About Me

My photo

I am a criminal defense lawyer practicing in Rhode Island.  I handle all types of criminal cases, including, DUI, domestic violence cases, drug case, sex cases just to name a few. 

Saturday, December 1, 2018

Attorney Michael Zarrella is pleased to announce his most recent NOT GUILTY verdict.

Attorney Michael Zarrella is pleased to announce his most recent NOT GUILTY verdict. The Not Guilty verdict was secured on behalf of his client who was facing two counts of second degree child molestation and two counts of assault and battery. The trial commenced on Wednesday, November 28, 2018 in front of the Honorable Judge Lamphear of Providence County Superior Court and concluded Friday, November 30, 2018 with the jury finding the defendant Not Guilty on all four counts.  

This successful jury verdict follows closely on the heels of Attorney Zarrella’s Not Guilty verdict in a jury waived trial before the Honorable Judge Procaccini in August, 2018 in Kent County Superior Court.  This defendant was facing one count of First Degree Child Molestation and three counts of Second Degree Child Molestation. This Not Guilty verdict was obtained with co-counsel Attorney Stephanie Murphy.

Sunday, November 5, 2017

The Law offices of Michael Zarrella is pleased to announce his third Superior Court Not Guilty verdict of 2017.

2017 Trial Victories

The Law offices of Michael Zarrella is pleased to announce his THIRD Superior Court Not Guilty verdict of 2017. Attorney Zarrella’s client was found Not Guilty in Washington County Superior Court of the charge of Felony Assault.  

This has been a very success 2017 year for criminal defense attorney, Michael Zarrella. Attorney Zarrella has had four superior court cases proceed to trial this year with 3 Not Guilty verdicts and one case reduced to a misdemeanor after the alleged victim finished her cross-examination.

March 2017

Client was charged with ADW with a car.  A jury trial proceeded in Providence County Superior Court.  The State argued that the defendant was chasing the alleged victim with his car throughout the City of Woonsocket.   It was further argued that the defendant rammed his car into her car.  A  jury trial commenced on March 1, 2017 in front of the Honorable Justice Rodgers. After a two day trial, the Jury came back with the verdict of NOT GUILTY.

March  2017

The client was charged with the crime of first degree sexual assault. Attorney Zarrella, teaming up with Attorney Kara Hoopis, proceeded to a jury trial in front of the Honorable Justice Montalbano.  The jury trial commenced on March 1, 2017. After the  cross-examination by the defense of the alleged victim, the State reduced the charges from 1st Degree Sexual Assault to misdemeanor simple assault.

June 2017

The client was charged with second degree child abuse. The State alleged that the client assaulted a minor child causing injury.  A trial proceeded in Kent County Superior Court in front of the Honorable Justice Stern. After a jury trial, the defendant was found NOT GUILTY on all charges.  

October 2017

The client was charged with one count of felony assault. The State claimed that the defendant assaulted the alleged victim causing serious bodily injury to the alleged victim’s eye. A non-jury trial commenced in Washington County Superior Court, before the Honorable Justice Thunberg. After a full trial, the defendant was found NOT GUILTY. 

Monday, January 2, 2017

DUI charge? Refusal charge? Don't go a day without being able to drive to work.

When a person refuses a breath test and is charged with a refusal to submit to a breathalyzer, the consequences are swift and severe.  Unlike a driving under the influence charge, in the case of a refusal charge the traffic judge or magistrate can and often will  suspend your license at the arraignment.  The consequences can be devastating and often the damage from the preliminary suspension is irreversible. A person with a preliminary suspension can lose their job or have to drop out of school.

Recently, the state of Rhode Island passed a new law that allows a driver to seek a hardship license at the time of the arraignment for a refusal.  A motorist can receive a conditional hardship license in certain cases.  The conditional hardship license will allow a motorist to drive for the purposes of work or school for a period of twelve (12) hours a day.  This is crucial for those individuals who have to drive themselves to work or school.  

The rules on a receiving a hardship license are pretty basic.   If you are going to apply for the Hardship License under Rhode Island law at arraignment, it is often best to have the interlock installed ahead of time.  If the device is installed before arraignment, you don’t have to go without a licence while you get the device installed.  The reason this is important is that although some judges and magistrates will continue the case without a suspension so that you can get a interlock device installed others will not and will suspend your license at the first appearance.

No hardship license can be issued without the installation of the interlock.  An ignition interlock is a device which prevents an automobile from being operated  if the driver has been drinking. Specifically, the interlock is a  breathalyzer machine, that will not allow the automobile to start if the driver has been drinking alcohol.  

This ignition interlock in conjunction with proof of employment, work hours and a proof of a hardship need will allow a person to receive a hardship license at the first court appearance.
This will allow a motorist to continue to work while the refusal case is pending.  Furthermore, the time that the motorist is under the preliminary hardship order will almost always count toward any suspension he or she will face.  

It is important to hire an experienced attorney, when dealing with a Rhode Island DUI or refusal case.  Make sure the Rhode Island DUI lawyer has a thorough understanding of the rules, defenses  and the consequences of a drunk driving and refusal case. The fact is that the consequences of a conviction are mammoth and include having your license suspended, having a criminal record, paying large fines and assessments, higher insurance rates and in some cases possible jail time.  It is essential that you hire a reliable and experienced Rhode Island DUI attorney.  

I have been defending motorists charged with DUI and refusals for over 20 years.   If you have been arrested call my law office, the Law Offices of Michael J. Zarrella at (401) 523-5271. Additionally, for more information please review my websites at www.rhodeislanddefenselawyer.com or  www.ridrunkdrivingattorney.com.

Thursday, May 5, 2016

Attorney Michael Zarrella Announces Trial Victory on Felony Assault Charges

Attorney Michael Zarrella announces his most recent trial victory.   Attorney Michael Zarrella secured a not guilty verdict on behalf of a client facing Felony Assault charges.  The trial commenced in Providence Superior Court on May 3, 2016 and was completed on May 5, 2016.  After deliberating for 50 minutes, the jury came down with a verdict of NOT GUILTY on all charges. 

The facts of the case were front page news.  The news reported that a woman sustained facial injuries inside the women’s bathroom at Skarr Hookah Lounge Bar.  The reported allegation was that the complaining witness told police she was assaulted by the defendant. The complaining witness stated she was pushed into the bathroom by the defendant who hit her in the face multiple times and knocked out some of her teeth.


Tuesday, January 12, 2016

New proposed Rhode Island’s drunk driving law.


  The Rhode Island General Assembly has recently introduced legislation on behalf of the Attorney General to toughen Rhode Island’s drunk driving laws.  The new legislation, if enacted, would give Rhode Island the distinction of having some of the toughest penalties in the nation for driving under the influence, death resulting.

    The proposed legislation would increase the maximum penalty for a conviction of driving under the influence death resulting from 15 to 30 years in prison with fines of up to $20,000 and license revocation for as long as 10 years.  The legislation would also increase penalties for anyone convicted of driving under the influence, serious bodily injury resulting from 10 years to 20 years, increase fines from $1,000 to $10,000 and increase license revocation from 3 to 5 years.  Another bill filed on behalf of the Attorney General would create a new crime, that of driving under the influence, injury resulting.  Injury under this legislation would include all injuries not meeting the standard of “serious bodily injury”.   Finally, a bill has been proposed to increase from 5 years to 10 years the “look-back” period on repeat alcohol-related offenses.  

    The sad reality however is that tougher punishments and stricter penalties for drunk driving death resulting cases have nothing to do with preventing DUIs.  Almost every drunk driver that kills someone, never thought they would cause a death resulting accident, if they did they would most likely not be driving in the first place.  Therefore, people will continue to drive.  If the state would like to prevent drunk driving death cases, they must make stricter penalties for all drunk driving cases, not only the ones that cause death.

    Clearly, it is unacceptable for there to be any fatality or injury resulting from drink driver.  However, the legislature should not be mislead to believe that increasing the punitive laws and penalties for only injury and death cases will have a significant effect on ending these injuries or deaths.  Rather, the legislature should focus on more comprehensive approaches to the problem of drunk driving which include education and alcohol treatment in addition to enforcement of harsh penalties for all drunk drivers.

Wednesday, December 30, 2015

United States Supreme Court to review if a refusal to take a breath or blood test can constitutes a crime under the constitution.

Questioning the Constitutionality of Treating a DUI Refusal as a Crime

I often wonder how it could be considered a crime to refuse to take a breath test.  Under Rhode Island law, if a person refuses a breath or blood test twice in a matter of 5 years it is considered a crime.  This legislation seems to contradict the 5th amendment to the United States constitution as well as the Article 13 of the Rhode Island constitution.  

The Fifth Amendment protects criminal defendants from having to give statements if said statement may incriminate themselves. This ability to remain silent is a bedrock principle that the Framers of the Constitution believed in when they penned the Fifth Amendment.  Furthermore, the Rhode Island Constitution, Under Article 1, Section 13,  in its declaration of rights section also protects a person from giving self incriminating evidence.  

“Section 13. Self-crimination. -- No person in a court of common law shall be compelled to give self-criminating evidence.”  

Clearly,  the Rhode island Constitution in addition to the US Constitution protect the rights of defendants from giving self-criminating evidence.  

So why is it in Rhode Island that a person is told they have a right to remain silent but if they do they can be charged with a crime?  The Rhode Island state legislature as well as the court has turned it’s back on the principle that one has a right to remain silent under the Federal constitution as well as a right not to give self-incriminating evidence under the State constitution.  The law as it stands now, stands for the proposition that if you do not help the State gain evidence against you in a DUI investigation,  then you have committed a crime.  This likely was not the intent of the framers.  We all know DUI’s are dangerous, and that they need to be stopped, but at what expense?  The State can still prove a DUI case without a breath reading. Is it necessary to rip up the State and Federal Constitution to help the law enforcement? Is the next step to say if you don’t let the police search your house you can be charged with a crime, or if you do not give a statement in a criminal drug case you can be charged as well?  

Thirteen states, including Rhode Island  make it a crime to refuse blood alcohol tests. The United States Supreme Court agreed Friday to hear cases coming from  two of those states. Specifically, the US Supreme Court will hear cases from Minnesota and North Dakota in which the Court will decide if a defendant's refusal to take breath tests can be the basis for a criminal charge.

The court has previously ruled that blood tests are searches and that a warrant in many cases will be usually needed in order to obtain the blood test. The whole intent of the of the refusal law is to establish a civil penalty to convince the defendant to take a breath test.  It is my belief that the 13 states that have made it a crime to refuse blood alcohol tests a crime have gone too far in making the act of not incriminating one’s self a crime.

Monday, November 23, 2015


Attorney Michael Zarrella is pleased to announce the most recent update for his DUI website is now available for viewing.  The update includes the most recent DUI news and laws.  The Rhode Island DUI laws have changed dramatically over the past few years. The new update includes, but is not limited to, the new DUI law regarding the interlock system for DUIs as well as refusals.  This update’s goal is to help people understand the DUI and refusal law,  as well as giving the legal community a reference for DUI defenses.  If you are in the need for a DUI lawyer visit my website at www.ridrunkdrivingattorney.com or call me at 401-523-5271