Chicago, IL
Criminal defense Lawyer at Chicago, IL
Practice Areas: Criminal Defense, Domestic Violence, Sex Crime
OUTCOME: Not Guilty
Nurse client was charged with battery against another nurse, who was pregnant at the time of the altercation. It was a case of self-defense. When the State called a witness, who was never listed in t ... he police reports, I was able to completely discredit her testimony as well as calling the officer who investigated the incident to impeach her testimony. The officer never interviewed this witness nor had he ever heard of her!
OUTCOME: Motion to Suppress Granted
Very similar case to one I had last year. Young client traveling from California to New Hampshire stopped on I-80 for an obstructed license plate. No issues there. While waiting in the Illinois Stat ... e Police cruiser for his warning ticket, the officer starts asking a lot of questions about his travel plans, etc. Then asks my client if he has any drugs or weapons in his vehicle, to which my client answers "no". For some reason, the officers suspects my client of having drugs in his car and calls for a K-9 to sniff the car. The K-9 takes over 30 minutes to arrive, which under the law, is longer than it would have taken the officer to write my client a warning ticket. An officer, under the Caballes case, may not detain a person for an amount of time longer than it should take to effectuate the purpose for the stop, which in this case was to write a warning ticket. Additionally, there was no reasonable suspicion of criminal activity and my client, when asked, refused to give consent for the officer to search his vehicle. The search revealed an amount of cannabis oil such that if convicted, my client was facing a minimum of 12 years in prison. The judge watched the video of the stop, heard my argument, and granted my motion to suppress the seized drugs. Case DISMISSED!
OUTCOME: Order of Protection DENIED
This one was almost fun. Client's ex-husband's current wife filed an order of protection against my client because she allegedly ran her car onto the Petitioner's lawn, yelled at her in front of her h ... ouse and made threats. I was going to call the Petitioner's children to testify against their own mother, which they were more than willing to do, but the judge found the Petitioner's testimony so incredible and unbelievable that she denied the order of protection before I had the chance!
OUTCOME: Not Guilty
No choice but to go to trial. Client has such an extensive background that he is Class X mandatory and at 85% time based on the charge. This case centers around a firearm found in an area where the p ... olice stated they saw my client "crouching while walking" in the backyard of a house that did not belong to him. At trial the police testified credibly that they never saw my client with a firearm and no mention of a firearm was relayed by the police dispatch. Thus, no actual possession by my client. The issue then became whether or not my client had constructive possession. The State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant (1) knew a firearm was present and (2) that he exercised immediate and exclusive control over the area where the firearm was found. As the court stated in People v. Sams, mere presence in the vicinity or access to the area in which contraband is found is insufficient to establish constructive possession. Judge granted my motion for directed finding at the conclusion of the State's case and my client was found not guilty.
OUTCOME: Order of Protection DENIED
Once again a judge saw right through the Petitioner's story. Petitioner, my client's step-niece, filed a Petition for an Order of Protection based on him yelling at her, that's it. The case went to a ... hearing where not only did she not recall when these incidents occurred, she also alleged he made indecent remarks and gestures towards her, which she failed to even mention in her Petition. The judge found it incredulous that of all the things my client did that she would forget the most egregious. Order of Protection DENIED.
OUTCOME: Conviction VACATED
Another successful vacation of a gun conviction. This client initially contacted me to handle his violation of probation due to a conviction for a charge of Unlawful Use of Weapon. Once I heard what ... he was convicted of, I immediately knew what I had to do. We filed a petition for post judgment relief based on People v. Aguilar, which made the statute he was originally convicted under unconstitutional. It took quite a few court dates but eventually the State's Attorney agreed that his conviction should be vacated and now he has NO criminal background.
OUTCOME: Conviction VACATED
Client came to me 14 years after he pled guilty and was convicted of a Class 2 Aggravated Unlawful Use of Weapon charge, which is a felony that cannot be expunged. As a result of People of the State o ... f Illinois v. Aguilar, 2013 IL 112116, the Aggravated UUW statute was declared unconstitutional. Today an order was entered vacating his 2001 conviction and he is now free from a felony conviction and now has a fresh start.
OUTCOME: Not Guilty
College student, who was about to graduate, was arrested for possession with intent to deliver almost 6000 grams of Xanax, which is a class 3 felony and would subject him to possible prison time of 2-5 ... years. The US Postal Inspector intercepted two boxes from California labeled with my client's name and address and brought them to my client's apartment complex. As my client entered the complex, he was asked his name, taken into custody, and the boxes were opened and the Xanax was discovered. The State's Attorney offered him expungeable probation and I advised him not to accept the offer. The basis for our defense was that my client never had possession of the boxes. The State's Attorney, to obtain a guilty verdict, would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, that my client had either actual or constructive possession of the boxes. Clearly he did not have actual possession as he never touched the boxes. In order to prove constructive possession, the State must prove (1) that the defendant had knowledge of the presence of the pills and (2) that he exercised immediate and exclusive control over the area where the pills were recovered. Control is established when a person has the intent and ability to maintain control over an item even if he lacks personal present control. That is not possible in the vestibule of a multi-unit apartment building. The judge agreed with the defense and found my client NOT GUILTY!
OUTCOME: Not Guilty
Excellent result. Client charged with domestic battery against his 16 year old stepson. He allegedly, for no reason, choked his stepson twice and his 13 year old cousin was a witness. The State's At ... torney put on three witnesses to support this. After the State rested, I put on my client to explain to the judge that the stepson hit my client's daughter and she called him to come home. My client sent angry emails and texts to his wife, the mother of his step-son that she better come home ASAP and that he wanted the kid out of his house! I used those to our advantage and after the bench trial, the judge completely agreed with our side and found the defendant not guilty. He completely understood why my client was angry and did not believe the step-son was ever choked.
OUTCOME: Finding of No Probable Cause
I generally don't post about preliminary hearing "wins", but in this case, we had a great set of facts. My client was charged with possession of a controlled substance. The police had a tip that some ... one who had a car matching the description of my client's car was selling drugs in the neighborhood. The police approached for a field interview and when my client started to put items in his pocket, they moved him to the trunk of his car. He then started to remove items from his pocket, one of which was a clear plastic bag with suspect heroin in it. The police told him to freeze and at that point, my client decided to run. He was chased but the police officer testified that he lost sight of my client and after he was apprehended, they found a clear plastic bag with heroin in it on the top of a garage roof. I questioned the officer about the chase and made a point about him losing sight of my client. The officer also testified that he did not see my client throw the bag onto the garage roof. After I rested, the judge asked for argument, which is rare. I argued that not only did the officer lose sight of my client, and did not see my client throw the bag onto the roof, but that the bag had no identifying markings on it and he could not possibly be sure that it was in fact the same bag that he saw my client with earlier. The judge acknowledged that my client did have the bag while at the car but that the officer could in no way know that it was in fact the same bag found on the garage roof. Finding of no probable cause!
Ad
Transform legal challenges into solutions.
Connect now to review your situation.
