On February 24, 2019, Ipswich police arrested George Maney for allegedly driving under the influence of alcohol (OUI).
The arresting officer claims that Maney was sound asleep in his parked truck around 3:20 a.m.
According to the officer, he needed to knock on Maney’s window “approximately a dozen times” before Maney came to his senses.
Maney rolled the window down and the officer was, in his words, “hit with a wave of the smell of intoxicating liquor.”
Moreover, the officer reportedly observed a half empty can of Four Loko in the truck’s cupholder.
Ultimately the officer arrested Maney.
He was charged with OUI 3rd offense and opted to take his case to trial.
At trial, Maney’s girlfriend testified, in part, that Maney was sleep deprived on the day he dozed off in his truck.
The jury, unconvinced, convicted Maney of drunk driving and the judge sentenced him to jail.
Maney filed a motion for a new trial, arguing that he had ineffective assistance of counsel.
According to the motion, Maney’s counsel failed to investigate Maney’s claims that he suffered from medically documented sleep deprivation.
The motion was supported by an affidavit from Dr. Christopher Rosenbaum, an emergency medicine physician and medical toxicologist at Mass General Brigham Newton-Wellesley Hospital.
According to the doctor’s affidavit,
documented medical history of sleep apnea, asthma, and sleep deprivation would have combined to impair [Maney’s] level of alertness and consciousness.
The motion judge rejected this argument and denied Maney’s request for a new trial.
Undeterred, Maney appealed the decision.
Today, the Appeals Court issued a slip opinion uphelding the motion judge’s ruling.
Here, the motion judge did not abuse his discretion in concluding that Dr. Rosenbaum’s affidavit did not raise a substantial question as to counsel’s ineffectiveness. Dr. Rosenbaum’s affidavit states that the defendant had a “documented medical history” of sleep apnea, asthma, and sleep deprivation that “could have explained” how the defendant appeared and behaved the night he was arrested. Dr. Rosenbaum does not opine that these conditions were the cause of the defendant’s behavior, so the affidavit provides weak evidence, at best. Moreover, Dr. Rosenbaum’s affidavit does not address other highly pertinent evidence that “could have explained” the defendant’s behavior — the evidence suggesting the defendant’s alcohol consumption, from the time of the arrest. The affidavit does not contain any reference to the open container of alcohol in the defendant’s truck, or to the “overwhelming” odor of alcohol when police encountered the defendant. The affidavit also fails to address the officer’s testimony that the defendant, after exiting the truck, appeared “unsteady” on his feet.
The full text of the opinion is attached.