Mr. Walsh’s client was accused of Driving Under the Influence and Driving While Suspended. Mr. Walsh’s client was arrested because his wife called 911 to report that her husband had crashed his car. When the police arrived, they found Mr. Walsh’s client near the car, the car was registered to Mr. Walsh’s client, he had a key for a Chevy, and the car was a Chevy. However, the police never checked to see if the key Mr. Walsh’s client possessed worked for that specific car. Also, Mr. Walsh’s client denied driving and was never seen driving. At trial, Mr. Walsh won a motion regarding whether the prosecution could use Mr. Walsh’s wife to testify against her husband. Since Mr. Walsh won the challenge to the wife’s testimony, relying upon ‘spousal privilege,’ the prosecutor was forced to argue that the circumstances implied that Mr. Walsh’s client had driven. Mr. Walsh emphasized the lack of conformation and the ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ standard. The jury agreed with Mr. Walsh that the evidence was not conclusive and found his client Not Guilty.