DUI Acquittal: Winning with Spanish Language Advocacy
Procedural Outcome
Our client faced DUI charges tied to an alleged highway accident. Attorney Max Frizalone spotted a Spanish-speaking State's witness outside the courtroom before trial and used his Spanish language proficiency to have a direct conversation. The witness revealed the crashed vehicle appeared abandoned and that no one was seen near it. At trial, Mr. Frizalone blocked the State's attempts to link our client to the vehicle through strategic objections. Without admissible evidence placing the client behind the wheel, the judge issued a Not Guilty verdict.
Problem: DUI Charges Hinging on Unproven Driver Identification
Our client was accused of:
- Driving under the influence
- Causing a highway accident
- Leaving a disabled vehicle in a dangerous position
The prosecution's theory depended on proving two things:
- The client was the driver of the crashed vehicle.
- The client was present at the scene before a secondary collision occurred.
But here was the critical weakness: no one had directly identified our client as the driver. The State planned to rely on circumstantial evidence and officer testimony to bridge the gap, but that bridge was weaker than it appeared.
Action: Pretrial Witness Interview, Language Advocacy, and Courtroom Objections
Spotting the Key Witness Before Trial
- Before the trial began, attorney Max Frizalone noticed a State's witness outside the courtroom who had been present at the crash scene.
- Recognizing that the witness was Spanish-speaking, Mr. Frizalone used his proficiency in Spanish to have a direct, candid conversation.
Uncovering Exculpatory Testimony
- During this pretrial conversation, the witness revealed a critical fact:
- The crashed vehicle appeared abandoned when the witness arrived.
- The witness never saw anyone exit the car or near the vehicle prior to the secondary collision.
- This detail completely undermined the prosecution's ability to tie our client to the vehicle.
Blocking the State's Evidence at Trial
- At trial, the State attempted to use the responding officer's testimony to link the client to the abandoned vehicle.
- Mr. Frizalone was ready. He lodged precise objections whenever the officer attempted to offer:
- Speculative testimony about who was driving
- Inadmissible hearsay about statements made at the scene
- The judge sustained these objections, effectively blocking the State from introducing evidence connecting the client to the crashed car.
The Court's Ruling
- Without admissible evidence placing the client in the vehicle, the State's case collapsed.
- The judge issued a Not Guilty verdict, resulting in a full acquittal.
Resolution: Complete DUI Acquittal
Thanks to Mr. Frizalone's proactive strategy and language skills, the client avoided:
- DUI conviction
- License suspension
- Insurance rate increases
- Potential fines and jail time
The client left court completely acquitted and free of any criminal record.
Key Takeaway
| Element | Detail |
|---|---|
| Charges | DUI, causing a highway accident, leaving a disabled vehicle in a dangerous position |
| Court | Maryland District Court |
| Key Defense | Pretrial Spanish-language witness interview, hearsay objections, driver identification challenge |
| Outcome | Not Guilty verdict, no DUI conviction, no criminal record |
| Attorney | Max Frizalone |
Legal Entities Referenced
- Court: Maryland District Court
- Charges: DUI under Maryland Transportation Article Section 21-902
- Rules: Maryland Rules of Evidence (hearsay, foundation, speculation)
- Legal Concepts: Driver identification, exculpatory evidence, witness interview rights, hearsay objections
- Defense Strategy: Pretrial witness contact, language advocacy, evidence exclusion
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a defense attorney talk to a State's witness before trial?
Yes. As long as the witness is willing to speak, defense attorneys have the right to interview them before trial. In this case, that conversation led to critical exculpatory information that the prosecution never anticipated.
What happens if the State cannot prove who was driving in a DUI case?
Without clear evidence showing the defendant was the driver, the prosecution's case weakens significantly. Courts require concrete proof, not assumptions, to secure a DUI conviction. The State must establish that the defendant operated or attempted to operate the motor vehicle.
How important is cultural and language competence in criminal defense?
It can be the difference between a conviction and an acquittal. In this case, the attorney's ability to speak Spanish put the witness at ease and opened the door to testimony that otherwise may never have come to light. FrizWoods serves the Spanish-speaking community across Maryland. Visit our abogado defensa criminal Maryland page for more information.
Facing DUI charges? Contact FrizWoods today for a free consultation. We go beyond the obvious answers to dig deeper and fight for your freedom.