Michael DelSignore Blog
231 FOLLOWERS
Covers blog posts on DUI Laws and Court Cases, Breathalyzer Testing, Gun Offenses, Criminal Trials, and more. Michael DelSignore is a Massachusetts DUI Attorney/Criminal Defense lawyer who has written extensively on DUI cases and provides commentary for the media.
Michael DelSignore Blog
5M ago
The Massachusetts SJC heard oral arguments on November 6, 2023 regarding two OUI Serious Injury cases involving accident and blood tests. The issue before the Court is whether the requirement that the State police obtain consent to test blood applies to both a simple OUI and a more serious OUI involving serious injury or death.
In the case of Commonwealth v. Zucchino, the defendant was indicted and had a case in Salem Superior Court involving OUI-manslaughter, OUI serious bodily injury and leaving the scene of death among other charges. Following the accident, the defendant was tak ..read more
Michael DelSignore Blog
11M ago
Miranda rights are critical to protect an individual privilege against self-incrimination. When a defendant does not speak English, what is the process to make sure that a defendant is advised of their rights in Spanish or their native language.
In Commonwealth v. Oscar De Los Santos, the question of whether his Miranda rights are valid arises because they were not read to him in his first language, Spanish. A simple assumption about what was said in a language that witnesses do not understand cannot satisfy the Commonwealth’s burden of proving the Miranda requirement beyond a reasonable ..read more
Michael DelSignore Blog
11M ago
The defense lawyers in the Karen Read case are looking for third party records to prove that Ms. Read is being framed for murder. The Commonwealth has refused to produce those records. In the interest of open disclosure, the prosecution should provide the records.
What is Rule 17 in Massachusetts and why is it a bar for the defense to gather evidence?
The trial of Karen Read involves a bold defense that the police got the investigation wrong, are covering up for their own officers and tried to pin a murder on Ms. Reed that she did not commit. The defense has asked for cell ph ..read more
Michael DelSignore Blog
11M ago
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in the case of Commonwealth v. Hallinan paved the way for anyone convicted of an OUI with a breath test from 2012-2019 to have their old case vacated without fear of harsher penalties if convicted after retrial.
What steps should you take if you did admit to a breath test or were convicted after trial. Keep in mind: even if you got a CWOF on an OUIU charge that counts as a conviction and can be vacated.
Here is what I would recommend you do. I have been vacating these old OUI cases for the past two years and have had at least 10 client ..read more
Michael DelSignore Blog
11M ago
South Carolina DUI crash killing bride and severely injuring the groom could involve legal battles over blood alcohol testing as the defendant refused field sobriety tests. 25 year old Jamie Komoroski was charged with three counts of felony DUI resulting in great bodily injury or death and one count of reckless homicide after a wedding crash. The 25-year-old suspect smelled of alcohol but refused a field sobriety test at the scene, police said. Komoroski has no past convictions. To read more about the Komoroski case you can read Julianne McShane’s Article from NBC News.
The husband ..read more
Michael DelSignore Blog
1y ago
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decided the case of Commonwealth v. Lindsay Hallinan which allows someone seeking a new trial based on an OUI plea or conviction involving breath test results between 2012 and 2019 to receive a new trial without fear of harsher penalties from the Court or Registry of Motor Vehicles. The major detriment to these motions prior to the Hallinan decision was that the RMV was saying that if someone lost after a retrial, the license suspension starts over as if the case just happened, not giving any credit for the license suspension that was already serv ..read more
Michael DelSignore Blog
1y ago
What restrictions can social media companies like Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and Tik-Tok on their social media platforms? The First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects free speech and the case of Moody v. NetChoice that is before the United States Supreme Court on a petition for certiorari may redefine what it means to be a public forum and when private companies can limit speech on a platform that has global reach. You can reach about the Moody case on the Scotus Blog.
The issues in Moody v. NetChoice, LLC are whether the First Amendment precludes a state from r ..read more
Michael DelSignore Blog
1y ago
As a Massachusetts OUI Lawyer when I reviewed a case I make sure that the Commonwealth can prove operation. In conversations with clients, many times the client will believe that the Commonwealth cannot prove operation because the client was not scene driving; however, Massachusetts OUI law does permit circumstantial evidence of operation. One of the key rules on operation is that a conviction of OUI cannot be grounded solely in the uncorroborated confession of a defendant. But what type of evidence is sufficient to establish corroboration. The Massachusetts Appeals Court in ..read more
Michael DelSignore Blog
1y ago
The United States Supreme Court may consider whether police need an arrest warrant to enter a person’s home or whether they can enter a home without probable cause that the person resides there and is present.
The Supreme Court ruled in Payton v. New York, 445 U. S. 573 (1980) that the Fourth Amendment prohibits police from entering a suspect’s home without a warrant or under exigent circumstances. The Court struck down a New York statute providing for such warrantless entries because the Fourth Amendment draws a firm line at the entrance to the house.
The circuit split referenced in the petit ..read more
Michael DelSignore Blog
1y ago
Witness Intimidation is a common charge that will often accompany a domestic assault and battery charge in Massachusetts. In the case of Commonwealth vs. Jeffrey S. Wheeler, it was alleged that the charge was against the Judge and not a specific person.
The defendant was convicted of two counts of intimidation in violation of G. L. c. 268, § 13B (intimidation statute). The defendant placed a telephone call to case specialist in the Newburyport Division of the District Court Department clerk’s office and stated that he was going to go rogue on a judge, that the judge was not “going to be ..read more