DUI Case Results See our recent not guilty verdicts throughout Massachusetts
Below is a list of my recent drunk driving cases where the motorist was found either not guilty or the case was dismissed.
Every drunk driving case is unique so I cannot guarantee any particular result on an OUI charge. In fact, no lawyer can ever guarantee the outcome of a particular case. However, I am able to talk to you about the defenses regarding your case and possible case outcomes. The List of Successful Case Results includes Cases throughout Massachusetts. Attorney DelSignore is well known throughout the State for vigorously defending OUI cases.
August 2022 Fall River District: not guilty after arrest by State police following an accident In this case, our client was arrested and charged with OUI after a one car accident. The trooper that wrote the police report indicated numerous signs of impairment, including an door of alcohol, that our client was unsteady and had slurred speech. At trial, Attorney DelSignore attacked the lack of detail in the report about whether the officer asked if the client was injured or had an medical issues. The Trooper testified that the client failed field sobriety tests and was unsteady but did not document in the report that he was concerned or asked about the client's medical condition. The trooper testified he usually would; but given the other specific in the report it undermined his credibility that it was just an oversized that it was left out of the report. Further, Attorney DelSignore presented a video of the booking where the client did not appear to have any issues with balance. After trial, the client was found not guilty of OUI. Quincy District Court: OUI 1 complaint does not issue after Clerk Magistrate agrees to continue the matter for a period of time if the client complies with certain alcohol treatment recommendations. st offense July 2022 Brockton District OUI 2 In this case, my client was arrested and charged with an OUI second offense by the Bridgewater police department. My client took a breath test with a result of .18. Attorney DelSignore did not believe the result was accurate and took the case to trial. At trial, the judge found that the breath test result was not accurate based on the Commonwealth failure to prove that the machine was certified. The client was found not guilty on the per se theory involving the breath test. Based on lack of erratic driving and Attorney DelSignore discrediting the office on the field sobriety tests the client was found not guilty of OUI second offense under both theories. nd offense with .18 Breath test not guilty after trial Chelsea District Court: OUI 1 In this case, the client was charged with OUI after an accident. In accident cases there can be very little evidence of impairment when the person goes to the hospital. In this case, Attorney DelSignore argued that the observations were too brief and not specific enough to support an opinion that our client was under the influence of alcohol rather than being merely injured from the accident or simply tired. There were plausible other causes of impairment. The Commonwealth was unable to get the blood test evidence records into evidence. At trial, the officers did not testify that they believed the defendant was impaired. Attorney DelSignore argued that the lack of opinion evidence created a reasonable doubt and the defendant was found not guilty after trial. st offense arrest by the State Police with accident not guilty after trial May 2022 Ayer District Court: OUI 1 In this case, the matter was assigned for trial; the Commonwealth was not ready for trial and Attorney DelSignore filed a motion to dismiss, which was allowed. The case was accordingly dismissed. This is not a common result but does happen from time to time. It really depends on the circumstances of the case; in this case, Attorney DelSignore was able to argue that the facts warranted a dismissal. st offense dismissed Haverhill District Court: 1 In this case, our client was charged with an OUI by the Haverhill Police department after a one car accident. It was alleged that our client was under the influence causing the accident. At trial, Attorney DelSignore argued that there was reasonable doubt as the client's performance on the field sobriety tests were inconsistent with the opinion that he was impaired. While an accident is some evidence of impairment, in this case, the Commonwealth could not overcome the presumption of innocence and high standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt required for a conviction. At trial, the officer diverged from the report; this always causes clients stress during the trial; however, Attorney DelSignore has seen this many times and was able to show the officer the report, made close in time to the incident to undermine the testimony. If an officer does not put important facts in the report made close in time to the incident, it is hard to credit trial testimony that adds important details many months later. The defendant was found not guilty after trial. st offense OUI with accident not guilty after Trial Wrentham District Court 1 st Offense OUI diverted under the Brave Act: client avoids any OUI conviction or entry on criminal record. The Brave Act is an act that allows Veterans to receive a diversion of an OUI charge or any misdemeanor charge if they satisfy a treatment plan recommended by the VA. This case can be difficult to get dismissed as some judges will not allow a dismissal. In this case, Attorney DelSignore assisted the client in establishing a treatment plan, that was complied with and was able to get the judge to Agree to a dismissal of the criminal charge. Wareham District Court: 2 In this case, our client was stopped for a traffic infraction that did not avoid erratic driving but an improper use of equipment in the motor vehicle. It was alleged that the defendant acted unusual in some respects and appear unsteady and under the influence of alcohol. At Trial, Attorney DelSignore presented medical records showing that any alleged impairment could have had a medical cause as well as presented the video of the booking showing that the client did not appear to be under the influence of alcohol. After trial, the defendant was found not guilty. nd Offense OUI not guilty after Trial Taunton District Court: 1 In this case, our client was charged with a second offense OUI. After review of the client 1st offense, it was discovered that there was a breath test used in the case. Anyone that has an OUI conviction with the 9510 breath test from 2011 to 2019 can potentially file a motion to vacate the plea. The Commonwealth has to show that there is overwhelming evidence without the breath test to rebut the presumption that the new trial motion should be allowed. In this case, Attorney DelSignore believed that the Commonwealth may have been able to meet this burden, but he knew that the judge who accepted the plea typically did not follow the law when entering a plea. A judge has a legal duty to make sure that any defendant who admits to a charge makes a knowing waiver of their Constitutional rights. In this case, the judge missed many of the key duties a judge has when entering a plea. Accordingly, the client's 1st offense OUI was vacated and ultimately dismissed. This was an unusual case in that the client came in requesting help with a case in one court to avoid a second offense OUI, but that objective was accomplished by reopening the 1st offense OUI. st Offense OUI vacated and dismissed for a client charged with a second offense April 2022 Wrentham District Court: 1 In this case, our client was found asleep on the side of the road in the car. These cases though they seem difficult at first are often very good case for trial. While someone can operate a car while actually driving it under the law, juries tend to treat these cases differently. In this case, a key piece of evidence was that the car was pulled over in a safe place and purposefully pulled over. Our client testified that he did not feel impaired by alcohol but was tired from a long week of work. Breath test evidence was kept out of evidence and after trial the client was found not guilty. st Offense OUI arrest by the State Police not guilty after Jury Trial Barnstable District Court: 2 In this case, our client who had an out-of-state license was on vacation with his family and arrested for OUI. The client faced potential license suspensions in his home State and in Massachusetts. Given the longer suspension for breath test refusal on a second offense, Attorney DelSignore appealed the refusal suspension and had it overturned by the Court. at trial, it was stressed that the lack of any bad driving was strong evidence in favor of reasonable doubt. Further, the arresting officer conceded on cross examination that the client did many of the things requested of him on the FSTs and that other factors such as nervousness can explain a less than perfect performance in the field sobriety tests. After trial, the client was found not guilty. nd Offense OUI arrest by the Barnstable Police Department not guilty after trial March 2022 New Bedford District Court: 2 In this case, our client was arrested by the State police and charged with a second offense OUI. The officer alleged that the client stopped randomly at a green light and was weaving in the lane. When Attorney DelSignore cross examined the officer, he pointed out that the officer made a different statement in the report, about the driving. At trial, it was very critical to the verdict of not guilty this inconsistency on a major issue in the case. While officer will sometimes deviate from their report when testifying, if it is a major issue it can raise a reasonable doubt. Additionally, Attorney DelSignore argued that given that his client was dressed up, the field sobriety tests were more difficult and not worthy of crediting in this case. Under Massachusetts OUI Laws, a judge can put whatever weight the judge deems appropriate on field sobriety tests. In this case, it was argued that the tests deserved very little weight. After trial, the defendant was found not guilty. nd offense OUI arrest by the State police not guilty after trial Sommerville District Court: 1 st Offense OUI with accident not guilty after trial January 2022 Malden District Court: OUI 2 In this case, our client was charged with a Second Offense OUI after being stopped by the Everett Police department; the client was alleged obstructing traffic and when stopped was slurring his speech, had a strong odor of alcohol and bloodshot and glassy eyes. The officers alleged that the defendant was unsteady on his feet. At trial, Attorney DelSignore that the Commonwealth's case was missing any major signs of impairment. In this case, there was no accident, allegation of erratic driving or calls from the public. Further, during closing argument, Attorney DelSignore pointed out there was not any strong evidence regarding alcohol consumption or any significant odor that came into evidence at the trial. After trial, the defendant was found not guilty of OUI avoiding a two year license loss. nd Offense not guilty after trial Somerville District Court In this case our client was arrested for OUI following an accident. At trial, the civilian witness testified that the defendant caused the accident, but notable the civilian did not say they thought our client was impaired. The arresting officer testified at trial alleging that our client failed the field sobriety tests; however, during cross examination, he acknowledged that our client's performance was consistent with his training in many respects and that the client did follow numerous instructions on the nine step walk and turn and one leg stand field sobriety tests. During closing argument, Attorney DelSignore argued that the field sobriety tests were did not show impairment and are hard to give much weight to after an accident. Further, the lack of any opinion regarding in impairment from the independent witness should create reasonable doubt. Based on this argument, the defendant was found not guilty and avoided an OUI conviction. Dedham District Court: OUI 1 In this case, our client was arrested and charged with an OUI by the Norwood police department. In this case, the client was stopped by the officer for suspicion of other criminal activities unrelated to drinking and driving. Once the officer made the stop he then suspected that the client was impaired by alcohol. The client performed poorly on field sobriety tests and the officer formed the opinion that he was impaired. In this case, our client did not speak English as his native language and there was no interpreter at the scene; the police did use an interpreter at the police station to advise him of his rights; at trial, Attorney DelSignore argued that the field tests were not reliable based on the language barrier and the lack of any bad or dangerous driving should provide reasonable doubt. After trial, the defendant was found not guilty of OUI. st offense not guilty for noncitizen avoiding potential immigration issues Brockton District Court: OUI 2 In this case, our client was arrested by the Bridgewater police department after allegedly committing a few minor motor vehicle infractions. The officer alleged that the client appeared under the influence of alcohol, by presenting signs of impairment such as odor of alcohol, bloodshot and glassy eyes and slurred speech. At trial, Attorney DelSignore argued that the best sign of someone under the influence of alcohol is the actually driving. This was a case where there was no accident, call from the public but just an officer who was actually on an overtime detail looking to make traffic stops. Under the law, the Commonwealth does not need unsafe or erratic driving to prove an OUI; however, it is always a major weakness in the case where there is no bad driving. Attorney DelSignore vigorously argued this point and his client was found not guilty of a Second Offense OUI. nd offense not guilty after trial after an arrest by the Bridgewater Police Department Taunton District Court: OUI 1 In this case, Attorney DelSignore was investigating a motion for new trial based on the fact that the client took a breath test. After some work on the case, Attorney DelSignore discovered that a judge he knew that frequently did not perform correct plea colloquies actually conducted the plea; after reviewing the tape, Attorney DelSignore was able to find an error when the client admitted to the first offense and had the charge vacated, allowing the client to get a new trial. st offense vacated based on improper plea colloquy