In a recent case resulting in an OUI Case at bench trial in the Cambridge District Court, Attorney William J. Manchinton Jr. showed why that script doesn’t always lead where the prosecution wants it to. After a bench trial, the judge found our client not guilty.
Most OUI prosecutions in Massachusetts follow a familiar script. Officers take the stand and recite the same observations — slurred speech, bloodshot and glassy eyes, an odor of alcohol, poor performance on field sobriety tests. The Commonwealth plays the body-worn camera footage and asks the judge to draw the obvious conclusion.
This case was, at its core, about confirmation bias. Once the officers decided our client had been drinking, every observation they made bent toward that theory. Anything that didn’t fit was disregarded. That kind of tunnel vision happens in police work more often than people realize, and exposing it takes careful preparation.
Letting the Video Speak
The officers testified to slurred speech and clear signs of intoxication. Then the body-worn camera footage played. In the video, our client spoke clearly. He did not sound impaired. He calmly and repeatedly told the officers, “I don’t drink” — a statement they brushed aside at the scene because it didn’t fit their theory.
On cross-examination, we pinned the officers down. Did they still believe his speech was slurred, even after watching the footage in court? When they insisted yes, despite what the judge could plainly hear, their credibility was finished. Their refusal to back off from observations the video contradicted did more for our case than any argument we could have made.
A Calculated Decision to Put the Client on the Stand
Putting a defendant on the stand in a criminal case is one of the most consequential decisions defense counsel makes. The risks are real, and cross-examination is unpredictable. But in this case, only our client could explain something the body-worn camera could not: why a sober person didn’t perform well on the field sobriety tests.
Our client was born with neonatal encephalopathy, a condition that has affected his motor coordination since birth. The very tests designed to detect impairment — walk-and-turn, one-leg stand — were tests his body had never been able to perform well, on any day, sober or not. His difficulty wasn’t evidence of intoxication. It was evidence of a lifelong neurological condition.
We prepared him thoroughly. He told his story clearly and credibly. The judge listened.
Choosing the Right Way to Tell the Story
Massachusetts law offers a path to admit medical records without live testimony under G.L. c. 233, §§ 79 and 79G, but that path requires advance notice to the prosecution. After weighing the options, we concluded that our client’s own voice would be more persuasive than a stack of records. He could speak to a lifetime of living with the condition in a way no document could capture. That judgment about how to present the evidence — not just what evidence to present — proved decisive because it meant the Commonwealth couldn’t prepare an in-depth rebuttal.
Why Strategy Matters
A defense isn’t built from a single moment. It’s built from the integration of many: video evidence that undercut the officers’ credibility, a medical reality that explained the FSTs, and a client whose consistent denials at the scene took on new weight in light of both. Each piece reinforced the others. By the end of the trial, the Commonwealth’s case had unraveled.
OUI cases are not won by accident. They are won by attorneys willing to scrutinize every frame of footage, prepare every witness, and make hard calls about how a story should be told. If you are facing an OUI charge in Massachusetts, the strategy your attorney chooses — and how thoroughly they execute it — can be the difference between a conviction and an acquittal.
With 15 years of combined legal experience, our Boston criminal defense attorneys represent clients facing an OUI charge or other serious crimes in Massachusetts. Call the Law Office of Matthew W. Peterson today.
