MIDDLETON (CBS) – A man arrested for drunk driving three times is getting his license back on a technicality.

The last time he was arrested, police say he was driving a snow plow, drunk, with his son in the car when he crashed into a Middleton woman’s home.

She says she’s been threatened so she doesn’t want us to show her face. But she does want to talk about how shocked she is that Sean Cusack is back behind the wheel.

WBZ-TV’s Lauren Leamanczyk reports

“I find it so disgusting. I know he’s hit other things,” she says. “He had his child in the car.”

Cusack had his five-year-old son in the car. He refused to take a breathalyzer test and admitted to drinking. But charges of child endangerment and drunk driving didn’t stick. It was a technicality. A judge decided Cusack was not on a public street.

Cusack was busted twice before for drunk driving. Most recently, in 2007, he was found passed out at an elementary school after being involved in a hit and run crash.

Last week, Cusack’s lawyer argued that since he was found not guilty, he should get his license back. That same judge agreed, saying the legislature gave him no choice.

This victim can’t believe it.

“He got off, I couldn’t believe it,” she says. “Peabody court, I have no faith in them now.”

The only thing damaged this time was her house. Next time, she worries, someone will get hurt.

Prosecutors say they vigorously argued against re-instating Cusack’s license.

WBZ contacted Cusack’s lawyer. He said ‘no comment’ and hung up. The judge also did not return our call.

Comments (20)
  1. mikey says:


    WBZ is part of the problem here. You put every other name in the news, even when it’s a poor moral choice to do so, but you WON’T NAME THESE JUDGES!!!

    WHY NOT?

  2. redneckjoe says:

    welcome to mass. the only place drunks run over state police & everything else in their way, and you still keep your license !!

  3. Linda says:

    What, is this guy related to the judge or a family member ? Is the judge going to jail with him when he actually kills somebody. These judges need to start being held accountable for these jerks they put back on the streets.

    1. Lori says:

      If you are going to say something like that then you might as well hold accountable the people in office who make the laws. For that matter you may as well everyone who votes these fools into office accountable, because, after all they (the politicians) only make the laws that we (the constituents) want. I do not agree with drunk driving either. I think this guy is a terrible person, especially for having his son in the car but the law is the law no matter how badly we think it sucks.

      1. tssaall says:

        Lori I agree in good part with what you said. However, driving drunk in a car with a child sure should be against the law – no matter where – if the car is moving. Maybe by law the license couldn’t be taken away but something should be done to protect the child. I’m not entirely sure that politicians make the laws the constituents want. I think they make the laws the special interest groups, lobbyists and money want.

  4. thor's hammer says:

    hey sean, we’re onto you dude. the i-team will be all over you. luckily there hasn’t been much call for snowplows. you were drunk & with your kid in the vehicle – if i were related, you wouldn’t be anywhere near a kid of mine – at any level. shame on the system for putting people at risk on a technicality. good question mikey! be scared straight sean.

  5. topcop says:

    The judge is wrong when he says the law made him give the license back. Read the statue and it says the judge does not have to give the license back if he is a safety risk. Two prior DUIs and one where only a technicality set him free makes him a safety risk in my book. Losing his license for refusing the breathalyzer is the penalty for refusing it. It has nothing to do with whether or not he was found guilty.

    Also, how did he get to the house? Was it on a public way or did he fly there?

  6. miley says:

    its not like having a drivers license even matters to most of these drunks, it seems you hear just as many cases about the driver not even having a license. He needs jail time, that is what really has to happen!

  7. Monty's Momma says:

    Yet another reason for judges in Massachusetts to be elected. More accountability.

  8. Mike says:

    As a criminal defense attorney practicing in Worcester County for over 20 years, the judge absolutely had a choice as to whether or not to give the defendant his license back. After a Not Guilty verdict there is a rebuttable presumption that the defendant is to get his license back. I can however tell you that following my last 2 jury trials which ended up in not guilty findings, I moved to have my client’s license restored. Both judges denied my request citing as evidence rebutting the presumption, the prior 2 OUI’s.

    1. fred says:

      I thought the RMV was the final arbiter of whether someone gets their license back regardless of the judge’s ruling.

      1. mike says:

        They are. The defendant will have to appear at the RMV and my guess the hearing officer will deny him his license. The next step would be to go to the Board of Appeals where thechance he gets his license back is much better.

        My gut tells me you havent eard the last of this case.

  9. Sarah Forbes says:

    The behavior of Massachusetts judges regarding drunk driving cases is APPALLING.

    Each WEEK in my local paper (Attleboro Sun Chronicle) there is at least ONE story of someone stopped for multiple drunk driving violations or a drunk driver-caused accident or fatality. It is outrageous that these people are on the road.

    Drunk drivers with their children, running over police officers, killing citizens – what will it take before these disgraceful judges put the safety of other people before the rights of drunk drivers?

    WBZ, you should name this judge so the people of Massachusetts can demand accountability. He, or she, should be removed from the bench.

    1. Lori says:

      If you REALLY want to know who the judge is, go look at the court transcripts yourself. They are public record.

  10. macop1 says:

    This judge clearly has no idea of what they are doing! Unless this guy drove across lawns to get his plow in her yard he must have used a public way. Case law states that if the only way that a person could’ve got to private property was a public way then the element is met. It’s about time the public is seeing what really goes on with the judges in Massachusetts. Most courts dismiss cases so they don’t have to take the time to do their jobs.

  11. cam says:

    Thanks judge for putting my life in danger. Once again another REPEAT drunk driver is put back on the road in Massachusetts. Put this driver in jail, it’s the only real way to stop him from driving. Not a matter of if but when this jerk will kill someone.

  12. JCA says:

    Judge Richard Mori. AKA Judge Moron on the greater North Shore.
    Source: Salem News 12/28/11

  13. jaygee says:

    It’s beyond amazing how many guilty people have been let go on “a technicality”. Of course, karma would have this guy broadsiding this senseless judge some night when one or both are drunk once again.

  14. Marilyn Giordano says:

    A Grain of Salt.

    After seeing the WBZ TV report on Sean Cusack, I don’t blame all the folks with the negative comments. The only thing I dislike more then repeat drunk drivers is a news report that has multiple errors. If WBZ TV had looked into the facts of this story, they would have been able to correct the erroneous facts before they made this report.

    It is true that Mr Cusack had a drunk driving arrest in 1984 at the age of seventeen.

    The arrest of Mr Cusack in 2007 didn’t result from a hit and run. The police noticed his truck parked in a parking lot and the driver asleep. He was arrested for oui and had an interlock device installed in his truck at that time. The device registered incorredly that there had been a violation. That is a matter of record at the RMV for all to see that the conclusion of an investigation at that time was “no violation.” had occured.

    The december 2010 arrest for oui happened at the home of a friend of Mr Cusack’s.
    Mr Cusack had been plowing all day , some of that time with a friend who lives at the address he was arrested at. This friend asked Mr Cusack to drive him home and if he would do him a favor and plow his driveway. Mr Cusack was in the process of plowing this driveway when his truck skidded sidesways into this friend’s porch.
    Mr Cusack called AAA to help pull him out and someone called the police. Mr Cusack was asked if he had been drinking and he said he had three beers earlier in the day. He did not admit to drunk driving as has been reported. Mr Cusack weighs in at over 300 hundred pounds and three beers hardly consitutes an oui. The supposedly bottle of vodka was unsubstantiated during testimony at trial. Mr Cusack did refuse a breathylizer which I guess is allowed if you play ball for the Red Sox. (Mo Vaughn 1998, found not guilty and had no license suspension as far as I could see.)

    Mr Cusack was held WITHOUT BAIL for 6 months. Persons arrested for drunk driving and vehicular manslaughter are given bail. No person was injured at all in this accident.

    At trial, Judge Mori listened to Prosecutor Amiee Conway’s case against Mr Cusack and concluded that it did not warrent a conviction. Mr Cusack was aquitted of all charges. At the hearing for license reinstatement, Prosecutor Conway again was not able to come up with any evidence to prevent reinstatement. Hence Mr Cusack also got his license reinstated.

    Everyone should decide for themselves based on the facts, not a story full of errors with a “spin” on them.

    I have as much disdain for the repeat drunk driver as everyone should, but I have more disdain for a a legal system that does what is politically correct at the expense of someone’s civil rights.

    So, Prosecutor Conway, get it right next time and thank God for Judge Mori who made a discision based on the law and the evidence and not on what would advance his career by looking good in the news.

    Let us get the real drunk drivers off the road, but not by persecuting the innocent at the expense of one’s civil rights.

  15. mikey says:

    It seems Marilyn didn’t just put a grain of salt on the spin, but a whole freaking bag.

    However, I will admit that I still feel that someone found asleep at the wheel and intoxicated is safely ASSUMED to have driven there. Unless they can show evidence to the contrary. (I can think of a couple of scenarios where that would be the case, but it would be for the accused to come up with them, not me to provide a list of ‘possibles’ to pick and choose from.) And I have little or no sympathy for those that refuse the breathalyzer. Yeah, they are not that reliable under certain conditions. Fight the accuracy in court, or the procedure, if you must. But refusal? That should have a penalty of at least TWICE what a failure would have.

    I can be the first to suspect bad procedure in an arrest. But even with these new facts, I only find my anger tempered, not relieved.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s