DUI Case Results (2022)

Wrentham District Court: 1^st Offense OUI. Dismissed on the trial date after the judge allowed a motion to dismiss brought by Attorney DelSignore

Marlboro District Court: 1^st Offense Arrest by Massachusetts State Police Holden Barracks not guilty after trial. In this case, our client was arrested by the State police out of the Holden barracks and charged with OUI. The officer claimed that he saw signs of impairment as the client had slurred speech, bloodshot and glassy eyes and emitted an odor of alcohol from her person. In this case, there were no field sobriety tests given and no reasons for the lack of testing relating to the client's impairment. When there is a lack of evidence, this can be used to show reasonable doubt to claim that the investigation was inadequate and that the officer missed an opportunity to acquire evidence that would favor the defendant. After trial, the defendant was found not guilty of OUI.

Framingham District Court: 1^st Offense OUI arrest by the Hopkinton Police Department not guilty after trial. In this case, our client was stopped and charged with OUI by the Hopkinton Police department. It was alleged that our client was on the wrong side of the road and speeding. While there was some evidence of bad driving, Attorney DelSignore focused on the relatively strong performance that he elicited regarding the field sobriety tests on cross examination. Field sobriety tests are divided attentions tests that are designed to simulate driving. The theory behind these tests is that someone impaired will not perform well because they cannot divided their attention as a result of the alcohol that was consumed. In this case, Attorney DelSignore argued that our client strong performance on the exercises was an indication that alcohol was not the cause of any impairment that the officer saw on the exercises. After trial, our client was found not guilty of OUI.

Brighton District Court: 1^st Offense OUI. Dismissed after the Court allowed a motion to dismiss presented by Attorney DelSignore

Framingham/Natick District Court: 1^st Offense OUI arrest by Massachusetts State Police not guilty after trial In this case, our client was charged with a first offense OUI after an accident by the Massachusetts State police. Attorney DelSignore was able to present evidence that the client's tire blew out and that alcohol was not the cause of the accident. It was key to the case to come out with a reason to explain away any link between poor driving and alcohol. The client was polite and cooperative and did not act like someone impaired. Attorney DelSignore stressed that the defendant did not behave like someone under the influence of alcohol. Someone demeanor during booking and while on scene can give rise to reasonable doubt as it shows that the person does not act like someone impaired. In this case, the defendant was found not guilty after trial.

Salem District Court: Case dismissed for military veteran under the Brave Act. The Brave At is a diversion for military and ex-military and or veterans that allows an OUI to be diverted from court and dismissed without any admission of guilt on the OUI offense.

New Bedford District Court: CDL driver charged with 1st offense OUI by Massachusetts State police Dartmouth Barracks found not guilty after trial In this our client was sleeping on the side of the road. It was alleged that our client failed field sobriety tests and showed some signs of impairment. Cases where someone is pulled over with the keys in the ignition can result in convictions because operation under the law is defined as an manipulation of the engine, so the engine running establishes operation. With that said, Attorney DelSignore has had great success arguing that these types of cases should be treated differently because the person knows not to drive. And that fact, should be strongly considered in weighing reasonable doubt. In this case, the fact that the defendant had evidence that he was tired, knew to pull over resulted in him being found not guilty after trial.

Brockton District Court: In this case, our client was charged with OUI by the Brockton police after being involved in an accident. The client did not cause the accident; however, at trial, there was evidence that the client was upset and angry after the accident. The client refused to perform field sobriety tests so the evidence consisted of the accident and the defendant's demeanor. Attorney DelSignore argued that the defendant was upset after the accident because he was concerned about his insurance going up and being blamed for an accident he did not cause. It was argued that the defendant's demeanor was partially explainable by the fact that he was concerned that he was going to be found at fault for the accident. At trial, this argument was enough to create reasonable doubt given that the Commonwealth could not say that the defendants drove dangerously given the accident was caused by their witness. After trial, the defendant was found not guilty of OUI.

Gardner District Court: OUI charge dismissed. In this case, Attorney DelSignore was able to work on a resolution of the case where the District Attorney dismissed the OUI charge in exchange for a plea on the negligent operation charge. This type of resolution is not common and only happens in select Courts throughout Massachusetts.

Lynn District Court: 1^st offense OUI arrest with breath test of .14 not guilty after trial after an arrest by the State Police In this case, the Commonwealth was allowed to use the breath test as the order of the judge precluding the use of breath test evidence statewide was lifted. Attorney DelSignore fought the case despite the fact that the district attorney was intending to admit the breath test. Attorney DelSignore pointed out the numerous problems with the breath test and the fact that the officers did not know how the machines operated in arguing that the results should not be admitted or credited. The Commonwealth also presented evidence that the defendant had slurred speech and bloodshot and glassy eyes. This was a case that Attorney DelSignore has had particular success with as the client was found sleeping on the side of the road. While technically someone sleeping in a car can be seen as operating a vehicle, Attorney DelSignore has been very successful in arguing that pulling over is a good side of sobriety and should raise reasonable doubt. In this case, the client was found not guilty despite the breath test evidence being offered in the case.

Stoughton District Court: 1^st Offense OUI arrest by the Canton Police Department not guilty after trial In this case our client was involved in an accident after leaving a bar in Canton. When the police arrived the defendant was not inside the car and did not admit to driving the car. Additionally, Attorney DelSignore challenged the officer’s conclusion that the defendant was impaired and argued that the balance issues could have been related to the defendant’s age rather than impairment from alcohol. After trial, the defendant was found not guilty.

Wrentham District Court: 1^st Offense OUI arrest by the Foxboro Police Department not guilty after trial In this case, our client was charged with a first offense OUI after leaving Patriot’s Place. It was alleged that he was speeding and the officer testified he smelled a strong odor of alcohol and observed our client’s speech to be slurred. The officer claimed that the client failed field sobriety tests and was placed under arrest. At trial, attorney DelSignore presented the booking video which showed that the client did not appear to have any major issues with balance. Further, Attorney DelSignore presented put forth evidence that the client was polite cooperative and respectful at all times and did not act like someone under the influence of alcohol. Finally, since there was no accident or major driving infraction showing impaired driving this point was emphasized. Based on this evidence, the Commonwealth was unable to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt and the client was found not guilty after trial.

Marlboro District Court In this case our client was stopped for OUI by the Hudson police department. The defendant was alleged to have shown classic signs of impairment like being an odor of alcohol, blood shot eyes and slurred speech. Additionally, the officer testified that the client failed several field sobriety tests. What made the defense in this case was that on cross examination the officer acknowledged many things not mentioned on the direct exam or in the report, that contradicted the officers opinion. Further, a back up officer that testified did not testify the same as the lead officer in the case. By creating a conflict in the evidence, Attorney DelSignore was able to establish reasonable doubt and the client was found not guilty of OUI.

Westboro District Court: OUI 1^st offense arrest by the Shrewsbury police department In this case, our client resolved some of the other motor vehicle offenses with a CWOF and took the OUI charge to trial. It is a common approach to sometimes resolve some of the other motor vehicle infractions to focus the attention of the court on the more serious OUI charge. In this case, there was a reasonable doubt on the OUI offense based on the subjective nature of the observations of the officer. The client was found not guilty of the OUI while resolving the other motor vehicle offenses. This type of resolution is often not available in Massachusetts prior to trial as District Attorneys generally do not have the ability to negotiate OUI cases.

Westboro District Court: OUI 1^st offense arrest by the Northboro Police department not guilty after trial In this case, out client was charged with a first offense OUI by the Northboro police department. The client alleged drove through a stop sign and failed to stay in the marked lanes. While there was some driving to indicate impairment, this was a case where Attorney DelSignore relied primary on the field sobriety tests to create reasonable doubt. Field sobriety tests are considered divided attention tests, meaning they are designed to simulate driving by having the person do a physical and mental task at the same time. The idea is that driving has both physical and a mental component. By pointing out what the client was able to do correctly on the field exercises, Attorney DelSignore was able to show that the client was not impaired by alcohol. While there was evidence the client consumed alcohol, it was not enough to prove that the client's ability to drive was diminished by alcohol. The defendant was found not guilty after trial.

Dudley District Court: OUI 1^st offense arrest by the Dudley police department not guilty after trial In this case, out client was arrested by the Dudley police department for OUI. Our client was found sleeping on the side of the road. The officer alleged that the client was unsteady on his feet getting out of the car, that there was a strong odor of alcohol and that the client had bloodshot and glassy eyes. The officer claimed that the defendant failed 2 field sobriety tests. At trial, Attorney DelSignore argued that the client could have pulled over because he was tired and that the fact there was no unsafe driving should be considered in creating reasonable doubt. It was also argued at trial that the client did many things correctly on the nine step walk and turn and did not show any major signs of impairment on the one leg stand. A video of the booking showed that the client appeared to have good balance. After trial, the defendant was found not guilty.

Newton District Court: OUI 1^st offense arrest by the State police not guilty after trial In this case, out client was arrested by the State police and charged with OUI. It was alleged that he was speeding and crossed the marked lanes. At trial, the officer testified to the smell of alcohol, the defendant slurred speech and bloodshot eyes. However, Attorney DelSignore emphasized the subject nature of these observations and argued that these observations were too subjective for the Commonwealth to meet their burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Here, the officer agreed with many questions that Attorney DelSignore asked during cross examination establishing that the client's behavior was inconsistent with someone impaired. After trial, the defendant was found not guilty.

Uxbridge District Court: OUI 1^st offense after one car accident not guilty after trial after an arrest by the Douglas police department In this case, our client was charged with OUI after a one car accident. The client was taken to the hospital where her blood was taken. In this case, like many accidents cases, the observations at the scene were very brief. The observations could have been consistent with someone being in an accident or under the influence. At trial, a key issue was the admissibility of the blood test records. Attorney DelSignore as able to keep the blood records out of evidence. Without any record of blood alcohol content, the defendant was found not guilty after trial.

Uxbridge District Court: 1^st offense OUI arrest by the Douglas Police Department not guilty after trial In this case, out client was arrested by the Douglas police department and charged with OUI after being stopped for speeding. While the client's performance on the field sobriety tests was not perfect, this was the type of case that Attorney DelSignore has always had a high rate of success with. Cases with no bad driving are very difficult for the Commonwealth to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. In this case, Attorney DelSignore argued that the field tests should be disregarded or given less weight since the driving did not show impairment. Field sobriety tests are designed to simulate driving. The theory is that if a person cannot balance one one leg or follow all the instructions on the 9 steps walk and turn, that the person cannot operate a motor vehicle safely. Field sobriety tests are called divided attention tests requiring the person to pay attention to multiple things at the same time, just as driving requires someone to concentrate on two or more things at the same time. Of course, someone actual driving is a better measurement of whether they are impaired versus field sobriety tests. There are many reasons other than alcohol why someone may not perform perfectly on these tests. Attorney DelSignore argued that while the officer was justified in making the arrest, that the Commonwealth evidence did not meet the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. After trial, the defendant was found not guilty.

Woburn District Court: 2 ^nd Offense OUI arrest by the State police not guilty after trial In this case, out client was arrested for a second offense OUI by the State police. A conviction for the client would have not only resulted in a two year license loss but would have negatively impacted hips ability citizenships application and could have resulted in deportation. Attorney DelSignore was able to have the breath test excluded from evidence so the case proceeded just on the officer's observations, referred to as the impairment theory.

Like many of our clients, there was a lot at stake in this trial. Attorney DelSignore focused on the field sobriety tests to create reasonable doubt. During the cross examination, the officer conceded that the defendant did many things correct during the field sobriety tests. The officer also admitted that the defendant was polite cooperative during the booking process. While there was some aggressive driving, Attorney DelSignore emphasized that the strong performance on the field tests that came into evidence through the cross examination should create reasonable doubt. After trial, the defendant was found not guilty.

Milford District Court: 1^st offense OUI arrest by the Upton Police Department not guilty after trial In this case, our client was charged with OUI after having his car malfunction. The officer thought that the defendant was impaired but we were able to argue that a mechanical problem with the car caused the bad driving. There was a cruiser video and we argued that it did not show impairment.

Marlboro District Court: 2 ^nd offense OUI arrest by the Hudson police department not guilty after trial In this case, our client was involved in a single car accident. The officer concluded that the client was impaired based on an odor of alcohol, slurred speech and bloodshot and glassy eyes. However, we argued that our client was tired and that it was unclear if the accident was caused by fatigue or alcohol. When the evidence can be interpreted in two different ways, that should establish reasonable doubt based on the Constitutional standard of proof. In this case, out client was found not guilty of a second offense OUI.

Lynn District Court: 1^st offense OUI arrest with breath test of .14 not guilty after trial after an arrest by the State Police In this case, the Commonwealth was allowed to use the breath test as the order of the judge precluding the use of breath test evidence statewide was lifted. Attorney DelSignore fought the case despite the fact that the district attorney was intending to admit the breath test. Attorney DelSignore pointed out the numerous problems with the breath test and the fact that the officers did not know how the machines operated in arguing that the results should not be admitted or credited. The Commonwealth also presented evidence that the defendant had slurred speech and bloodshot and glassy eyes. This was a case that Attorney DelSignore has had particular success with as the client was found sleeping on the side of the road. While technically someone sleeping in a car can be seen as operating a vehicle, Attorney DelSignore has been very successful in arguing that pulling over is a good side of sobriety and should raise reasonable doubt. In this case, the client was found not guilty despite the breath test evidence being offered in the case.

Stoughton District Court: 1^st Offense OUI arrest by the Canton Police Department not guilty after trial In this case our client was involved in an accident after leaving a bar in Canton. When the police arrived the defendant was not inside the car and did not admit to driving the car. Additionally, Attorney DelSignore challenged the officer's conclusion that the defendant was impaired and argued that the balance issues could have been related to the defendant's age rather than impairment from alcohol. After trial, the defendant was found not guilty.

Wrentham District Court: 1^st Offense OUI arrest by the Foxboro Police Department not guilty after trial In this case, our client was charged with a first offense OUI after leaving Patriot's Place. It was alleged that he was speeding and the officer testified he smelled a strong odor of alcohol and observed our client's speech to be slurred. The officer claimed that the client failed field sobriety tests and was placed under arrest. At trial, attorney DelSignore presented the booking video which showed that the client did not appear to have any major issues with balance. Further, Attorney DelSignore presented put forth evidence that the client was polite cooperative and respectful at all times and did not act like someone under the influence of alcohol. Finally, since there was no accident or major driving infraction showing impaired driving this point was emphasized. Based on this evidence, the Commonwealth was unable to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt and the client was found not guilty after trial.

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^st offense 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.

Brockton District OUI 2 ^nd offense with .18 Breath test not guilty after trial 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.

Chelsea District Court: OUI 1^st offense arrest by the State Police with accident not guilty after trial 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.

Ayer District Court: OUI 1^st offense dismissed 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.

Haverhill District Court: 1^st offense OUI with accident not guilty after Trial 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.

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 ^nd Offense OUI not guilty after Trial 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.

Taunton District Court: 1^st Offense OUI vacated and dismissed for a client charged with a second offense 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.

Wrentham District Court: 1^st Offense OUI arrest by the State Police not guilty after Jury Trial 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.

Barnstable District Court: 2 ^nd Offense OUI arrest by the Barnstable Police Department not guilty after trial 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.

New Bedford District Court: 2 ^nd offense OUI arrest by the State police not guilty after trial 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.

Sommerville District Court: 1^st Offense OUI with accident not guilty after trial

Malden District Court: OUI 2 ^nd Offense not guilty after trial 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.

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^st offense not guilty for noncitizen avoiding potential immigration issues 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.

Brockton District Court: OUI 2 ^nd offense not guilty after trial after an arrest by the Bridgewater Police Department 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.

Taunton District Court: OUI 1^st offense vacated based on improper plea colloquy 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.