The cops may not be right all the time but saying they are wrong 100% of the time when they arrest a driver for driving while intoxicated is absurd. There may be no indication of corruption in the sense that money is passed, but judges who find almost all the defendants innocent have a predisposition toward acquittal which means they are not judging on the evidence but on their feelings and that is as corrupt as taking money.  The problem with this is that drunk drivers are dangerous and some end up killing innocent people.  It's good to give someone a break but I'm sure not all defendants deserve this.  I don't know if the study did a correlation between the judges who routinely acquit and the lawyers who get the acquittals.  That would be a true reflection of whether there is a game going on between the bench and bar.    

As I wrote earlier, this subject is more complex than the Globe story suggests (natch). The reason? Any criminal defense lawyer knows that there are certain alleged crimes that, because of the politically correct aroma that attaches to them, are almost never voluntarily dismissed (no matter how weak the evidence and how silly the charges) by the ADA in charge of the case, who is always mindful of the politically sensitive atmosphere that prevails in the DA's offices in this politically correct Commonwealth. So they go to trial. The absurdly-named "hate" crimes (what specific intent crime against the person does not involve hate?) are in this category. So are nearly all crimes against woman (prostitution and botched abortions excepted). And so are DUI cases (thank you, MADD). Judges who are trained in the law, sensitive to equitable considerations, and whose lifetime tenure makes courage possible, if not guaranteed, are more certain guardians of justice in these cases than are juries, whose members may be unduly influenced by considerations grounded in political correctness and fleeting popular enthusiasms, rather than law. So defense counsel go jury-waived. So what?

There may be more going on here than some are willing to admit!  Worcester County apparently has gained a reputation that may need further  investigation.  The obvious question that arises in light of the evidence is "Are these acquittal rates the result of corruption?"  The term "got to the judge" was common when I was a young man but I don't hear it any more.  Does this mean that suddenly all the members of the Massachusetts judiciary were somehow "miracled" into honesty?  Who watches the judges and the district attorneys?  Anyone? Anyone?

I predict a couple of things. First, no judge is going to be investigated, reprimanded or censured. Obviously Ms Guzman's 100% acquittal record should be scrutinized, but it will not. Or, if it is, nothing special will happen. I hope I am proven wrong on this as it would restore my faith in the courts to police itself. Secondly, legislation will be introduced as recommended and it will be "Referred to Study," the trash bin for any bill the legislature does not want to handle. The excellent expose by the Globe and this report by the special counsel will be left to languish in time and then forgotten. As for the suspensions imposed when a person refuses the breathalyzer and is then acquitted? Many people do not realize that this is an administrative penalty for the refusal. When you are granted a license you are REQUIRED to submit to a breathalyzer and if you do not comply, you lose your license. The refusal and acquittal are two separate issues and should not be tied together through the courts. Appeals of administrative suspensions are through the RMV and Board of Appeal process. Finally, the majority of people who go to trial are usually multiple offenders. they are fighting long suspensions and it is worth it to them to spend the big lawyer fees. All those cases that are cleared without a trial are the first offenders who, in most cases, just need a wakeup call and second chance.

The .08 threshold for drunk driving is absurd. Nearly all alcohol related accidents involve people whose blood alcohol level is more than twice that. The artificially low number is profitable, however, because it generates cash for the towns and premium increases for the insurance companies.

DUI cases go before Governor appointed Magistrates.

DONT DRINK AND DRIVE...simple practice......but driving and drinking and getting apprehended and court appearances are a lucrative income for lawyers and then some become judges.....so you ask Lawyers to police lawyers? Solve the problem...Legislate the law that allows punishment for the crime with zero deviation in laws for punishment Very simply....a punishment to fit the crime before the crime becomes a tragidy. The Lawyer tends to avoid and find any excuse to render to insignificance the drunk driving charge.....it follows the age old excuse "it wasnt my fault....my (someone else)made me do it.....Suffer the conseguences of your actions and your lame judgment...end the excuses .....

Globe is happy to "Investigate" LOCAL issues, but seems to have AMNESIA about national economic fraud and international issues, where it not only does not investigate, it doesn't even report the news.

This is just absurd.  Too many people are injured and killed by drunk drivers.  It is sickening to hear the back and forth "rationale".  Get them off the road, period.  Lock 'em up, have the idiots pay their own prison "rent" and then maybe people would take the situation seriously.  The lame excuse that it would ruin some person's life is a non-starter - those who have maimed or killed have already ruined the lives of others.  Those who drive while drunk (like they didn't know the rules in the first place-then they are too stupid to drive) are driving with intent to kill and I believe that is first degree murder. First degree murder carries a pretty significant penalty.