then filed a motion to suppress the evidence based upon the argument that the exit order was illegal and that any evidence found as a result should be suppressed. As a result, the prosecutor agreed to reduce the charge to possession of a firearm which is a charge that does not carry a minimum mandatory sentence.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, Worcester, Massachusetts, May 5, 2011 Client, a thirty-three year old Worcester, Massachusetts man was arrested in May 2009, as a result of a federal wiretap drug investigation. He was charged with conspiracy to distribute marijuana and others in the conspiracy were also charged with conspiracy to distribute cocaine.

Due to the nature of the evidence against him, Attorney Gribouski's client chose to plead guilty, despite facing a guideline sentence of over fourteen years in federal prison. Attorney Gribouski was able to negotiate with the Assistant United States Attorney to make a recommendation of 100 months despite the guideline range and also to agree that Attorney Gribouski could request a lower sentence.At sentencing, Attorney Gribouski argued to the judge that his client had rehabilitated himself and deserved a much lesser sentence. The judge sentenced Attorney Gribouski's client to forty-nine months which means that with completion of a drug program and good time, he could serve less than three years.
Central District Court of Worcester, Worcester, Massachusetts, April 29, 2011 Client, forty-year old Northbridge, Massachusetts woman was stopped by a Sutton, Massachusetts Police Office for driving an automobile with a defective taillight. The officer requested her to do field sobriety tests and then arrested her for OUI/DWI. Attorney Gribouski's client was then brought to the Sutton Police Department where she elected to take a breath test. She registered a .15 which is almost twice the legal limit.

Attorney Gribouski obtained the videotape of his client's booking and determined that the police had not followed proper procedure in administering the breath test. He thus filed a motion to exclude the breath test pursuant to Commonwealth vs. Pierre. The judge allowed the motion to exclude the test, which meant that the Commonwealth could not use the evidence at trial. Without this evidence the Commonwealth could not prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt and Attorney Gribouski's client was found not guilty.
Central District Court of Worcester,Worcester, Massachusetts, April 27, 2011 Client, a twenty year old Auburn, Massachusetts woman was arrested for OUI/DWI by a Massachusetts State Police Officer. The officer testified that Attorney Gribouski's client passed his cruiser on the right, while she was travelling forty-five miles per hour in a thirty mile an hour zone. He additionally testified that Attorney Gribouski's client cut off his cruiser causing him to slam on his brakes to avoid a collision.
He then testified that he stopped the defendant and immediately observed a strong odor of alcohol. He testified that Attorney Gribouski's client was unable to perform two field sobriety tests and became belligerent when he arrested her.
Attorney Gribouski was able to demonstrate on cross-examination that the tests were performed at a dangerous section of the highway while cars were passing at a high speed. He additionally called a witness that his client was wearing high heels. This witness further testified that Attorney Gribouski's client was sober when she last saw her thirty minutes prior to the stop.

Attorney Gribouski then argued to the judge that the Commonwealth had not met its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The judge agreed and found Attorney Gribouski's client not guilty. He further ordered Attorney Gribouski's client's license to be reinstate. This was extremely important as the license had been suspended for three years due to her refusal to take a breath test, which is the period of suspension for someone under twenty-one.
Central District Court of Worcester, Worcester, Massachusetts, April 14, 2011 Client, a twenty-three year old Millbury, Massachusetts man was arrested for OUI/DWI by an officer of the Sutton, Massachusetts Police Department. At trial the officer testified that he stopped Attorney Gribouski’s client after almost being stuck by his motor vehicle. The officer further testified that there was a strong odor of burnt marijuana coming from the motor vehicle.
The officer testified that Attorney Gribouski’s client failed the one-legged stand test and the nine step walk and turn test. On cross-examination however, he agreed that the defendant only missed walking heel to toe by two centimeters and walked a straight line, and did the correct number of steps. Additionally on cross-examination, the officer admitted that on the one-legged stand test the defendant kept his foot up longer than required.

Attorney Gribouski then argued to the judge that the Commonwealth did not prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The judge agreed and acquitted Attorney Gribouski’s client. The judge also ordered the Registry of Motor Vehicles to reinstate the defendant’s license.
Dudley District Court, Dudley, Massachusetts, April 12, 2011 Client a forty-four year old Webster, Massachusetts man was arrested by the Webster Police Department and charged with DWI/OUI Fourth Offense. Attorney Gribouski’s client elected to take a breath test and registered a .14.
Attorney Gribouski obtained a copy of the booking video and discovered that the breath test operator had not observed his client for fifteen minutes as required by Massachusetts law. He thus filed a motion to exclude the breath test results from evidence. The judge allowed the motion and excluded the results. Due to the substantially weakened case, the prosecutor then agreed to strike the subsequent offense portion of the charge. This allowed the defendant to plead guilty to a second offense and instead of being incarcerated for two years was placed on probation.
Westborough District Court, Westborough, Massachusetts, April 5, 2011 Client, a twenty-six year old Brighton, Massachusetts man was stopped at a sobriety checkpoint by the Massachusetts State Police. He was asked to perform two field sobriety tests which he passed. He then elected to take a portable breath test which registered at .10. As a result, of this test, he was arrested for OUI/DUI and transported to the State Police Barracks. He then elected to take a breath test and registered a .09.
Attorney Gribouski recommended that his client take the case to trial based upon the fact that there was no evidence that his client drove erratically and that he did well on the field sobriety tests. Despite the fact that his client registered over the legal limit on the breath tests, Attorney Gribouski was able to convince the judge to find his client not guilty.
Westborough District Court, Westborough, Massachusetts, April 5, 2011 Client, a twenty-two year old Yarmouth, Massachusetts man was stopped by an officer of the Shrewsbury Police Department. After requesting that Attorney Gribouski's client exit his motor vehicle, the officer became involved in an altercation with a passenger in the vehicle. The officer then placed Attorney Gribouski's client under arrest for OUI/DWI and Operating under the Influence of Drugs.
Attorney Gribouski's client was transported to the Shrewsbury Police Department where he was videotaped and given a breath test. Attorney Gribouski obtained a copy of the booking video and obtained the maintenance records of the breath test machine. Upon reviewing the maintenance records, Attorney Gribouski discovered that his client's breath test was invalid due to the fact that the simulator solution was not heated to the correct temperature. He pointed this out to the prosecutor who agreed not to introduce the breath test results at trial.

The Commonwealth was thus left with very little evidence. Attorney Gribouski argued to the judge that his client should be found not guilty. The judge agreed and acquitted Attorney Gribouski's client.
Westborough District Court, Westborough, Massachusetts, April 4, 2011 Client, a twenty-one year old Grafton, Massachusetts man was arrested by the Grafton Police Department after being found with marijuana, a scale and several small baggies used for the sale of marijuana.
He was then charged with possession of marijuana with the intent to distribute. Attorney Gribouski researched the new marijuana law and discovered that the language in the law only pertains to the sale of marijuana and not to the possession of marijuana with the intent to sell. Attorney Gribouski filed a motion to dismiss the charge. After discussion with the prosecutor the charge was dismissed.
Dudley District Court Dudley, Massachusetts March 15, 2011 Client a twenty-three year old Sturbridge, Massachusetts man was arrested by the Sturbridge Police Department for the DWI/OUI after he slid off the road in a snowstorm. Due to the weather conditions, no sobriety tests were given.
At trial, Attorney Gribouski was able to argue that any symptoms of intoxication could actually have been symptoms of the head injury his client sustained in the accident. Additionally, his client's speech was not slurred. Based on this evidence, Attorney Gribouski argued that the Commonwealth had not proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The judge agreed and found his client not guilty. Additionally, the judge ordered the Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles to reinstate Attorney Gribouski's client's license which had been suspended for a refusal to submit to a breath test.
Belchertown District Court Belchertown, Massachusetts March 14, 2011 Client, a twenty-seven year old Hubbardston, Massachusetts man was stopped for speeding by an officer of the Ware, Massachusetts Police Department. After giving Attorney Gribouski's client field sobriety tests, the police arrested him for OUI/DWI. They went to the Ware Police Department and elected to submit to a breath test and registered a .09, which is over the legal limit.
Attorney Gribouski obtained the breath test records and discovered that the test was administered one hour and twenty minutes after his client was stopped by the police. Although .09 is over the legal limit, the Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant's blood alcohol level was over the limit of the time of operation. There was no evidence that Attorney Gribouski's client was over the limit at the time of the operation. Additionally, there are several factors that affect the absorption rate of alcohol. A person's blood alcohol continues to rise for a period of time after one's last drink.

Attorney Gribouski thus recommended that his client go to trial. On the trial date the prosecutor agreed to dismiss the OUI/DWI.
Central District Court of Worcester Worcester, Massachusetts March 11, 2011 Client, a thirty-three year old Douglas, Massachusetts man was stopped by a Douglas police officer for speeding. He was then arrested for OUI/DUI after allegedly failing two field sobriety tests.
Attorney Gribouski conducted pretrial discovery and was able to obtain a videotape of his client's booking procedure. At trial, through cross-examination of the arresting officer Attorney Gribouski was able to establish that his client's operation of the motor vehicle was perfectly fine other than driving too fast. He was also able to show that his client's performance on the field sobriety tests was much better than that portrayed by the officer on direct examination. At the close of the Commonwealth's case Attorney Gribouski argued that the evidence was not sufficient to convict his client. The judge agreed and found his client not guilty and also reinstates his client's license, which had been suspended for refusal of the breath test.
East Brookfield District Court East Brookfield, Massachusetts March 7, 2011 Client, a thirty-one year old Leicester, Massachusetts man was arrested in Sturbridge, Massachusetts by a Massachusetts State Trooper for operating under the influence of liquor. The trooper testified that he observed Attorney Gribouski's client make a wide right turn and thus stopped him. Upon observing slurred speech, red and glassy eyes and an odor of alcohol, he placed Attorney Gribouski's client under arrest.
At trial Attorney Gribouski was able to demonstrate, during cross-examination, that his client did well on field sobriety tests. The trooper acknowledged that his client was able to hold his left leg up for thirty seconds. Attorney Gribouski argued to the judge that the Commonwealth had failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that his client was driving under the influence. The judge agreed and found Attorney Gribouski's client not guilty.
East Brookfield District Court East Brookfield, MA March 3, 2011 Client, a twenty-two year old Spencer, Massachusetts man was arrested after a search warrant was executed at his home. He was charged with several drug offenses which included possession of oxycodone, possession of oxycodone with the intent to distribute, possession of marijuana with the intent to distribute and conspiracy to violate the controlled substance law.
Attorney Gribouski obtained and scrutinized the search warrant and police reports. He then filed a motion to suppress all of the evidence. On the date of the motion, after extensive negotiations, he was able to convince the prosecutor and police to dismiss all of the criminal charges and allow his client to plead to a civil violation of possession of less than an ounce of marijuana and receive a one hundred dollar fine.
Central District Court Worcester, Massachusetts March 2, 2011 Client, a forty year old Northbridge, Massachusetts woman was arrested for OUI/DWI by an officer of the Sutton Police Department. She elected to submit to a breath test and registered a .15 which is almost two times the legal limit.
Attorney Gribouski conducted discovery and was able to obtain a videotape of the booking and breath test procedure. Upon close examination of the video, Attorney Gribouski discovered that the police officer who administered the breath test did not comply with 501 CMR 2.13(3) and Commonwealth vs. Pierre. He thus filed a motion to exclude the breath test, which the judge allowed. The Commonwealth's case is now considerably weaker without any evidence of blood alcohol content.
Central District Court Worcester, Massachusetts March 1, 2011 Client, a thirty-four year old Douglas, Massachusetts man was stopped by an officer of the Douglas Police Department, due to a defective taillight. After performing field sobriety tests, Attorney Gribouski's client was arrested for OUI/DWI.
At trial, the police officer testified that Attorney Gribouski's client was unable to perform two field sobriety tests, the nine step walk and turn test and the one-legged stand test. Based upon these failures, he arrested Attorney Gribouski's client. Attorney Gribouski was able to elicit on cross-examination, that his client had told the arresting officer that he had cartilage damage in his knee. He additionally introduced medical records supporting this statement. Additionally, Attorney Gribouski was able to get the officer to admit that these two particular field tests may not be valid for individuals with leg problems, and that there were other tests available that were not conducted. Attorney Gribouski was also able to get the officer to admit that there was absolutely nothing wrong with his client's operation of the motor vehicle, other than the defective taillight. At the conclusion of the case, Attorney Gribouski argued that the Commonwealth had not met its burden of proof and that his client should be found not guilty. The judge agreed and acquitted Attorney Gribouski's client.
Central District Court of Worcester February 4, 2011 Client, a twenty-three year old Worcester, Massachusetts woman became lost while driving in Sutton, Massachusetts. A Sutton police officer came upon her and gave her directions and began to follow her. After following her for a short distance, he stopped her and requested that she take field sobriety tests. According to the officer, she was unable to walk nine steps on a line and hold her foot up for thirty seconds.
The officer then placed Attorney Gribouski's client under arrest for OUI/DWI. She was brought to the station and elected to take a breath test registering a .18 which is more than two times the legal limit. Attorney Gribouski obtained the videotape of his client's booking and discovered that the breath test had not been properly administered. He thus filed a motion to exclude the breath test from evidence which the judge allowed. Without the breath test evidence the Commonwealth could not prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt and his client was found not guilty.
Central District Court of Worcester February 1, 2011 Client a fifty year old Douglas, Massachusetts man was arrested for OUI/DWI by a Sutton, Massachusetts police officer. Attorney Gribouski's client elected to take a breath test and registered a .18 on the test, which is more than twice the legal limit. Attorney Gribouski, upon reviewing a video of his client's booking, discovered that his client had burped within fifteen minutes of taking the test. As a result, he filed a motion to exclude the breath test. A judge agreed and excluded the test from evidence.
Central District Court of Worcester January 24, 2011Client, a thirty-eight year old Oxford, Massachusetts man was stopped at a Massachusetts State Police sobriety checkpoint in Auburn, Massachusetts. Despite passing two out of three field sobriety tests he was arrested for DWI/OUI. Attorney Gribouski's client elected to take a breath test and registered a .08 blood alcohol level approximately 1.5 hours after the operation of his motor vehicle.

Attorney Gribouski argued to the judge that his client was not unsteady on his feet and was not operating his vehicle erratically. Additionally, Attorney Gribouski argued that the Commonwealth had not proved beyond a reasonable doubt that his client's blood alcohol content was .08 or above at the time of operation since the test was not given until 1.5 hours later. The judge agreed and found Attorney Gribouski's client not guilty.
Leominster District Court December 23, 2010 Attorney James J. Griouski's client was arrested on two separate occasions for driving under the influence of drugs, operating to endanger and leaving the scene of property damage. Attorney Gribouski filed motions to dismiss the operating under the influence of drug charges on the basis that the police had not presented sufficient evidence to the clerk magistrate to establish that his client was operating under the influence of a substance prohibited by the statute.

After lengthy negotiations, Attorney Gribouski was able to convince the prosecutor to dismiss both OUI/drug charges in exchange for an admission to sufficient facts to the other charges. Attorney Gribouski was then able to persuade the judge to continue his client's charges without a finding for six months. If his client remains out of trouble for the six month period, all of the charges will be dismissed.
Southbridge District Court November 26, 2010 Client, a twenty-five year old Worcester, Massachusetts man was charged with forgery, breaking and entering, receiving stolen property and uttering a forged instrument. The Commonwealth alleged that he had stolen a check from a person's home and then tried to cash it. Attorney Gribouski conducted extensive pretrial discovery and was able to establish that another individual who looked remarkably similar to his client, had actually worked for the person from who the check was stolen. Further discovery revealed that a witness had identified this person as the person who had stolen the check. It was further determined that Attorney Gribouski's client was identified only because a witness had been shown a single photograph of his client.
Attorney Gribouski filed a motion to suppress any identifications of his client due to the unnecessarily suggestive identification procedure employed by the police. The judge allowed the motion to suppress and ruled that the Commonwealth could not have any witnesses identify the defendant at trial. The Commonwealth was thus left with no evidence and thus had no alternative, but to dismiss the case.
Central District Court November 23, 2010 Client, a sixty-seven year old Douglas, Massachusetts man was arrested after arriving at the scene of an accident. His two sons were involved in the accident and he was extremely upset. A Douglas Police Officer had him perform a walk and turn test and then placed him under arrest. The officer additionally testified that Attorney Gribouski's client had slurred speech and was unsteady on his feet.

Attorney Gribouski obtained a copy of his client's booking video which showed his client did not have slurred speech and had not difficulty with balance. Attorney Gribouski was able to get the police officer to acknowledge on cross-examination that a walk and turn test is not valid for individuals over 65 years of age. He then argued to the jury that without this evidence the Commonwealth was left with the videotape alone for evidence and that it did not establish his client's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. They jury agreed and found his client not guilty.
Central District Court of Worcester November 4, 2010 Client, a twenty-three year old Auburn, Massachusetts man was stopped by Worcester Police Officer for driving the wrong way on a one way street. The officer then asked Attorney Gribouski’s client to walk a straight line and stand on one leg. He testified that the client could not perform either to his satisfaction and then arrested him for OUI/DWI.

Attorney Gribouski sought to obtain the videotape of his client’s booking. Upon review of the tape he discovered that that his client had no difficulty with balance and appeared to be sober. Attorney Gribouski introduced the tape at his client’s trial. After watching the tape, the judge found his client not guilty. The judge additionally ordered the Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles to reinstate Attorney Gribouski’s client’s right to operate.
Central District Court November 9, 2010 Client, a twenty-four year old Revere, Massachusetts man was stopped by the Mendon, Massachusetts Police Department for allegedly crossing marked lanes. A cruiser video recorded the police interaction with Attorney Gribouski’s client on the side of the road. The video showed Attorney Gribouski’s client to be able to only hold his foot up on the one legged stand field sobriety test for seven seconds rather than the prescribed thirty seconds. The tape also showed him stumbling and losing his balance on the nine-step walk and turn test and not being able to complete the alphabet.

Attorney Gribouski was able to demonstrate on cross-examination that despite these tests his client did not exhibit any of the usual symptoms of intoxication such as slurred speech or lack of balance. Attorney Gribouski also was able to demonstrate on cross-examination that the tests administered were not valid, due to the fact that his client has knee problems. He then argued that the jury should disregard the field tests. The jury agreed and returned a verdict of not guilty in less than thirty minutes. The judge then ordered the Registry of Motor Vehicles to restore Attorney Gribouski’s client’s license.
East Brookfield District Court November 17, 2010 Client, a forty-one year old Grafton, Massachusetts man was stopped in Charlton Massachusetts by a Massachusetts State Trooper for allegedly crossing marked lane. After smelling on odor of alcohol on Attorney Gribouski’s client’s breath he asked him to step from the motor vehicle. The Trooper further testified that Attorney Gribouski’s client had slurred speech, was unsteady on his feet and could not perform field sobriety tests. Attorney Gribouski cross-examined the trooper and was able to establish that except for a brief lane violation that his client was driving fine. He was also to establish that his client actually performed several parts of the field sobriety test correctly. Attorney Gribouski then argued to the judge that the Commonwealth had not met his burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The judge agreed and found Attorney Gribouski’s client not guilty.
Dudley District Court September 21, 2010 Client, a thirty-six year old Danielson, Connecticut man was stopped by a Dudley Police Officer for allegedly weaving while driving his motor vehicle. According the testimony of the police officer, Attorney Gribouski’s client failed two field sobriety tests. Attorney Gribouski cross-examined the police officer and pointed out that his client had a plate and screws in his ankle. The tests given were not valid for people with leg problems. Attorney Gribouski also had the opportunity to show a videotape of his client’s booking that corroborated his argument that his client was not under the influence. The judge agreed and found his client not guilty. Additionally, he allowed a motion to reinstate Attorney Gribouski’s client’s license three months early.
Central District Court of Worcester October 1, 2010 Client, a thirty-eight year old Worcester, Massachusetts man was arrested by the Worcester Police Department and charged with OUI/DWI and three counts of leaving the scene of property damage. According to the testimony at trial, a citizen was standing on the sidewalk and observed Attorney Gribouski’s client strike three separate motor vehicles and continue driving. The citizen got in his vehicle and followed Attorney Gribouski’s client until they came to a stop light. The citizen then removed the keys from the vehicle. He further testified that Attorney Gribouski’s client exited his vehicle and fell to the ground. A Worcester Police Officer then arrested Attorney Gribouski’s client. He testified that he was unable to administer field sobriety tests due to the intoxicated condition of Attorney Gribouski’s client. Attorney Gribouski vigorously cross-examined the Commonwealth’s witnesses and presented two defense witnesses who testified that they had observed Attorney Gribouski’s client shortly before his arrest and felt he was sober. Attorney Gribouski argued to the jury that the Commonwealth had not proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The jury agreed and found his client not guilty.
Worcester Superior Court October 4, 2010 Client, a thirty-six year old Southbridge, Massachusetts man was arrested by the Massachusetts State Police and charged with trafficking in cocaine in excess of two hundred grams. This charge carries a minimum mandatory state prison sentence of fifteen years upon conviction. Attorney Gribouski aggressively pursued discovery, filed pretrial motions and prepared for trial. On the day the case was scheduled for trial, Attorney Gribouski was able to convince the prosecutor that the Commonwealth’s case was exceedingly weak against his client. The prosecutor then agreed to reduce the charge to possession with intent to distribute. Rather than facing a minimum mandatory fifteen year prison sentence, Attorney Gribouski’s client was sentenced to probation.
Worcester Superior Court October 25, 2010 Client, an eighteen year old Worcester, Massachusetts man was charged with two counts of assault and battery with a dangerous weapon after stabbing two individuals with a knife. One of the individuals suffered a punctured lung. Attorney Gribouski conducted an extensive investigation in the background of the individuals stabbed and discovered that one had an extensive history of violence. Attorney Gribouski was prepared to argue that this evidence would have been admissible under the Adjutant case, which holds that an alleged victim’s propensity for violence is admissible to show that the person was likely a first aggressor.
Armed with this information, Attorney Gribouski entered into plea negotiations. The prosecutor would only recommend a four to six year state prison sentence. Despite this very tough recommendation, Attorney Gribouski was able to convince the judge to give his client probation. The information about the alleged victim’s violent history proved valuable in convincing the judge not to sentence his client to prison.
Central District Court of Worcester October 25, 2010 Client, a forty-three year old Worcester, Massachusetts man was a passenger in a motor vehicle when the motor vehicle was stopped by the Massachusetts State Police for failing to move to the center lane while passing a trooper who had stopped a vehicle in the breath down lane.
After the stop, the motor vehicle was searched and forty pounds of marijuana were found in the trunk of the vehicle. Attorney Gribouski’s client was then charged with possession with intent to distribute and conspiracy to violate the drug laws.
Attorney Gribouski aggressively pursued discovery to determine whether there were actual grounds to stop the vehicle in which his client was riding. When the discovery was not forthcoming he failed a motion to dismiss which was allowed and the case was dismissed.
Central District Court of Worcester October 27, 2010 Client, a forty-two year old Uxbridge, Massachusetts man was involved in a single vehicle accident. Upon taking a corner too fast, the pickup truck he was operating rolled onto its side. The Uxbridge Police arrived at the scene and performed field sobriety tests of which they testified that Attorney Gribouski’s client failed. The police thus arrested him for OUI/DWI. He was brought to the station where a breath test was conducted, which registered .21, approximately two and one half times the legal limit.
Attorney Gribouski aggressively pursued pretrial discovery of the maintenance and certification logs for the breath testing machine. He additionally obtained a ruling pursuant to the Melendez-Diaz case that the government could not introduce the results unless the chemist who conducted the annual certification was present. On the day of the trial, Attorney Gribouski sought to exclude the breath test from evidence on the grounds that the breath test operator did not observe his client for the required fifteen minute period, prior to the administration of the test. The judge ruled the test results were inadmissible. Without the results the government could not prove its case and Attorney Gribouski’s client was found not guilty.
Central District Court of Worcester August 4, 2010 Client, an eighteen year old Worcester, Massachusetts woman was arrested and charged with possession of a class b substance with intent to distribute with one thousand feet of a school zone. This charge carries a minimum mandatory jail sentence of two years if convicted.
Attorney Gribouski obtained all of the reports and dispatch logs pertaining to the stop of his client’s motor vehicle. After a thorough review of the case, a motion to suppress the evidence was filed that alleged that his client was stopped illegally. During the hearing of the motion, the Commonwealth agreed to dismiss all charges.
Central District of Worcester August 3, 2010 Client, a fifty-two year old Millbury, Massachusetts man was stopped by an officer of the Millbury Massachusetts Police Department. After conducting roadside field sobriety tests, the officer arrested Attorney Gribouski's client. He was then brought to the police station and booked. Attorney Gribouski's client refused to take a breath test which resulted in a three year loss of license. After conducting discovery, Attorney Gribouski encouraged his client to proceed to trial. At trial, Attorney Gribouski was able to discredit the officer's testimony through cross-examination. Additionally, he produced a videotape of his client's booking which supported his position that his client was not under the influence. His client was found not guilty at which time Attorney Gribouski filed a motion to order the Registry of Motor Vehicles to reinstate his client's license. The motion was allowed.
Central District Court of Worcester July 21, 2010 Client, a twenty-four year old Northbridge Massachusetts man was found behind the wheel of his car, off the road in Northbridge, Massachusetts. He was then treated at the Milford-Whitinsville Hospital where blood was drawn. As analysis of the blood by the Massachusetts State Police Crime Lab reveled a blood alcohol content of two and one-half times the legal limit. Attorney Gribouski filed a motion to suppress the blood test arguing that the blood was taken without his client's consent. A judge agreed and excluded the test from evidence. As a result the Commonwealth reduced the OUI/DUI charge and Attorney Gribouski's client did not lose his license.
Leominster District Court July 14, 2010 Client, twenty-five year old Worcester, Massachusetts woman was stopped by a Holden police officer after allegedly operating her motor vehicle in an erratic manner. After conducting a horizontal gaze nystagmus test, a walk and turn test, a one legged stand test and an alphabet test the officer arrested Attorney Gribouski's client for OUI/DWI. She then elected to submit to a breath test and registered two and one-half times over the legal limit.
Attorney Gribouski pursued discovery motions to obtain records pertaining to the maintenance of the breath test. Due to a failure of the government to provide the requested documents, a judge excluded the result for the breath test at trial. Attorney Gribouski then proceeded to trial and was able to convince the judge that the government failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Attorney Gribouski's client was found not guilty.
Dudley District Court July 13, 2010 Client, a forty-two years old Leominster, Massachusetts man was charged by the Webster Police Department with armed assault with intent to murder, assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon and assault and battery. He was arrested after he had attacked his girlfriend and a man with a knife caused injury to his girlfriend.
After months of negotiation, Attorney Gribouski was able to persuade the prosecutor to dismiss the armed assault with intent to murder charge. Attorney Gribouksi was then able to convince the judge to continue the other charges without a finding. If Attorney Gribouski's client successfully completes his probation, the charges will be dismissed and he will have no record of conviction.
Central District Court of Worcester July 12, 2010 Client, a fifty-five year old Sutton, Massachusetts man was arrested for OUI/DWI as a result of a motor vehicle accident in Millbury, Massachusetts. Attorney Gribouski was able to demonstrate that the accident occurred due to the failure of his client's steering system.
Attorney Gribouski consulted with the mechanic who repaired his client's truck and then called him as a witness to testify at trial. The mechanic testified that in all likelihood the accident resulted from the malfunction of the steering.
The arresting officer testified that Attorney Gribouski's client failed all of the field sobriety tests. During cross-examination Attorney Gribouski was able to obtain an admission from the arresting officer that she would not have conducted the one-legged stand test or the heel to toe test if she had known that Attorney Gribouski's client had arthritic knees, those tests are not valid for individuals with leg problems.
The jury returned a verdict of not guilty in less than ten minutes.
East Brookfield District Court June 30, 2010 Client, a thirty-three year old Leicester, Massachusetts man was stopped for speeding in Oxford, Massachusetts by a Massachusetts State Trooper. After failing a portable breath test, Attorney Gribouski’s client was arrested and charged with OUI/DWI.
Attorney Gribouski aggressively pushed the case to trial. At trial, he was able to demonstrate through cross-examination of the arresting officer that his client was driving perfectly fine despite speeding. As a result, he was able to argue to the judge that the Commonwealth had not proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the alcohol his client had consumed had affected his ability to operate his motor vehicle safely. Attorney Gribouski’s client was found not guilty.
Uxbridge District court June 22, 2010 Client, a thirty year old Douglas, Massachusetts man was arrested by an officer of the Sutton Police Department for OUI/DWI. After being arrested, he was transported to the Sutton Police Department for booking. Attorney Gribouski’s client elected to take a breath test and registered a .09 blood alcohol reading.
Despite the fact that Attorney’s Gribouski’s client was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol level of greater than .08, Attorney Gribouski took the case to trial. At trial he was able to demonstrate through cross-examination of the police officer that his client had been driving fine, had not been unsteady on his feet and had not demonstrated any other symptoms of intoxication.
Attorney Gribouski further argued that the breath test was given one hour after his client had been observed operating the motor vehicle and that the Commonwealth had not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that his client’s blood alcohol level was .08 or above at the time of operation. The judge agreed and found Attorney Gribouski’s client not guilty.
Worcester Superior Court May 27, 2010 Client, a twenty-three year old Worcester man was charged with armed assault with intent to murder and with being an armed career criminal. The charges called for a potential penalty of a minimum of ten years state prison sentence on conviction. The charges arose from an incident in Worcester where the government alleged that Attorney Gribouski’s client shot the alleged victim over a disagreement in a night club.
The alleged victim was shot in the chest and arm, but recovered. After the shooting, he described a motor vehicle from where the shots were fired. The description fit that of a motor vehicle owned by the brother of Attorney Gribouski’s client. The alleged victim also looked at several photographs and chose Attorney Gribouski’s client’s photograph as the person who shot him.
At trial Attorney Gribouski pointed out on cross-examination that despite the alleged victim’s choosing of the photograph, he described the shooter as a person who did not fit his client’s description. Attorney Gribouski’s client was found not guilty of all charges.
Concord District Court May 13, 2010 Client, a fifty-three year old Townsend, Massachusetts man was stopped by a Massachusetts State Police Trooper in Bedford, Massachusetts for allegedly traveling eighty-six miles per hour in a fifty five mile per hour zone. The state trooper testified that upon making observations of Attorney Gribouski’s client he decided he was under the influence of liquor and charged him with OUI/DWI.
During a jury trial, the trooper testified that Attorney Gribouski’s client had difficulty standing and failed all field sobriety tests. Attorney Gribouski was able to develop a theory of reasonable doubt through the cross-examination of two troopers. Attorney Gribouski argued to the jury that the Commonwealth did not meet is burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The jury agreed and found Attorney Gribouski’s client not guilty.
Newburyport District Court May 3, 2010 Client, a thirty year old Worcester, Massachusetts man was arrested in Salisbury, Massachusetts by a Salisbury police officer. The officer testified that he was called to a rollover accident in a dirt parking lot of a building. He observed several people standing near the motor vehicle which was registered to Attorney Gribouski's client. He then found Attorney Gribouski's client and his girlfriend in some nearby woods and observed him to smell of alcohol, to be unsteady on his feet and to have slurred speech.
Attorney Gribouski argued to the judge that the Commonwealth could not prove that his client was the operator of the motor vehicle, or that it had been operated on public ways, which are two elements of an OUI/DWI case. The judge agreed and found Attorney Gribouski's client not guilty.
Dudley District Court April 28, 2010 Client a twenty-five year old Southbridge, Massachusetts man was arrested after the police executed a search warrant at his place of business. He was charged with trafficking in cocaine and distribution of cocaine within 1000 feet of a school. As a result of these charges, he was facing a minimum sentence of five years in state prison of which he would be required to serve the full five years.
Attorney Gribouski aggressively pursued discovery in the case and filed motions to suppress the evidence as illegally seized. Despite the denial of the motion to suppress, Attorney Gribouski was able to negotiate a plea agreement where his client will only serve 6 months in the local jail.
Central District court of Worcester April 29, 2010 Client, a thirty-two year old Douglas, Massachusetts man was arrested by a Douglas Police Officer after he was stopped for having a broken taillight. According to the officer, Attorney Gribouski's client failed two sobriety tests and had a substantial amount of empty beer bottles in his truck. The officer further testified that he smelled a strong odor of liquor, his speech was mumbled and he was unsteady on his feet.
Attorney Gribouski was able to demonstrate through cross-examination that his client was driving absolutely fine and that there was no other reason for the stop, other than the broken taillight. He had also requested a videotape of his client's booking which showed that his client was not mumbling and was not unsteady on his feet. The judge found Attorney Gribouski's client not guilty.
Dudley District Court April 13, 2010 Client, a twenty-one year old collect student was accused of assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon. The alleged dangerous weapon was a backpack of beer bottles, which the alleged victim claimed were thrown at him. Attorney Gribouski was able to convince the prosecutor to dismiss the dangerous weapon portion of the charge. This reduced the charge to a misdemeanor. The prosecutor then agreed to continue the case without a plea or a finding for six months. This means that Attorney Gribouski’s client did not waive any rights and did not admit to any guilt. The charge will be dismissed in six months.
Central District Court April 14, 2010 Attorney Gribouski’s client was charged with assault and battery and assault and assault and battery with a dangerous weapon. He was charged when another person alleged that he choked, kicked and punched him. Attorney Gribouski was able to convince the prosecutor to continue the case for a period of ninety days at which time the case will be automatically dismissed.
Uxbridge District Court April 7, 2010 Client, a nineteen year old Sutton, Massachusetts man was visiting a friend when the Sutton, Massachusetts Police came to the house. The police were allegedly investigating a tip that there was going to be an underage drinking party at the house.

The police entered the home and smelled marijuana. Based upon the smell of marijuana, the police searched everyone who was present. They found approximately four ounces of marijuana in the backpack of Attorney Gribouski’s client. Attorney Gribouski filed a motion to suppress alleging that the police entry into the home and the subsequent search of the backpack was illegal. After an extensive conference with the prosecutor the prosecutor decided to dismiss the criminal marijuana charges.
Central District Court of Worcester April 1, 2010 Client, twenty-seven year old Northbridge, Massachusetts woman was stopped for a marked lanes violation in Northbridge, Massachusetts by the Northbridge Police. She was then arrested for OUI/DWI. Attorney Gribouski conducted pretrial discovery and obtained a videotape of his client's booking.
When the case went to trial the arresting officer testified that Attorney Gribouski's client was slurring her speech, was extremely unsteady on her feet and could not follow simple instruction. Attorney Gribouski cross-examined the officer and developed the inconsistencies in his testimony. After introducing the video of his client's booking into evidence, Attorney Gribouski argued to the judge that the video showed his client with no difficulty in speech or balance. The judge agreed and found her not guilty.
Central District Court of Worcester March 23, 2010 Client, a Millbury, Massachusetts woman was arrested for operating under the influence of drugs. It was alleged that she had taken a prescription medicine that had affected her operation of the motor vehicle. Attorney Gribouski researched the particular medication that his client was taking and discovered that it was not prohibited by the law. Attorney Gribouski filed a motion to dismiss the case, because the Commonwealth could not prove that the drug of which his client was taking, while allegedly operating under the influence, was prohibited by law. The judge agreed and the case was dismissed.
Uxbridge District Court March 10, 2010 Client, a twenty-one year old Uxbridge, Massachusetts woman was charged with conspiracy to violate the controlled substance laws due to her participation in the distribution of oxycontins. Complicating the case was the fact that she was currently on probation when the new charges occurred. Attorney Gribouski was able to convince the judge to dismiss the probation violation and gave his client a continuance without a finding on the conspiracy charges. This allowed Attorney Gribouski’s client to avoid a criminal conviction of a felony. A conviction would also have resulted in a lost of his driving privileges.
Central District Court Worcester, Massachusetts February 3, 2010 Client, a forty year old Grafton, Massachusetts man was stopped at a sobriety checkpoint in Auburn, Massachusetts. After performing field sobriety tests he was arrested for OUI/DWI. He elected to take a breath test which registered .10, which is above the legal limit of .08. He was thus additionally charged with operating a motor vehicle with unlawful blood alcohol content.
Attorney Gribouski filed a motion to exclude the blood test results citing the case of Commonwealth vs. Pierre, which requires the breath test operator to keep the subject in observation for 15 minutes prior to administration of a breath test. The Commonwealth could not sustain its burden that the operator did so and the judge excluded the breath test results. This exclusion of evidence of the defendant’s blood alcohol level substantially weakened the Commonwealth’s case.
The case then proceeded to trial and attorney Gribouski’s cross-examination of the arresting officer demonstrated further weaknesses in the case. His client was found not guilty.
Central District Court Worcester, Massachusetts February 2, 2010 Client, a twenty-eight year old Millbury, Massachusetts man was involved in an argument with his live-in girlfriend. His girlfriend broke the windshield of the motor vehicle and struck him in the face. The police were called by neighbors and his girlfriend alleged that she had been assaulted by Attorney Gribouski’s client. The police then arrested Attorney Gribouski’s client and charged him with domestic assault and battery.
Attorney Gribouski met with the prosecutor to discuss the case. He pointed out to the prosecutor that he intended to cross-examine the girlfriend about her criminal acts and that would likely incriminate her. After this discussion the prosecutor chose to dismiss the case.
Central District Court of Worcester January 26, 2010 Client, a twenty-two year old Worcester, Massachusetts man was sitting in his car on the side of the road with a friend. Three Worcester Police Officers pulled their unmarked cruiser alongside of Attorney Gribouski's client and blocked its exit from its parking space. The alleged reason for this action was because one of the officers was aware that two months prior Attorney Gribouski's client's license had been revoked. The police ordered the client and his friend from the vehicle and confiscated cocaine and money.
Attorney Gribouski filed a motion to suppress the evidence based upon an illegal search. He argued that the blocking of the motor vehicle constituted an arrest without probable cause, and that the police lacked specific, articulable facts to approach the motor vehicle. He further argued that the police did not know if his client's license was still suspended and in any event the police did not observe the client operating the vehicle so no crime was being committed. The judge agreed and allowed the motion to suppress, which throws out all of the evidence against his client.
Worcester Superior Court January 19, 2009 Client, a forty-seven year old Worcester, Massachusetts man was charged with rape and intimidation of a witness for an incident that occurred in Leominster, Massachusetts. Attorney Gribouski pursued the case aggressively through motion and discovery practice. He also conducted an extensive investigation to discredit the testimony of the alleged victim.
Prior to trial, Attorney Gribouski was able to convince the prosecutor to dismiss the intimidation of a witness charge which carried a maximum penalty of ten years in state prison. A jury was then impaneled. Immediately, prior to the opening statements, Attorney Gribouski was able to persuade the prosecutor to reduce the rape charge to a misdemeanor assault and battery. Attorney Gribouski's client then received one year of unsupervised probation.
Central District Court Worcester, Massachusetts Client, a sixty-five year old Charlton, Massachusetts woman was stopped at a sobriety checkpoint in Auburn, Massachusetts. The arresting state trooper did not observe any erratic operation by Attorney Gribouski's client. He testified however that he smelled alcohol.
She was requested to exit her motor vehicle and perform a heel to toe test and stand on one leg test. Attorney Gribouski cross-examined the trooper on the fact that the field sobriety test training manual states that individuals 65 years of age or older may have difficulty with these tests. He also pointed out that there are several other tests that are valid for this age group. The trooper refused to admit that these tests were invalid despite being confronted with the manual. After trial, Attorney Gribouski's client was found not guilty.
Central District Court Worcester, Massachusetts December 22, 2009 Client, a twenty-one year old Clark University student was arrested by the campus police after being found intoxicated on campus. After a struggle during his arrest, he was charged with assault and battery on a police officer, resisting arrest, threats and disorderly conduct. Attorney Gribouski was able to persuade the prosecutor to dismiss the most serious charges of assault and battery, threats and resisting arrest. The disorderly conduct charge was then continued on pretrial probation which means that Attorney Gribouski's client did not admit to any charges and the case will be dismissed if he has no further difficulty.
Worcester Superior Court,December 18, 2009 Client, a forty-six year old Northbridge, Massachusetts man was indicted for an eighth offense of operating under the influence of liquor. Attorney Gribouski’s client had been arrested at 11:50 AM and had submitted to a portable breath test, which registered a .21 blood alcohol level. Approximately two hours later, Attorney Gribouski’s client submitted to a breath test at the police station which registered a .15 blood alcohol level.
Attorney Gribouski filed a motion to suppress the breath test results based upon Commonwealth vs. St. Pierre, which requires the breath test operator to keep the subject in observation for fifteen minutes to ensure that he does not burp, hiccup or place anything in his mouth that would contaminate the test. This motion was allowed and the judge ruled that the Commonwealth could not use the breath test result in its case. The ruling considerably weakened the Commonwealth’s case and as a matter they agreed to reduce the charge to a third offense.
Worcester Superior Court,December 17, 2009 Client, a Worcester, Massachusetts man was charged with rape in the Central District Court of Worcester. At a probable cause hearing, Attorney Gribouski cross-examined the complainant at length about the many inconsistencies in her story. During the cross-examination, Attorney Gribouski was able to develop a large number of further inconsistencies to the point of completely discrediting the complainant’s testimony. As a result, when the prosecutor presented the case to the grand jury, the grand jury refused to indict his client. This resulted in a complete dismissal of all charges.
Dudley District Court December 1, 2009 Client, a twenty-four year old Dudley, Massachusetts man was charged with possession with intent to distribute marijuana after a drug sniffing dog registered a positive hit for drugs on the outside of his motor vehicle. Upon searching the motor vehicle, the police found several individually packaged amounts of marijuana that were consistent with the offense of distribution.
Dudley District Court December 1, 2009 Clients, an Oxford, Massachusetts man and a Charlton, Massachusetts man were charged in separate incidents of domestic assault and battery. Attorney Gribouski scheduled both matters for trial. When the witnesses indicated to the prosecutor that they were reluctant to testify, Attorney Gribouski was able to win dismissals of the charges for both of his clients.
Westborough District Court October 29, 2009 Client, a forty-five year old, Worcester, Massachusetts antique dealer was charged with receiving stolen property after the police executed a search warrant at his place of business. Attorney Gribouski obtained a copy of the search warrant and its application and closely scrutinized it for legal defects. After reviewing the warrant, he filed a motion to suppress all the evidence seized as being illegally obtained. The case was scheduled for hearing and Attorney Gribouski pointed out the flaws in the warrant to the prosecutor and suggested that the case should be dismissed. The prosecutor agreed and dismissed the charges
Uxbridge District Court October 27, 2009
Client a thirty-three year old Uxbridge, Massachusetts man was arrested for the violation of a domestic abuse/209A Order. His wife had obtained an emergency order and when he drove past the family home in the morning the police arrested him. Attorney Gribouski was able to persuade the prosecutor to dismiss the charges, as his client had no other alternate route to take, but to drive past the family home. The charges against Attorney Gribouski’s client were dismissed.
Uxbridge District Court October 20, 2009
Client, a thirty-one year old Douglas, Massachusetts man was involved in a motor vehicle accident in Douglas, Massachusetts. He was brought to the hospital and received a citation for OUI/DWI. Attorney Gribouski recommended that he request a clerk magistrate’s hearing immediately, which he did. The magistrate nevertheless issued a complaint against him before he had an opportunity to have a hearing. Attorney Gribouski filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to M.G.L. ch. 218 § 35A, which allows a clerk’s hearing for certain crimes. The judge agreed that Attorney Gribouski’s client should have been granted a hearing and dismissed the complaint.
Worcester Superior Court October 5, 2009
Attorney Gribouski’s client, a nurse, was charged with the sexual assault and rape of a patient at a Worcester, Massachusetts hospital where he was employed. Attorney Gribouski engaged in discovery pursuant to the procedures set forth in Commonwealth v. Dwyer, which enabled Attorney Gribouski to obtain voluminous information. Due to the extensive discovery that Attorney Gribouski was able to gather, the case was dismissed without a trial.
Worcester District Court September 17, 2009
Client, a thirty-five year old Worcester, Massachusetts man was stopped by a Massachusetts State Police Officer for allegedly failing to keep his motor vehicle within marked lane and as a result, he was arrested for OUI/DUI. According to the police report, Attorney Gribouski’s client had difficulty standing and difficult answering simple booking questions. Attorney Gribouski was able to demonstrate through his cross-examination of the Trooper that the government’s case was weak. The judge agreed and Attorney Gribouski’s client was found not guilty.
Uxbridge District Court September 8, 2009
Client, a twenty-four year old, resident of Sutton, Massachusetts was arrested in her home by officers of the Sutton Police Department for disorderly conduct and resisting arrest. Attorney Gribouski was able to persuade the prosecutor that police do not have the right to arrest a person in their own home for disorderly conduct and thus the arrest was not valid. The prosecutor agreed and the case was dismissed.
East Brookfield District Court September 2, 2009
Client, a forty-two year old resident of Brookfield, Massachusetts was arrested in his home for allegedly assaulting his girlfriend and was charged with assault and battery with a dangerous weapon. He was released on bail, but rearrested and charged with violating an abuse prevention order when he tried to contact his children. Attorney Gribouski was able to demonstrate to the prosecutor that the allegations were fabricated for the girlfriend to obtain and advantage in an ongoing custody batter. The charges were dismissed.
Worcester District Court August 25, 2009
Client, a twenty-five year old Worcester, Massachusetts man was arrested for OUI/DUI after police found him passed out in his motor vehicle while he was in a drive-thru of a Dunkin' Donuts. When the police arrived, Attorney Gribouski’s client was behind the wheel of his motor vehicle, his car was in park and his engine was still running. After his arrest, the client elected to take a breath test which registered almost twice over the legal limit.
Attorney Gribouski was able to obtain the videotape of his client’s booking, which revealed that the Worcester Police had not properly administer the breath test. Thus, Attorney Gribouski was able to persuade the judge to exclude the breath test results from evidence and at trial demonstrated that the officer’s testimony was not credible. Attorney Gribouski’s client was found not guilty.
Worcester District Court August 20, 2009
Client, a fifty-five year old Douglas, Massachusetts man was charged with Assault by means of a dangerous weapon after he allegedly threw a computer at his wife. Attorney Gribouski was able to convince the prosecutor to dismiss the charges against his client.
Uxbridge District Court August 19, 2009
Client, a forty-five year old Sutton, Massachusetts man was involved in an automobile accident in Sutton, Massachusetts. The Sutton Police investigated the accident and subsequently arrested Attorney Gribouski’s client for OUI/DUI. Attorney Gribouski took the case to trial and demonstrated through cross-examination that the Commonwealth could not prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The judge agreed and found Attorney Gribouski’s client not guilty.
Worcester Superior Court August 4, 2009
Client, a fifty-four year old Paxton, Massachusetts woman was charged with the embezzlement of three hundred thousand dollars from her employer. She was additionally sued civilly for the return of the money. Attorney Gribouski was able to develop, through the use of experts, several reasons in mitigation of his client’s actions.
After many months of negotiation, Attorney Gribouski was able to negotiate a settlement of the civil case for the reduced sum of two hundred thousand dollars. He was also able to convince the prosecutor that due o his client’s extensive problems that incarceration was not appropriate. His client was sentenced to ten years probation.
Worcester District Court July 8, 2009
Client, a twenty-four year old Worcester, Massachusetts man was charged with assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, as a result of a fight in his apartment. Attorney Gribouski argued that his client was merely defending his girlfriend who had been assaulted by the complainant. After several hearing dates, the case was dismissed.
Worcester Central District Court July 6, 2009
Client, a thirty-two year old Worcester, Massachusetts man was arrested in Worcester for OUI/DWI after he was found asleep behind the wheel of his car, in the drive-through lane of Dunkin Donuts. He subsequently took a breath test at the Worcester Police Department and registered well over the legal limit of .08.
Attorney Gribouski filed a motion to exclude the breath test on the grounds that the police did not observe his client for 15 minutes prior to the administration of the breath tests, as required by Massachusetts law. The police sergeant, who administered the test, testified that not only had he observed the defendant for the required period, but he also had another officer do so as well. Attorney Gribouski had obtained a videotape of the testing procedure during pretrial discovery that contradicted the sergeant’s testimony. The judge ruled that the Commonwealth will not be allowed to introduce the breath test results at trial.
Worcester Superior Court July 3, 2009
Client, a forty-eight year old Northbridge, Massachusetts man was arrested for OUI/DWI in Upton, Massachusetts. He was subsequently brought to the Hopedale, Massachusetts Police Department where he submitted to a breath test that registered a result well over the legal limit of .08. Due to the fact that this was his eighth offense of OUI, he was indicted by a Worcester County Grand Jury.
Attorney Gribouski filed a motion to suppress the results of the breath test, arguing that the Massachusetts regulation that controls breath testing procedures were not complied with, due to the failure of the police to observe his client for fifteen minutes. The judge agreed and has ruled that the Commonwealth excludes the test results as evidence at trial.
Worcester District Court Jury Session July 2, 2009
Client, a twenty-eight year old Douglas, Massachusetts man was charged with possession with intent to distribute marijuana, as a result of his arrest in Douglas. Attorney Gribouski took the position that the marijuana found in his client’s motor vehicle was for personal use only, despite the fact that a scale and packaging material was found as well. Attorney Gribouski was able to persuade the prosecutor to not only reduce the charge to simple possession of marijuana, but also to continue the case without a finding with unsupervised probation. His client thus did not suffer any loss of license or conviction.
Worcester Central District Court June 29, 2009
Client, a 21-year-old Worcester, Massachusetts college student, was hosting a college party at his apartment in Worcester. When police entered his apartment without a warrant Attorney Gribouski’s client attempted to question the police about the propriety of being in his apartment. The police then claimed that Attorney Gribouski’s client assaulted them and he was placed under arrest for assault and battery on a police officer. After extensive negotiations, Attorney Gribouski was able to convince the prosecutor to dismiss the charge against his client.
Worcester Superior Court June 19, 2009
Client, an eighteen year old Millbury, Massachusetts man was charged with three counts of rape and one count of indecent assault and battery as a result of an incident that occurred at a high school party in Mendon, Massachusetts. Attorney James J. Gribouski represented this young man at trial and was able to win acquittals for him on the three counts of rape. Although the defendant was convicted of indecent assault and battery, Attorney Gribouski was able to convince the judge to only give his client two years probation.
Worcester Central District Court Jury Session June 12, 2009
Client, a thirty-two year old Douglas, Massachusetts man was charged with arson of a motor vehicle. After months of pretrial discovery and motions, Attorney Gribouski was able to persuade the prosecutor to dismiss the charges, due to insufficient evidence and the case was dismissed.
Worcester Central District Court Jury Session June 2, 2009
Client, a twenty-seven year old Sutton, Massachusetts man was observed by a Worcester Police Officer to drive straight through an intersection into the woods. When the officer asked Attorney Gribouski's client to exit the motor vehicle, the officer testified that he could not stand-up. The officer arrested his client for OUI/DUI and brought him to the Worcester Police Department for booking. At trial, Attorney Gribouski vigorously cross-examined the officer and pointed out the discrepancies between the officer's testimony and the booking videotape. When the jury could not reach a verdict, the OUI/DUI was dismissed.
United States Federal District Court June 18, 2009
Client, a twenty-four year old Oxford, Massachusetts woman was charged with conspiracy to distribute cocaine. These charges arose as a result of lengthy wiretap investigations and resulted in the arrest of over fifteen individuals. Attorney Gribouski was able to demonstrate that his client was the least involved of all individuals and despite the fact that she was heard on wiretap arranging the delivery of cocaine he was able to convince the judge to sentence her to probation.
Worcester Central District Court May 29, 2009
Client, a thirty-seven year old Worcester, Massachusetts man was originally charged with home invasion, which carries a twenty year minimum mandatory felony. It was alleged that he entered another person's home and threatened her with two handguns. Attorney Gribouski was initially able to obtain a reduction of the charges when he persuaded the prosecutor that the case was weak. At trial, he was able to convince the prosecutor that his key witness was lying. When the witness was confronted with this fact, she chose not to testify and the case was dismissed.
United States Federal District Court Boston, Massachusetts May 18, 2009
Client a twenty-eight year old Fitchburg, Massachusetts man was charged with trafficking in cocaine after being stopped with 124.5 kilos of cocaine in the trunk of his automobile in Revere, Massachusetts. He was then indicted for the charge that carried a minimum mandatory sentence of ten years in federal prison. Attorney Gribouski was able to negotiate with the United States Attorney's Office a reduction of the charge to eliminate the potential minimum mandatory sentence in exchange for guilty plea. At the time of sentencing the United States Attorney recommended that Attorney Gribouski's client be sentenced to a term of four years in prison. Attorney Gribouski convinced the judge to sentence his client to three years probation.
Worcester Central District Court May 19, 2009
Client, a thirty year old Worcester, Massachusetts man was arrested in Auburn, Massachusetts for OUI/DUI after being stopped for driving 74 MPH in a 40 MPH zone. The arresting officer testified that Attorney Gribouski's client smelled of alcohol and had red and glassy eyes. He then testified that the client was unable to perform several field sobriety tests. Attorney Gribouski was able to demonstrate through cross-examination that there are several separate and distinct parts to the field sobriety tests and that each is equally important. By doing so, Attorney Gribouski was able to show that his client had actually done reasonably well on these test. This created enough reasonable doubt and he was found not guilty.
Worcester Central District Court May 11, 2009
Client, a thirty-eight year old Blackstone, Massachusetts man was stopped in Auburn, Massachusetts after an Auburn Police Officer followed him for allegedly having an unlit license plate. After following him and claiming that he was crossing marked lanes he was stopped. Attorney Gribouski's client's passengers had open containers of beer in his vehicle. His client's truck was registered in Rhode Island and did not require an inspection sticker. When asked why he was stopped, the officer informed him it was for no inspection sticker. He was subsequently asked to do field sobriety tests, which the officer claimed he failed. He was subsequently arrested for OUI/DUI and took a breath test that registered a .16 result.
Attorney Gribouski filed a Motion to Suppress all of the evidence in the case, based upon the illegal stop of the motor vehicle. As his client's truck did not require an inspection sticker in the Rhode Island, the police were in error for stopping him for not having one. The judge agreed with Attorney Gribouski and suppressed all of the evidence, which included the observations of the police, the open containers and the breath test results. Without any of this evidence, the Commonwealth could not proceed to trial and the case was dismissed.
Worcester Central District Court May 6, 2009
Client, a twenty-seven year old Holden, Massachusetts man was stopped by the Paxton police for allegedly weaving while driving. According to the police officer's testimony, Attorney Gribouski's client failed three field sobriety tests. He was consequently arrested and charged with DUI/DWI. Attorney Gribouski was able to convince the judge that the Commonwealth was unable to sustain or meet its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Attorney Gribouski's client was found not guilty.
Worcester Central District Court May 6, 2009
Client, a thirty-seven year old Worcester, Massachusetts police officer was charged with the crime of assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon. Attorney Gribouski's client was facing the loss of his job if convicted of this serious felony. The allegations arose because his client was involved in an affair with the wife of another police officer. When he rebuked her suggestions that he move in with her, she fabricated allegations that he had assaulted her. Attorney Gribouski was able to demonstrate through cross-examination that the complaining witness had a lengthy history lying and had made many contradictory statements. A jury found Attorney Gribouski's client not guilty after only 45 minutes.
Marlborough District Court May 4, 2009
Client, a nineteen year old Auburn, Massachusetts woman was charged with conspiracy to violate the controlled substance laws. She had allegedly driven a friend to Marlborough, Massachusetts where the friend sold drugs to an undercover police officer. As the case was a first offense for Attorney Gribouski's client and the evidence against her was weak, Attorney Gribouski was able to persuade the prosecutor to dismiss the case.
Worcester District Court April 29, 2009
Client, a thirty-six year old Worcester, Massachusetts woman was arrested at the St. Patrick's Day Parade in Worcester, Massachusetts as she was trying to enter a bar. She was charged with assault and battery and malicious destruction of property.
Attorney Gribouski was able to convince the prosecutor that interests of justice would be sewed by a dismissal of the charges. All charges were dismissed.
Clinton District CourtMay 1, 2009
Client, a thirty-five year old West Boylston, Massachusetts man was charged with embezzlement and identity fraud after allegedly using his employer's bank routing number to illegally pay his personal bills. Attorney Gribouski successfully argued that the case should be dismissed.
Worcester District Court April 15, 2009
Client, a thirty year old Webster, Massachusetts man was involved in a motor vehicle accident in Douglas, Massachusetts. He called his girlfriend to be picked up and left the scene without waiting for the police. He called the police at a later time and was then charged with operating to endanger and leaving the scene of a property damage accident. Attorney Gribouski was able to persuade the prosecutor that he did not have sufficient evidence to proceed with the charges. The prosecutor agreed and dismissed the case.
Westborough District Court April 9, 2009
Client, a forty-six year old Shrewsbury, Massachusetts man was stopped at a sobriety checkpoint on Route 9 in Shrewsbury. He was asked to perform field sobriety tests and was then arrested for OUI/DUI by a Massachusetts State Trooper. Mr. Gribouski’s client was then transported to the Millbury State Police Barracks.
At the trial, the Trooper testified that Attorney Gribouski’s client failed three field sobriety tests and that it was his opinion that the client was under the influence of liquor. Attorney Gribouski was able to demonstrate through cross-examination that his client had been driving fine and had in fact done reasonably well on the field sobriety tests. At the conclusion of the trial, Attorney Gribouski argued to the court that the Government had not met its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt and that his client should be found not guilty. The judge agreed and found Attorney Gribouski’s client not guilty.
Worcester District Court April 1, 2009
Client, a twenty-seven year old, West Brookfield, Massachusetts woman was involved in a motor vehicle accident in Worcester, Massachusetts. The police arrived after the accident and asked who was driving. The client responded that she was driving and that she was drunk. She was arrested and brought to the Worcester Police Department, where she submitted to a breath test that registered a blood alcohol reading of .19.
Attorney Gribouski filed a Motion to Exclude the Breath Test requesting that the results from the breath test be excluded based on the grounds that the breath test operator did not keep his client in continuous observation for fifteen minutes, as required by law. He was able to convince the prosecutor by agreement that the motion should be allowed and that this evidence could not be used against his client.
The trial then proceeded with the testimony of the arresting officer. At the conclusion of the trial, Attorney Gribouski requested that his client be found not guilty on the grounds that her statement alone was not sufficient proof, beyond a reasonable doubt, that she was the operator of the motor vehicle. The judge agreed and found Attorney Gribouski's client not guilty.
Uxbridge District Court March 31, 2009
Client, a twenty-three year old, Whitinsville, Massachusetts woman was involved in a single car accident in Sutton, Massachusetts. After an investigation, a Sutton Police Officer issued a citation for operating under the influence of liquor, operating negligently and marked lanes violation. Under Massachusetts law if a person is not under arrest and receives a citation, the individual is entitled to a clerk magistrate's hearing to show cause why criminal charges should not issue. Attorney Gribouski's client was not given this opportunity and a criminal complaint for the above offenses was issued.
Attorney Gribouski filed the appropriate motion and memorandum to convince the judge that his client's rights were violated and the charges should be dismissed, the judge agreed and the case was dismissed.
Clinton District Court March 31, 2009
Client, a thirty-eight year old West Boylston, Massachusetts man was stopped at a State Police sobriety checkpoint on Route 12 in West Boylston. He was directed to a pit area and instructed to do a field sobriety test that he failed. He subsequently submitted to a breath test and registered a blood alcohol level of .16, which is twice the legal limit.
After an extensive review of the Massachusetts State Police policies that regulate the conduction and implementation of roadblocks, Attorney Gribouski believed that the policies in his client's case were not followed and that his client was wrongfully seized. Attorney Gribouski filed a Motion to Suppress Evidence seeking the suppression of all evidence obtained as a result of the illegal seizure. The judge agreed and suppressed the observations of the police, as well as the breath test reading. Realizing that the Commonwealth no longer had any evidence with which to prosecute Mr. Gribouski's client, the government dismissed the case.
Worcester District Court March 26, 2009
Client, a twenty-three year old Sutton, Massachusetts man was stopped on Route 146 in Millbury, Massachusetts on December 14, 2008 for traveling 83 MPH in a 55 MPH zone. A Massachusetts State Trooper followed the young man into a convenience store parking lot. Upon approaching the client's motor vehicle, he observed two bottles of beer in the vehicle. The trooper then testified that the client appeared dazed and did not know how old he was. The trooper testified that the client failed three field sobriety tests.
At trial Attorney Gribouski was able to demonstrate through cross-examination, that other than the speed of the motor vehicle, his client was operating without difficulty. Additionally, he was able to demonstrate that the field sobriety tests were not valid due to his client's medical condition. Attorney Gribouski's client was found not guilty and Attorney Gribouski was also able to persuade the judge to reinstate his client's license ninety days early
Dudley District Court March 12, 2009
Client, a thirty-seven year old Watertown, Massachusetts man was stopped by the Massachusetts State Police for allegedly operating a motor vehicle with a dirty license plate in Oxford, Massachusetts. After being stopped, the police discovered that Attorney Gribouski's client had a suspended license as a result of refusing the breath test during an operating under the influence of liquor arrest.
Attorney Gribouski was able to convince the prosecutor that there was no basis for the stop of his client's motor vehicle and thus the information the police gathered as a result of the stop was illegally obtained. The case was dismissed.
Worcester Superior Court March 11, 2009
Client, a forty-six year old North Grosvenordale, Connecticut man was charged with first-degree murder. The government alleges that Attorney Gribouski and Attorney Power's client had punched a man in the face and then kicked him in the side of the head, as he lay helpless on the ground. The medical examiner testified before the grand jury that the deceased had sustained two separate and distinct fractures of his skull, which would corroborate the government's case.
Attorney Gribouski and Attorney Power conducted an extensive investigation both in the factual basis of the charge, as well as the medical evidence. They were able to develop a case of self-defense on behalf of their client based upon witness statements and physical evidence. More importantly, however, by hiring well-qualified and experienced experts they were able to demonstrate to the prosecutor that the act of the deceased's head striking the pavement could have caused the two fractures and that the kick did not necessarily cause the second fracture.
After months of negotiations and a demonstration of their thorough investigation, Attorney Gribouski and Attorney Power were able to convince the prosecutor to reduce the charge from first-degree murder, which carries a potential penalty on conviction of life in prison without parole, to involuntary manslaughter, which carries on conviction a maximum penalty of twenty years in prison. Attorney Gribouski and Attorney Power were then able to negotiate a plea agreement where their client was sentenced to serve five to seven years in prison.
Worcester District Court February 19, 2009
Client, a fifty-eight year old Millbury, Massachusetts man was involved in a hit and run pedestrian accident and then fifteen minutes later crashed his motor vehicle in Sutton, Massachusetts. He was charged with leaving the scene of an accident after causing personal injury and operating to endanger. Attorney Gribouski filed a series of pretrial motions, the majority of which were allowed by the trial judge. After much of the government's case was ruled in admissible the government agreed to reduce the charge to leaving the scene property damage and continue the case without a finding. This resulted in the client not losing his license and not going to jail.
Worcester District Court February 10, 2009
Client, a sixteen-year old juvenile was charged with assaulting his mother. Attorney Gribouski was able to convince the prosecutor to move to dismiss the case.
Worcester District Court January 22, 2009
Client, a forty-eight year old Worcester man was charged with assault and battery with a dangerous weapon for the alleged domestic abuse of his daughter. Attorney Gribouski was able to convince the prosecutor that the proper resolution of the case was a dismissal.
Uxbridge District Court January 21, 2009
Client, a twenty-five year old Sutton, Massachusetts woman was charged with OUI/DUI after being stopped for speeding. After she arrested she elected to take a breath test, which resulted in a reading of .09, which is over the legal lime of .08. Despite being faced with evidence of poor performance on field sobriety tests, as well as the breath test reading, Mr. Gribouski was able to convince the court that the Commonwealth had not proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Mr. Gribouski's client was found not guilty.
Uxbridge District Court January 21, 2009
Client, a nineteen-year-old Sutton, Massachusetts man was found to be in possession with a substantial amount of psilycibin mushrooms, as well as marijuana. He was charged with possession of a Class C substance with the intent to distribute. Mr. Gribouski filed a motion to suppress the drugs due to an illegal warrantless search and seizure. By demonstrating to the prosecutor that the search may have been illegal, Mr. Gribouski was able to convince the prosecutor to dismiss the possession with intent to distribute charge and to continue the other charges without any plea for six months on pretrial probation to be dismissed at that time.
Uxbridge District Court January 16, 2009
Client, a twenty-five year old Worcester, Massachusetts man was indicted for the embezzlement of seventy-eight thousand dollars from his employer. By conducting a through investigation of the employment records and business records of the employer, Mr. Gribouski was able to demonstrate that the actual amount was thirty thousand dollars less. Despite the prosecution's recommendation to the court that Mr. Gribouski's client serve a substantial jail sentence, Mr. Gribouski was able to convince the court to sentence his client to probation.
Dudley District Court January 15, 2009
Client, a twenty-three old Worcester, Massachusetts man was charged with possession of marijuana, a Class D substance and possession of a Class C substance. Mr. Gribouski was able to convince the prosecutor that the search and seizure of his client was illegal and was able to obtain a dismissal of the charges on payment of a small amount of court costs.
Worcester District Court January 8, 2009
Client, a twenty-five year old Northbridge, Massachusetts man was charged with OUI/DUI after his car struck a tree on the wrong side of the road in Millbury, Massachusetts. Mr. Gribouski's investigator revealed that his client suffered a head injury after striking the windshield. Symptoms of head injuries often mimic the symptoms of intoxication. Mr. Gribouski successfully argued that the case should be dismissed.
Worcester District Court December 30, 2008
Client, a twenty-two year old Worcester, Massachusetts man was charged with violating an abuse protection order after he sent a text message to his former girlfriend. At the time of the text message he was in Massachusetts and his former girlfriend was in Maine. Mr. Gribouski argued that Massachusetts did not have jurisdiction, because there was no crime until the message was received and the message was received in Maine not Massachusetts. Mr. Gribouski successfully argued that the Effects Doctrine prohibited Massachusetts from prosecuting his client. The case was dismissed.
Worcester District Court December 18, 2008
Client, an eighteen-year-old Sutton, Massachusetts man was arrested by the Sutton Police Department for OUI/DUI. The client then admitted to the police that he had consumed three and one-half beers in the hour just prior to being stopped. Attorney Gribouski was able to demonstrate through a vigorous cross-examination of the arresting officer that his client had operated his motor vehicle without difficulty and had performed reasonably well on field sobriety tests despite the officer’s initial testimony to the contrary. Mr. Gribouski’s client was found not guilty and a three-year license suspension was rescinded.
Westborough District Court December 17, 2008
Client, a Shrewsbury, Massachusetts man was stopped by the Massachusetts State Police at a sobriety checkpoint. He was arrested for OUI/DUI and subsequently took a breath test. After taking the test he requested an independent blood test, but the police did not allow him to be released until three hours after his arrest when a blood test would not be helpful. Attorney Gribouski argued that his client’s right to an independent blood test was frustrated by his inability to be bailed until three hours later and thus both his right to an independent blood test and his right to a prompt bail release were violated. The judge agreed with Mr. Gribouski and excluded the breath test results from evidence.
Westborough District Court December 10, 2008
A Hopkinton man was stopped by the Westborough Police and was charged with OUI/DUI. After a review of the police reports, dispatch logs and breath test records Attorney Gribouski was able to demonstrate to the court that the police had failed to comply with Massachusetts law that a person under arrest for OUI/DUI must be observed for fifteen minutes prior to the administration of a breath test. The court refused to allow Mr. Gribouski’s clients breath test to be admitted into evidence. The case was then dismissed.
Southbridge District Court Jury Session December 8, 2008
Client was charged with a second offense OUI/DUI after being stopped by the Massachusetts State Police for driving 87 MPH on Route 495 in Upton, Massachusetts. After a vigorous cross-examination of the Massachusetts State Trooper, which demonstrated the inadequacies of the field sobriety testing procedures employed, Mr. Gribouski’s client was found not guilty.
Uxbridge District Court December 3, 2008
Client was charged with OUI/DUI approximately seven months after he was involved in a single car accident. Citing the provisions of M.G.L. c. 90 c. § 2, which provides that a citation must be given to an offender within a reasonable time after the offense. Attorney Gribouski was able to convince the judge to dismiss the OUI/DUI charge.
Uxbridge District Court November 12, 2008
Client was charged with DUI/OUI after being stopped by the Douglas Police Department. A request by his client’s family lawyer to advise his client to not submit to a breath test was ignored by the police. Additionally, through pretrial investigation Attorney Gribouski was able to demonstrate that the police officer who administered the breath test to his client could not have observed her prior to the test for a fifteen minute period, as required by Massachusetts law. Attorney Gribouski filed a pretrial motion to exclude the breath test results from evidence at trial and the judge agreed to exclude the results from trial, because the client’s right to counsel was violated, as well as the law pertaining to the fifteen minute observation rule.
Worcester District Court November 12, 2008
East Brookfield District Court November 5, 2008
Client was charged with domestic assault and battery, assault and battery with a dangerous weapon and violation of an abuse protection order. As a result of extensive pretrial negotiations, which demonstrated the inconsistencies in the complaining witnesses’ allegations, Attorney Gribouski was able to convince the prosecutor to dismiss all charges.
Worcester Superior Court October 20, 2008
Client was charged with assault with intent to maim and assault and battery with a dangerous weapon. Attorney Gribouski was able to demonstrate that his client was acting in self-defense through a vigorous cross-examination of the complaining witness. His client found not guilty.
Worcester Superior Court September 24, 2008
Client was indicted for a sixth offense DUI/OUI and operating after suspension. He was thus facing state prison time if convicted. Attorney Gribouski was able to demonstrate to the judge in pretrial motions that the government's documents could not substantiate the operating after suspension indictment. This was critical to keep this information from the jury, which would likely have tainted the DUI/OUI charge. After a vigorous cross-examination of the police witnesses the jury returned a not guilty verdict in twenty minutes.
Orleans District Court September 3, 2008
Client was charged with DUI/OUI third offense which would subject him to a mandatory jail sentence if convicted. Through effective negotiation and legal maneuvering Attorney Gribouski was able to persuade the prosecutor to reduce the charge to a first offense which only required the client to participate in DUI/OUI classes.
Other Cases
Mr. Gribouski continues to represent individuals charged with first-degree murder and is currently representing three such individuals. Additionally Mr. Gribouski continues to represent individuals charged with sexual assault and currently represents several such individuals.
Criminal Case Results Archives