Our client faced a DUII charge following a rear-end collision. This charge carries up to 364 days of jail. She had acknowledged having a couple of drinks a few hours before driving, and the arresting officer observed symptoms he attributed to intoxication. Attorney Gabriel Walsh took the case to trial and secured a Not Guilty verdict by methodically dismantling each piece of the prosecution's evidence.

First, Mr. Walsh demonstrated that the symptoms the officer interpreted as signs of intoxication were not caused by alcohol at all — our client has a neurological disorder whose symptoms closely mirror those of intoxication. The officer had simply misread a medical condition as evidence of impairment.

Second, Gabriel Walsh challenged the prosecution's characterization of a statement our client made during the investigation. When asked to rate her level of intoxication on a scale of zero to ten (where the officer told her that 10 meant being drung), she responded with a five — intending to convey that she did not feel drunk. The prosecution argued to the jury that she had effectively admitted to being halfway to the most intoxicated a person could possibly be. Mr. Walsh exposed this interpretation for what it was: a misrepresentation of a straightforward answer.

Third, and perhaps most tellingly, the only chemical test administered was a urinalysis — a test that does not detect alcohol. It returned no findings of intoxication.

Faced with a misread medical condition, a distorted interpretation of our client's own words, and a chemical test incapable of detecting alcohol, the jury returned a Not Guilty verdict.