Massachusetts OUI Not Guilty: Video Contradicted the Trooper

A Massachusetts OUI not guilty verdict is rarely won on argument alone. On August 13, 2026, after trial, my client was found NOT GUILTY of Operating a Motor Vehicle While Under the Influence of Alcohol. Docket No. 2534 CR 0812.

The Commonwealth’s case rested almost entirely on the testimony of a single State Trooper. By the end of cross-examination, the trooper had agreed with the defense on nearly every material point. The reason is simple: we had the video, and the video did not say what he said it said.

What the Trooper Testified

The trooper testified that he observed my client commit multiple motor vehicle infractions over a period of approximately two minutes before initiating the stop. He further testified that when he made contact with her, her speech was slurred.

Those two observations — a pattern of erratic driving and slurred speech — are the backbone of a typical Massachusetts OUI prosecution. Without them, the Commonwealth is left arguing that a driver was impaired based on roadside exercises alone.

What the Video Actually Showed

We obtained and reviewed all of the video in the case, including the front-facing cruiser camera. The footage covering the period before the stop ran one minute and 43 seconds.

In that entire stretch of video, my client committed one minor lane violation. It occurred when the vehicle directly in front of her applied its brakes. That is not a pattern of impaired driving. That is a driver reacting to the car ahead of her.

We also obtained the rear-seat cruiser camera footage, which captured my client speaking after she was placed in the cruiser. Her speech was perfect — clear, crisp, and unremarkable in every respect. When the trooper was questioned about her speech while his own video played, he relented and admitted that her speech was fine.

This is why obtaining every piece of video matters. Reports and testimony are written from memory and shaped by expectation. Video is not. More than one Massachusetts OUI not guilty verdict has turned on footage the defense had to go get.

Field Sobriety Tests Administered Under Impossible Conditions

The trooper administered a battery of standardized field sobriety tests at the roadside, in heavy traffic. My client is significantly overweight, and she was wearing three-inch heels.

We introduced the shoes themselves into evidence. Confronted with them, the trooper testified accurately and candidly: administering these tests to a subject at the roadside who is overweight and wearing three-inch heels makes the tests unfair — difficult or impossible to perform, regardless of sobriety.

We then introduced certified medical records establishing that my client had suffered a torn ACL one year before the stop. The trooper again testified accurately that a preexisting knee injury of that kind may have made it difficult for my client to perform these tests.

None of that has anything to do with voluntary intoxication. A person who cannot balance on one leg in heels, on the shoulder of a busy road, a year after tearing a knee ligament, is not demonstrating impairment. She is demonstrating that the test was never fair to begin with.

The Verdict

NOT GUILTY.

What This Massachusetts OUI Not Guilty Verdict Illustrates

Three things carried this trial, and each of them is available in most OUI cases if the work gets done.

• Get every piece of video, not just the clip the Commonwealth relies on. The front-facing camera undercut the driving testimony. The rear-seat camera undercut the slurred speech testimony. Neither would have surfaced on its own.
• Treat field sobriety tests as conditional, not conclusive. These are standardized exercises validated under specific conditions. Heavy roadside traffic, three-inch heels, body habitus, and a documented knee injury are not those conditions.
• Corroborate physical limitations with records. Certified medical records establishing the prior ACL tear turned an argument into evidence. A court does not have to take a defendant’s word for an injury when the records are in front of them.

A trooper’s honest testimony on cross-examination is worth more than any argument counsel can make. In this case, the trooper conceded the key points because the video and the exhibits left no other honest answer available.

Charged With OUI in Massachusetts?

If you have been charged with OUI, DUI, or DWI in Worcester County, Middlesex County, or anywhere in the Commonwealth, the details of your case matter — the video, the conditions of the roadside tests, and your medical history among them. A Massachusetts OUI not guilty result depends on finding those details before trial, not during it.

Call the Law Office of Michael Patrick Murray, P.C. at (508) 393-4162 for a confidential consultation.

Every case is different and depends on its own facts. Prior results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome in any future matter.