My client was charged with possession of a controlled substance, a Class 4 Felon which is punishable by one to three years in the Illinois Department of Corrections. My client, who was not the driver,... was located in the rear passenger seat of a vehicle when said vehicle was pulled over for a broken windshield. Allegedly the officers found drugs in the driver’s side door area. For some reason, my client was asked to exit the vehicle and he was subsequently detained and a protective pat down was performed on his person. The officer stated in court that he did not see any weapons in the vehicle and no drugs were found in the vicinity of my client’s person. I argued that there was no probably cause to perform said pat down and they judge wholeheartedly agreed. The case was dismissed and my client was released from custody!
Criminal defense
14 CR 8437 Drug Trafficking
Oct 24, 2014
OUTCOME: Motion to Suppress Evidence GRANTED
California client was charged with Drug Trafficking when the rental car is he was driving was stopped by a State Trooper for traveling 60mph in a 55mph zone. Yes, really. Trooper had a "hunch" that m...y client was involved in "some" sort of illegal activity based on the condition of the interior of the car, the fact that his luggage was in the back seat and not the trunk and the fact that my client appeared very nervous. Trooper called for a K9 dog sniff, which took 34 minutes to arrive. Client was facing 12-50 years in prison. Motion to Suppress evidence was heard today and the judge ruled that based on the Caballes case, the officer unlawfully prolonged the traffic stop for the K9 to arrive. Motion granted! My client got to go back home to California to be with his beautiful wife and kids.
Criminal defense
13 CR 19979 Delivery of Controlled Substance
Oct 02, 2014
OUTCOME: Not Guilty
The defendant, my client, was charged with Delivery of a Controlled Substance, which is normally a Class 1 Felony, punishable from 4-15 years in prison (IDOC). Unfortunately my client has prior convic...tions such that his case is a mandatory Class X Felony, which would result in a sentence of 6-30 years in prison with no possibility of probation. Basically my client had no option other than to go to trial or accept a 6 year prison sentence.
To further complicate things, the alleged delivery was witnessed by an undercover Chicago Police Department surveillance officer in an unmarked vehicle. Officer testified that he saw an exchange of United States Currency (USC) in exchange for a plastic baggie with 10 smaller baggies inside. The buyer ultimately fled the scene as officers approached and made good on his escape but not before dropping the baggie with the heroin in it, which was recovered by the officer and used as evidence against my client at trial today. But for some reason, when my client and his vehicle were searched, no USC was recovered, not a single dime. The standard is that the State's Attorney must prove my client guilty BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. And...that missing moolah was just enough to create that doubt. Finding of not guilty.
Criminal defense
13-221786
Mar 20, 2014
OUTCOME: NOT GUILTY
62 year old election judge was charged with battery for allegedly grabbing and twisting the hand of a woman who was trying to grab a ballot from him during a union election. The "victim" waited a day ...to even call the police. Matter was set for trial. Victim called two witnesses on her behalf and we had two on my client's side. Judge quickly determined that no criminal activity occurred and found my client not guilty.
Criminal defense
14 DV 70055
Mar 14, 2014
OUTCOME: NOT GUILTY
In this matter, my client was charged with domestic battery against his "landlord". He leased the basement area from a woman who owned the home. She decided to come into his living space without knoc...king or announcing herself while my client was visiting with his sister. Upon requesting that she leave immediately, the landlord refused and started a verbal altercation. In response, my client put his arm out to prevent her from entering into the area further. She then became combative and proceeded to hit my client twice. In order to restrain her from continuing to hit him, my client then grabbed her by the arms and removed her from the area and shut his door. She then called the police claiming he grabbed her and left bruises. The State offered to dismiss the charge and instead have him agree to an Order of Protection.
I advised against this as an Order of Protection would result in a mark on his criminal background, and my client's background was clear, other than this arrest. We proceeded to trial and the judge found his story more believable than the victim's and he was found not guilty. Needless to say, another very happy client.
Criminal defense
13-230372
Feb 11, 2014
OUTCOME: NOT GUILTY
Client was charged with battery. Allegedly he pushed the victim twice in the chest. Turns out, the "victim" video'd the entire incident on his phone. I explained the situation to the State's Attorne...y and that they should dismiss the case based on lack of evidence. They declined. We went to trial today where the judge viewed the video not once, but twice. On my motion for directed finding, he laid into the State and the victim stating that (a) there was no indication that a battery occurred at all and (b) that it actually appeared as if the victim was attempting to provoke my client into hitting him. Not guilty!
Criminal defense
13 OP 74540
Feb 03, 2014
OUTCOME: Order of Protection Dismissed!
I represented the Respondent in defense of a Petition for an Order of Protection
The basic facts are that she dated the Petitioner for over a year, they planned to marry and for whatever reason, t...he wedding was cancelled by the Petitioner. Then things fell apart disastrously. Emails and texts were sent, police reports were filed, my client was arrested on more than one occasion as a result of the Petitioner’s false accusations. She actually ended up with a misdemeanor criminal trespass to property! That case went to trial and she was found not guilty.
I cannot tell you how much work went into this case. My client was incensed with how she was treated by the Petitioner and how much strife he caused in her life. And truthfully, it was almost impossible for me to represent her as she was very emotional and demanding (understandably) with what she expected of my legal services. I had to explain that it was a somewhat simple matter of defending the allegations in the Petition and that it wasn’t necessary to bring up other seemingly irrelevant issues that weren’t related to those specific allegations.
The key is, I tell every client, criminal or civil: be calm in court, do not make any gestures, do not make any comments unless you are being questioned, and just stand there next to me and look at the judge. People and some attorneys don’t understand that a judge is actually watching everything that goes on in her courtroom. She notices how you dress, how you compose yourself and what you say. I’ve lost trials based on how my client comports herself in court.
My client at her hearing performed exceptionally. She didn’t do anything to offend the court and remained calm and fairly impassive. On the other hand, opposing counsel started yelling at her when she didn’t answer a question the way he wanted her to. The judge lit into him like I’ve never seen. At the end of the day, the judge found the Petitioner to be wholly unbelievable in his allegations and my client now has a clean record. Justice prevailed.
See more at: http://www.chicagocriminallawyerblog.com/2014/02/07/order-protection-dismissed/
Criminal defense
12 CR 1391
Dec 05, 2013
OUTCOME: NOT GUILTY
Another NOT GUILTY on a charge of Aggravated Unlawful Use of Weapon by a Felon!
After almost 2 years, my Agg UUW Felon case went to trial today in Bridgeview and surprisingly, everyone answered read...y. This was a case where the co-defendant was alleged to have fired off a couple rounds on New Year's Eve and my client was alleged to have made an oral statement admitting to the gun that was found in his bedroom closet. We were forced to go to trial as the alternative was 3-7 IDOC time. Judge was fantastic and was eloquent enough to say that you don't need to call someone a liar for them to not be necessarily believable. I truly thought my client was going to be a guest of IDOC for quite a few years. NOT GUILTY for both co-defendants.
Criminal defense
12 CR 1360
Dec 02, 2013
OUTCOME: NOT GUILTY
My client was charged under 720 ILCS 5/24-1.6 with four counts of Aggravated Unlawful Use of Weapon with no valid FOID card. The first two counts were dismissed by the State’s Attorney due to my fili...ng of a Motion to Dismiss under People of the State of Illinois v. Aguilar.
My client is a duly licensed security guard who was pulled over at midnight on Christmas Eve for a broken tail light. He voluntarily told the ISP (Illinois State Police) trooper that he had his gun on him, that he is a security guard and showed him his FOID card. Trooper ran the card and found it revoked. It was revoked due to his previous Agg UUW arrest. I did a bench on that one and got a not guilty as well. His FOID was returned to him at the conclusion of his first trial.
The issue I presented at trial is NOT whether his FOID card was revoked, but whether he had knowledge. The client testified that never received any notice of the revocation. State argued strict liability, but I effectively argued that the word "knowingly" under the statute modifies the entire statute, not just the portion relating to possessing a firearm. The judge agreed that it modifies the entire statute and found him not guilty.
Criminal defense
11 CR 1917
Nov 20, 2013
OUTCOME: NOT GUILTY
My 22 year old client, with no criminal background, was charged with Armed Robbery and Aggravated Battery. This case carried a mandatory 21 year sentence if convicted because there was an allegation t...hat a firearm was used during the offense.
My client was charged along with another co-defendant after they allegedly robbed a pizza delivery guy. Even though my client did not possess the weapon, because he was “involved” the state’s attorney was attempting to use the law of accountability to charge him with the same crime as the co-defendant. The law of accountability states that a defendant must engage in a common criminal design or agreement, any acts in furtherance of that common design committed by one party are considered to be the acts of all parties.
And I tell all of my clients, even if I believe they have a difficult case, you never know what will happen when an officer or civilian victim testifies. In this case, the officers sworn report stated that my client actually took possession of the pizzas, after his co-defendant held a gun to the victim’s head, and ran into a neighboring house. There were also allegations that not only was a gun held to the victim’s head, but that three other masked individuals were involved who attacked the victim, causing bodily harm. At trial the victim made no mention of my client possessing a firearm or taking possession of the pizzas. A motion was made after the state’s attorneys rested their case for a directed finding of not guilty. The judge heard arguments from both sides and determined that my client could not be found guilty and found my client NOT GUILTY! And my scared client did not even have to testify.
