Commonwealth v. Hallinan — OUI Breath Test Convictions You Can Vacate

If you pleaded guilty to an OUI in Massachusetts and a breath test administered between June 1, 2011 and April 18, 2019 was part of your case, you may be entitled to a new trial — and a chance to get that conviction off your record.

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s April 2023 decision in Commonwealth v. Hallinan, 491 Mass. 730 (2023), established that thousands of OUI convictions from that period are tainted by egregious government misconduct at the Office of Alcohol Testing. Murat Erkan of Erkan & Sullivan was counsel in the case that went to the SJC and produced this landmark ruling.

The decision has opened the door for hundreds of people across Massachusetts to seek new trials on OUI convictions they accepted because they believed a breath test result left them no choice. That belief was wrong — because the machine producing those results was itself unreliable, and the government knew it.

Time-Sensitive: If you pleaded guilty to an OUI offense in Massachusetts and a breath test was conducted between June 1, 2011 and April 18, 2019, call us immediately. The window to act on this is not indefinite, and the process requires building the right record from the start.

Our role in Commonwealth v. Hallinan

OUR ROLE: Murat Erkan — Counsel in Commonwealth v. Hallinan, SJC-13301

Attorney Murat Erkan was counsel for Lindsay Hallinan from the beginning of her post-conviction challenge through the end of the case. He filed the original motion for a new trial in the district court, argued that her 2013 admission was tainted by OAT’s misconduct, and when the district court denied the motion, he appealed to the SJC. The April 2023 ruling, which established the conclusive presumption of egregious misconduct and the double jeopardy protection against harsher penalties, came directly from that appeal. After remand, Murat and Ryan handled the new trial together. The case was dismissed in the Salem District Court.

Result: The SJC reversed the district court’s denial of Lindsay Hallinan’s motion to withdraw her admission to sufficient facts, establishing a framework that has since allowed hundreds of defendants across Massachusetts to seek new trials on OUI convictions based on faulty Alcotest 9510 breath test results.

What Happened at the Office of Alcohol Testing

The story of Commonwealth v. Hallinan begins not with a single case but with a decade-long scandal at the Massachusetts State Police’s Office of Alcohol Testing (OAT) — the agency responsible for certifying and maintaining the Alcotest 9510 breathalyzer machines used in every OUI prosecution in the Commonwealth.

Beginning around 2011, OAT was riddled with failures: improperly certified machines, concealed discovery, falsified records, and a systemic disregard for the accuracy of the devices producing the BAC readings that prosecutors used to secure OUI convictions. The misconduct was so pervasive that when it finally came to light through the consolidated Ananias litigation beginning in 2015, it was described by the SJC as “cavalier and supercilious” — language reserved for the most serious official misconduct.

For years before the misconduct became public, defendants across Massachusetts were being told by their attorneys that their cases were unwinnable because they had blown over 0.08 on a breath test. They pleaded guilty. They lost their licenses. They served probation. And they did it all because they trusted a machine that the government knew was unreliable — and was hiding that fact.

The Ananias Litigation

The consolidated Ananias litigation established that the Alcotest 9510 breathalyzer results were scientifically unreliable for a specific period and that OAT had engaged in systematic discovery violations, including concealing evidence of the machines’ problems from defendants in thousands of pending cases. Courts began excluding breath test results from OUI prosecutions in cases where the machines had been certified during the misconduct period.

But this left unresolved a critical question: what about all the people who had already pleaded guilty, relying on breath test results from that period, before the misconduct came to light?

The Hallinan Question

That was the question before the SJC in Hallinan. Lindsay Hallinan had pleaded guilty to OUI in 2013 after her attorney told her the case was unwinnable, where she had blown a 0.23, nearly three times the legal limit. She accepted a CWOF, served probation, and lost her license. Years later, when the Ananias misconduct was exposed, she moved to withdraw her admission due to insufficient facts.

The district court denied her motion, holding that she had not demonstrated a sufficient nexus between OAT’s misconduct and her specific case. Murat appealed the judge’s order. On appeal, the SJC took the case and reversed.

What the SJC held in Hallinan

The SJC’s April 2023 decision in Hallinan established three critical holdings that together opened the door for thousands of defendants:

1. Conclusive presumption of egregious government misconduct

Every defendant whose OUI case involved an Alcotest 9510 breath test certified before April 18, 2019, is entitled to a conclusive presumption that the first prong of the Scott-Ferrara test is satisfied because of the egregious government misconduct. This means defendants no longer have to prove that the specific misconduct at OAT affected their particular case. The SJC held that OAT’s conduct was so pervasive that the presumption applies across the board.

This was the critical shift from the district court’s ruling in Hallinan itself. The district court required a specific nexus. The SJC said no as the misconduct was global, and so is the presumption.

2. Reasonable probability standard for prejudice

To prevail on a motion to withdraw a guilty plea or new trial motion, a defendant must still show a reasonable probability that they would not have entered the plea had they known of OAT’s misconduct. The SJC identified the relevant factors:

• Whether the breath test evidence could have detracted from the factual basis used to support the plea
• Whether the breath test could have been used to impeach a witness whose credibility was outcome-determinative
• Whether the evidence was cumulative of other evidence already in the defendant’s possession
• Whether knowledge of the misconduct would have influenced counsel’s recommendation to accept the plea
• Whether the value of the breath test evidence was outweighed by the benefits of the plea

In most OUI cases, the breath test is the central evidence driving the plea decision. For defendants who were told their case was “unwinnable” because of the test result, as Hallinan herself was, the reasonable probability showing is generally strong.

3. Double jeopardy protection against harsher penalties on retrial

The SJC held that if a defendant’s motion for new trial is granted and the Commonwealth decides to re-prosecute, the double jeopardy clause prohibits a duplicative license suspension or a harsher criminal sentence than what the defendant originally received. The defendant receives credit for penalties already served.

This holding addressed the single greatest practical obstacle to defendants seeking new trials under Hallinan. Before this ruling, the RMV was taking the position that if a defendant lost on retrial, the license suspension would restart from scratch — meaning a defendant who had already completed a one-year suspension could face another full suspension. The SJC eliminated that threat.

What This Means in Practice: The three holdings together mean: you get the benefit of the doubt on misconduct (you don’t have to prove it affected your case), the retrial is stronger for you (no breath test), and you cannot be punished more harshly than you already were. These are genuinely favorable terms for seeking to undo a conviction that was based on a compromised machine.

Who May Be Eligible To Vacate Their OUI Conviction Under Hallinan

You may have a viable motion for new trial or motion to withdraw your plea if:

• You were charged with OUI in Massachusetts at any time between June 1, 2011 and April 18, 2019
• A breath test using a Draeger Alcotest 9510 was administered in your case
• You pleaded guilty, admitted to sufficient facts (a CWOF), or were convicted after trial in which the breath test was admitted into evidence
• There is a reasonable probability that you would not have entered the plea — or would not have been convicted — had you known the breath test results were unreliable

The reasonable probability showing is fact-specific, but in most cases where the breath test was the central evidence — particularly where the defendant was told by counsel that the result made the case unwinnable — the showing can be made. Cases with strong officer observations, multiple failed field sobriety tests, and high BAC readings from the breath test still merit evaluation, because the question is not whether you could have beaten the case without the test, but whether you would have tried.

Don’t Assume You Don’t Qualify: Even if you had a high BAC reading, even if you failed field sobriety tests, even if you accepted the plea quickly — your case is worth evaluating. The reasonable probability standard is about what you would have decided with accurate information, not whether you would have been guaranteed to win.

What Happens if a Motion for New Trial is Granted

If the court grants your motion for new trial or motion to withdraw your admission, your conviction is vacated and you are returned to the position you were in before the plea. The Commonwealth then decides whether to re-prosecute.

In most cases, re-prosecution without the breath test is significantly weaker. The Commonwealth is left with officer observations and field sobriety test performance from years ago, no BAC number, no scientific evidence of intoxication. Many cases will not be re-prosecuted at all, particularly for older matters where memories have faded, officers may have retired, and the evidence has weakened.

Where re-prosecution does occur, we prepare the case as a full trial defense. Without the breath test, the burden on the Commonwealth is higher and the defense options are broader.

Critically, under Hallinan, if you are convicted on retrial, you cannot receive a harsher sentence than you originally received, and you receive credit for any license suspension already served. The worst-case scenario is returning to where you started, but with a much stronger case than you originally had.

Questions People Ask about Hallinan and OUI Vacatur

How do I know if my breath test was from the affected period?

The SJC established that Alcotest 9510 devices certified before April 18, 2019 fall within the misconduct period. If your OUI occurred between June 1, 2011 and April 18, 2019, your case likely involved an affected device. We can confirm this by reviewing your case records, which we obtain as part of the initial evaluation.

The Commonwealth sent me a notice about this. Do I need an attorney?

Yes. The Commonwealth notified many defendants of their potential right to seek a new trial under Hallinan, but receiving a notice does not mean your motion will be granted automatically. You still have to demonstrate reasonable probability of prejudice, in other words, that you would not have pleaded as you did with accurate information. Building that record requires understanding your original case, your circumstances at the time, and how to present the argument effectively. We handle this work regularly.

My OUI was many years ago. Can I still file?

Potentially yes. Hallinan does not impose a rigid deadline, and the SJC’s recognition of the systemic nature of the misconduct is designed precisely for cases where defendants had no reason to know their plea was tainted at the time. Delay alone is not disqualifying. The sooner you act, the better as witnesses are available, records are intact, and the process moves faster, but older cases are still viable.

What if I had a trial and was convicted — not a plea?

Hallinan applies to trial convictions as well as pleas, provided the breath test was admitted into evidence at trial. If a jury heard the breath test result and you were convicted, you may be able to seek a new trial on the ground that the unreliable evidence was central to the verdict. The analysis differs somewhat from a plea vacatur, but the underlying framework applies.

Will vacating my OUI affect my driving record or insurance?

If your conviction is vacated, the criminal conviction is removed from your record. The impact on your driving record and insurance will depend on the specific circumstances and how the case is ultimately resolved. We discuss these practical consequences in detail during the initial consultation so you understand the full picture before deciding whether to proceed.

Talk to Erkan & Sullivan About OUI Breath Test Convictions You Can Vacate

Murat Erkan was counsel in Commonwealth v. Hallinan. He knows this area of law better than nearly anyone practicing in Massachusetts — not because he researched it after the decision, but because he was part of the litigation that produced it. If you have an OUI conviction from the affected period and want to know whether you have a viable motion, call us.

Call (978) 474-0054 — 24 hours

300 High Street, Andover, Massachusetts 01810