Victories

Case Reviews For David L. Freidberg

Below are legal cases for The Law Office of David L. Freidberg:

Case: 17 OP 50267 Order of Protection
Case Conclusion Date: June 21, 2017
Practice Area: Domestic violence
Outcome: Order of Protection DENIED

Luckily my client had a witness! My mild-mannered 64 year old client, the Respondent, was accused of grabbing his 61 year old brother, the Petitioner, by the throat. What started as a routine visit to the home where the Petitioner was residing at the time, escalated into a verbal argument. A physical altercation ensued and as a result, the Petitioner pushed my client and grabbed him by the throat first. My client did in fact react in kind, which is generally termed mutual combat. Thankfully, the sister of both parties witnessed the fight but only after it started, so she could not say who was the instigator, thus, she was more than reliable as she did not give the appearance of choosing sides during her testimony. The Petitioner also complained that Respondent injured his hand so severely that he required medical attention and rehabilitation. Fortunately for my client, his sister went to lunch with the Respondent about an hour after the incident, whereby the Respondent made no complaint whatsoever about his severely injured hand. The Court found her testimony credible, unbiased and believable and ruled in favor of my client. Order of Protection was DENIED.

Case: 16 CR 134 Possession of Controlled Substance
Case Conclusion Date: February 28, 2017
Practice Area: Criminal Defense
Outcome: Case Dismissed

Sometimes things go well when you have a great judge. A gentleman called me last week regarding a warrant for his arrest. Turns out he was offered the State's Attorney's drug school program on a possession of controlled substance charge but did not complete it. This program is for first time offenders and requires the attendance of 4 drug school treatment classes. If the classes are in fact completed, then the case is dismissed and no conviction is entered. On the other hand, if the classes are not completed, then the case is assigned a felony trial judge and moves forward. In this case, my client did not complete the classes but did an outpatient treatment program elsewhere. Unfortunately, he was not able to notify the State's Attorney of this, his charges were not dismissed, and when he did not appear in court thereafter, a warrant was issued for his arrest. In this case, my client was unaware of these factors and only recently became aware of the warrant. I took the necessary steps of contacting the State's Attorney handling his case, provided him with a copy of my client's drug treatment, and filed a motion to quash the warrant and recall the bond. When this was heard today in front of the judge, she could not have been more accommodating in quashing the warrant. The State then completely dismissed my client's case. Perfect result.

Case: 16-210301 Battery Charge
Case Conclusion Date: January 31, 2017
Practice Area: Criminal Defense
Outcome: Not Guilty

Young man walks into a bar with a friend and walks out with a new one...at least that's how it started out. He met a girl at a bar, they had drinks, went to another bar for a few more and she invited him back to her place for a bottle of wine. Things get sketchy from there. They get into some type of innocuous argument and she asks him to leave. While he's leaving, he's still trying to talk to her but she starts pushing him out of her apartment. After she opens the door, she follows him into the hall and pushes him down a stairwell. As my client gets up he sees her at the top of the stairs still in a fighting stance. He grabs her and pushes her to the ground to prevent her from pushing him again, and that's when her neighbor, hearing the fight, runs up and grabs him and calls the police. Client was arrested for battery. Not wanting to admit guilty for something he didn't do, my client went to trial today. Judge heard all of the evidence and testimony from the victim and witness. Somehow the witness, two months AFTER the incident, went to the police station to add information that my client was unbuckling his belt as he was on top of the victim. Clearly the witness was trying to add fuel to the first. The judge completely discounted the witness’s testimony and found my client NOT GUILTY.

Case: 05 C6 66021401 UUW Vacated
Case Conclusion Date: December 9, 2016
Practice Area: Criminal Defense
Outcome: Conviction for Aggravated UUW Vacated

Quite often, people convicted of a weapons charge do not realize that it might be possible to erase that conviction. A gentleman contacted me about a different issue, and when I asked about his prior criminal history, he informed me that he had a previous conviction for Aggravated Unlawful Use of Weapon, which is a felony, and cannot be expunged from you record. This conviction was preventing him from obtaining more promising employment among other issues. Since his case was prior to 2013, and the Court in People v. Aguilar found that the statute under which he was convicted was unconstitutional, I informed him that I could most likely have that conviction vacated. Well, exactly that outcome occurred today! My client is no longer a convicted felon and is free to pursue whatever opportunities come his way.

Case: 16121027501 Concealed Carry/Airport
Case Conclusion Date: December 5, 2016
Practice Area: Criminal Defense
Outcome: Not Guilty at Trial

I was retained by someone who was charged with carrying a loaded handgun into the airport, which was discovered during routine security screening. It seems obvious that someone is not permitted to carry a weapon into an airport, or any other government building, and it is safe to say my client was aware of this. And my client was in possession of a valid concealed carry license, but again, even with the license, carrying a weapon into an airport is still a crime. The issue was that he did not realize he had left his gun in his bag when he packed for a business trip. The State's Attorney offered my client court supervision, which is not a conviction and could be expunged from his record two years after the supervision period ends. I recommended we set the matter for trial as there was no possible way the State could prove he had knowledge that the gun was in his bag. Turns out I was correct, the Court found that not only was the State’s Attorney unable prove knowledge, they couldn't even prove it was my client's bag as they called the wrong witness to testify at the trial. The State called the Chicago Police Officer that arrived on the scene after the bag was taken from my client. The State should have called the TSA Agent that discovered the weapon. And as a bonus, I was able to have the Court order that my client's weapon be returned to him.

Case: 16 -1210275 - Concealed Carry of a Weapon in an Airport
Case Conclusion Date: December 5, 2016
Practice Area: Criminal Defense
Outcome: Not Guilty at Trial

My client, who was in possession of a concealed carry license from another state, was arrested for bringing a loaded handgun into the airport in his carryon, which was discovered during routine screening at security. But having a concealed carry license does not prevent a person from being charged with bringing a weapon into an airport, which is strictly forbidden under 430 ILCS 65(a)(19). The State’s Attorney offered my client court supervision on the charge, which is not a conviction and could be expunged two years after the supervisory period ends. I recommended setting the matter for trial. At the trial the State's Attorney called a Chicago Police officer, NOT the TSA representative that actually discovered the handgun. Because the officer could not testify, without hearsay evidence, that the bag containing the weapon even belonged to my client in the first place, the judge had no choice but to find my client not guilty.

Case: 16 OP 75305 - OP denied
Case Conclusion Date: August 30, 2016
Practice Area: Criminal Defense
Outcome: Order of Protection DENIED

Neighbor dispute. Long and short of it, there was an incident involving two neighbors’ dogs wherein my client was injured as a result. A few days later, her neighbors, upset that she filed a grievance regarding the dogs with the condo association, claim my client threatened them with mace and prevented them from entering their unit. In reality, my client attempted to speak with them about the incident and to inquire as to why their dogs were still on the property when the condo association ordered them removed. The matter was set for hearing. In my practice, I never recommend that my client agree to an Order of Protection as that would appear on her criminal background. At the hearing, the other parties could not admit any evidence in support of their claims and my client was able to prevail on the merits as the judge did not believe the Petitioners' stories. Emergency Order of Protection vacated and OP denied.

Case: 16 OP 70993 - OP denied
Case Conclusion Date: August 22, 2016
Practice Area: Criminal Defense
Outcome: Order of Protection DENIED

This matter as a domestic violence charge for assault between two roommates. My client allegedly damaged a camera in the apartment as well as supposedly threatened to harm her roommate. The State offered to dismiss the assault charge and just proceed on the criminal damage to property charge, which my client agreed to take a plea. At the last minute, during the plea itself, the State filed a Petition for an Order of Protection against the defendant. We were taken by surprise! Instead of agreeing to an OP, I immediately demanded a hearing on that issue. If a client agrees to an order of protection, it would appear on her criminal background and effect her future employment opportunities. The victim surreptitiously recorded a conversation that my client was having on the telephone with her mother, without my client's knowledge. That recording could have been damaging to my client but I argued that it fell under the eavesdropping statute and could not be admitted as evidence. The judge agreed in part but allowed certain portions to be played in open court. After hearing the recording and the victim's testimony, as well as my client's, the judge ruled that there was no abuse committed by my client and denied the order of protection.

Case: 16 OP 73809 - OP denied
Case Conclusion Date: August 05 2016
Practice Area: Criminal Defense
Outcome: Order of Protection DENIED

I can never stress the importance of having an experienced attorney on your side. My client's half-sister filed an Order of Protection against her for allegedly texting her with profane messages, as well as making threats against her. The Petitioner, not my client, had copies of texts and emails but because she did not have a lawyer, and she could not get the evidence into court. She did try crying but the judge would have none of that nonsense. My client testified truthfully, as well as did her other sister, that she never made any threats against her. In fact, the other sister admitted sending the more damaging of the texts! The judge summarily denied the Order of Protection.

Case:15 MC4 005872 - Battery
Case Conclusion Date: July 18, 2016
Practice Area: Criminal Defense
Outcome: Not Guilty

Nurse client was charged with battery against another nurse, who was pregnant at the time of the altercation. My client was offered court supervision, which is a decent offer as it is not a conviction, and can be expunged, but since she is a nurse, it could affect her licensing. This was a clear case of self-defense. The “victim” ordered my client to do something, and when my client did not immediately respond, the victim started screaming and pushing her. When the State called their sole independent witness, who was never listed in the police reports, I was able to completely discredit her testimony. Additionally, I called the officer who investigated the incident to impeach her testimony. The officer never interviewed this witness nor had he ever heard of her! Not guilty at trial.

Case:15 CR 7151 – Possession of Controlled Substance with Intent to Deliver
Case Conclusion Date: April 1, 2016
Practice Area: Criminal Defense
Outcome: Motion to Suppress GRANTED

This was another case of someone being stopped by the Illinois State Police for a simple traffic violation. As always seems to be the case, my client was traveling from out of state, through the Chicago area, to his home in New Hampshire. He was stopped on I-80, which is a major thoroughfare for drug smuggling, for an obstructed license plate – his bicycle was hanging too low off of his trunk.

The officer tells my client he cannot wait in his car and is welcome to sit in the squad car with the officer. While my client waiting in the cruiser for his warning ticket, the officer starts asking questions concerning his employment, travel plans, etc. The officer then asks my client if he has any drugs or weapons in his vehicle, to which my client answers "no". For whatever reason, the officers has a “hunch” that my client is in possession of drugs and calls for a K-9 to sniff the car. The K-9 takes over 30 minutes to arrive. An officer, under People v. Caballes, may not detain a suspect for any 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 faced 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. The motion to suppress was granted and the case was DISMISSED!

Case:16 OP 70429 - OP Denied
Case Conclusion Date: March 9, 2016
Practice Area: Criminal Defense
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 house 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!

Case:13 CR 21836 – Armed Habitual Criminal
Case Conclusion Date: February 22, 2016
Practice Area: Criminal Defense
Outcome: Not Guilty

Our client’s charge of Aggravated Unlawful Use of Weapon by a felon was upgraded to a charge of Armed Habitual Criminal based on his extensive criminal background. This is a Class X felony punishable from 6-30 years in prison and he would have to serve 85% of his time if convicted. There was no other option than to set the matter for trial.

This case centers around a firearm found in an area where the police 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, there was clearly no actual possession by my client. The issue then became whether or not my client had constructive possession of the firearm recovered.

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.

The judge granted my motion for directed finding at the conclusion of the State's case and my client was found not guilty.

Case:15 OP 77394 – Order of Protection
Case Conclusion Date: February 8, 2016
Practice Area: Criminal Defense/Civil OP
Outcome: Order of Protection Denied

Another denial of an Order of Protection. The Respondent, my client, was the landlord of an apartment building where the Petitioner, his step-niece, resided with her mother. She claimed in her Petition for an Order of Protection that he threatened her life, her mother’s life and constantly yelled at her in the hallway. The police were called out to the scene a few times over the previous few months and my client was never arrested. Because an Order of Protection would appear on my client’s criminal background, if entered against him, we set the matter for a hearing. The Petitioner and her mother both testified about the threats and the yelling and additionally made allegations that he exposed himself to them and made vulgar suggestive remarks. None of those allegations appeared in the Petition itself. After I pointed that out, the judge found it incredulous that of all the accusations made against my client, the Petitioner “forgot” to mention the alleged exposure in her Petition. Order of Protection DENIED.

Case:09 CR 1257801 – UUW/Gun Charge VACATED
Case Conclusion Date: January 14, 2016
Practice Area: Criminal Defense
Outcome: Conviction Vacated

Another felony gun conviction vacated! Initially we were contacted by the client’s sister because the defendant, my client, was facing a violation of probation for non-reporting. I inquired as to what the original charge was and learned it was for Unlawful Use of Weapon. This immediately triggered my radar due to the recent decision in People of the State of Illinois v. Aguilar. The Aguilar decision in 2013 held that the UUW statute that was in place at the time of his conviction was unconstitutional. My client was actually offered a year in prison on the violation in exchange for a plea of guilty. As he already had a few months under his belt in jail, he was seriously considering taking the deal. I advised him to reject that offer as I was almost certain I could vacate his original conviction for UUW and completely clear his criminal background. Luckily he put his trust in me and today the order was entered vacating that conviction and he now has NO criminal history.

Case:15 CR 1529601 – UUW/Gun Charge VACATED
Case Conclusion Date: January 13, 2016
Practice Area: Criminal Defense
Outcome: Conviction Vacated

43 year old client contacted me regarding his 2001 conviction for Aggravated Unlawful Use of Weapon, which is a felony. He wanted to know what could be done about this as it was affecting his ability to obtain employment. Luckily for him we specialize in gun charges and are very aware of the recent decision in People of the State of Illinois v. Aguilar. The Aguilar decision in 2013 held that the UUW statute that was in place at the time of his conviction was unconstitutional. As a result, anyone convicted under 720 ILCS 5/24-1.6(a)(1), (a)(3)(A), is eligible to have his or her conviction vacated. That is exactly the result obtained today for my client. He now has no criminal background and start his life over again.

Case:14CR10949 – Possession of a Controlled Substance with Intent to Deliver
Case Conclusion Date: December 9, 2015
Practice Area: Criminal Defense
Outcome: Not Guilty

A college student was arrested for possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver. The US Postal Inspector intercepted two boxes from California containing almost 6000 grams of Xanax. These boxes were clearly labeled with my client's name and address. The defendant was facing a Class 3 felony which, if convicted, would subject him to prison time from two to five years and certainly ruin any chances of him obtaining gainful employment. The Postal Inspector and a Chicago Police Detective brought the boxes 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 made my client a very fair offer of expungeable probation ( 410 probation). I conveyed the offer and advised him not to accept it. The basis of 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!

Case:Possession of Controlled Substance - Preliminary Hearing
Case Conclusion Date: November 24, 2015
Practice Area: Criminal Defense
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 someone 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!

Case:15DV75447 Domestic Battery
Case Conclusion Date: November 24, 2015
Practice Area: Criminal Defense
Outcome: Not Guilty

Stepfather was charged with domestic battery against his 16 year old stepson. The Cook County State’s Attorney alleged that he twice choked his stepson while his 13 year old cousin witnessed the incidents. The State's Attorney put on three witnesses to support this theory and had photographs of the injuries for further support. After all three witnesses testified, 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. This is the not first time this has occurred. My client admittedly sent angry emails and texts to his wife, the mother of his stepson, 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 stepson was ever choked. Even the photographs showed no injuries.

Case: 14CR6676 Theft
Case Conclusion Date: October 19, 2015
Practice Area: Criminal Defense
Outcome: Not Guilty

Using the “How stupid would my client have to have been to have committed this crime” defense, here are the facts: client worked for a local pawn shop for over 10 years. Client was paid in cash and/or goods for his services, never given a paycheck. Client understands the pawn/jewelry business and knows that when goods are sold or pawned, a photo ID is produced and recorded with the Chicago Police Department and with the LEADS Online investigation system. The LEADS system is used to determine if sold or pawned items are reported stolen. All jewelers and pawn shops are required to use this system in their everyday transactions.

My client was owed money by the pawn shop he worked for and in exchange for what was owed, he was given two Rolex watches, which is subsequently sold at two different jewelers in the city. These were jewelers that he had done business with in the past and the employees there knew him by name. And, as required, he gave them his identification and signed the sales receipts.

His employer, for whatever reason, accused him of stealing these Rolexes and selling them at these two jewelry stores. The client was charged with two counts of theft. He was offered various types of probation and restitution in the amount of $10,000.00. As my client did not commit any crimes, he rejected the offers and demanded a trial. At trial, all evidence was presented, including the fact that the jewelers knew him, he did not appear nervous during the transactions and he presented his driver’s license. I argued, among other things, “my client would have to be incredibly stupid, knowing how the jewelry business functions, to have committed this crime, especially with jewelry establishments that know him by name!” Generally, arguing stupidity is not exactly a valid defense but the judge, in his ruling of NOT GUILTY, specifically stated that the defendant would have had to have been infinitely stupid to have committed this crime and did not believe that was possible in this instance.

Case: 15OP75657
Case Conclusion Date: October 15, 2015
Practice Area: Criminal Defense
Outcome: Order of Protection DENIED

Unbelievable this matter went this far. The disgruntled ex-husband of my client filed an Order of Protection, for apparently violating provisions of their divorce decree. A divorce decree out of Arizona no less that had not be registeredin the State of Illinois. Regardless, the appropriate venue would have been the Domestic Relations Division which handles post-divorce decree issues, such as a violation. After being set for hearing, and the Petitioner having testified, the Order of Protection was denied outright. And my client did not even have to testify.

Case: 15-214398
Case Conclusion Date: October 14, 2015
Practice Area: Criminal Defense
Outcome: Not Guilty

My client was charged with battery due to an alleged sprained wrist of the victim. The victim claimed that the defendant, after a verbal altercation at work, grabbed her by the wrist and twisted it in anger. Now, my client is the director at an institution and a conviction for battery would result in her termination, so even though the State’s Attorney offered my client court supervision, it would still have the same effect, and we set the matter for trial. What actually occurred was that the “victim” entered my client’s office, already confrontational, and started yelling at her. Not wanting to have the entire facility involved in their conversation, my client attempted to close her office door and brushed the victim’s hand away from the door jamb so she wouldn’t be hurt. After a bench trial my client was found not guilty.

Case: 15OP75146
Case Conclusion Date: Sep 29, 2015
Practice Area: Criminal Defense
Outcome: Order of Protection DENIED

The client was a local university student with no prior criminal history and a straight A student. He ended up as the respondent in a Petition for an Order of Protection filed by his disgruntled ex-girlfriend. Allegedly he grabbed her by the coat collar and pulled her out of his dorm room. This incident took place 7 months prior to the date of filing in a different country. After a hearing, the judge determined that an Order of Protection, which would hurt my client's chances of future employment, was not warranted and the Petition was denied.

Case: 15OP77315
Case Conclusion Date: July 22, 2015
Practice Area: Criminal Defense
Outcome: Order of Protection DENIED

My client’s wife, the Petitioner, filed an Emergency Order of Protection against him for allegedly shoving and hitting her on two different occasions. As I instruct all of my clients, he remained calm and mild-mannered throughout the hearing, the same could not be said for the Petitioner. I was able to cross-examine and unnerve her to the point that her demeanor was detrimental to her case. Additionally, she never contacted the police to file charges against my client for battery. In once instance, she alleged that my client tried to prevent her from driving away from the residence with their 10 month old disabled daughter by jumping in the car, putting it in park and taking the keys out of the ignition. This turned out to be true and luckily we had a photo of his daughter improperly restrained in the carseat with the seat belt across her face and not properly buckled. The Judge heard all of the testimony and was able to observe the demeanor of both my client and his wife and DENIED her Order of Protection.

Case: 14-242812
Case Conclusion Date: July 8, 2015
Practice Area: Criminal Defense
Outcome: Not Guilty

The Defendant, who had no prior criminal record, was charged with Assault. My client allegedly intimated that he had a gun and then threatened to "put a hole" through the victim if he didn't close his screen door to allow him access to pass by on the sidewalk. The Defendant was offered court supervision, which I strongly recommended he refuse and request a trial date. Luckily my client agreed. The case was then set for trial. Even assuming that my client did say this, to be found guilty under Assault, the victim must have been in fear of imminent bodily harm from the Defendant. Because the Defendant said that IF the victim didn't close his screen door to allow him to pass, that constituted conditional language, which infers a FUTURE threat. A conditional threat is not sufficient to justify an Assault under the Illinois Compiled Statutes. I requested a Motion for Directed Finding after the victims testified, which means that if it was granted, my client would not even need to testify. The judge deliberated for awhile and at the end of his deliberations, my Client was found not guilty.

Case: 14-218156
Case Conclusion Date: April 6, 2015
Practice Area: Criminal Defense
Outcome: Not Guilty

While working at a massage parlor, my client was accused of prostitution by an undercover officer with the Chicago Police Department. She was offered the State's Attorney's deferred prosecution program which would have resulted in a dismissal upon completion. My client was adamant she did nothing wrong and the officer was lying. The case went to trial today and after the officer's testimony, my client testified as to her version of the facts and she was found not guilty!

Case: 14 DV 79611
Case Conclusion Date: March 5, 2015
Practice Area: Criminal Defense
Outcome: Not Guilty

Domestic Battery charges filed against my client for allegedly beating his son’s mother. State's Attorney offered to reduce the charges to Simple Battery for court supervision, domestic violence counseling, an alcohol evaluation and the entry of an Order of Protection against him. As his attorney, I conveyed the offer and highly recommended he reject it. Case went to trial today. The victim testified that my client, with no provocation or verbal argument, picked her up and slammed her to the ground and then beat her for 20 more minutes. She never called 911 (he did) nor did she seek medical treatment for her supposed injuries. She even brought photos to court allegedly showing her injuries. My client testified credibly that not only did he not engage in any physical altercation, she was the aggressor. FINDING OF NOT GUILTY AT TRIAL

Case Conclusion Date: March 4, 2015
Practice Area: Criminal Defense
Outcome: Not Guilty

Client was charged with a Class X, non-probationable, criminal, sexual assault against a roommate of his girlfriend. He was also charged with theft for allegedly stealing an ipad, cash and a laptop computer. We demanded trial as the victim wasn't appearing in court for the trial. On the last day of our demand, the victim and her witness appeared and it was on! I successfully argued that what sexual encounter did allegedly occur, which my client denied, did not qualify as a sexual assault and the court agreed. No one appeared in court to testify as to the theft charge. And, to top it all off, when the victim DID call 911, she made no mention of any criminal sexual assault, only the theft. Finding of Not Guilty!

Case: 14 OP 77482
Practice Area: Criminal Defense
Date: February 13, 2015
Outcome: Order of Protection DENIED

An Order of Protection was filed not once, not twice but three times against my client. The first two were dismissed after the Petitioner attempted to extort money from my client. The third filing was the final straw. He hired me and we fought this case to its rightful conclusion, order of protection denied. There were no allegations of abuse, stalking or harassment. The judge saw right through the Petitioner's claims after my strenuous cross examination of her.

Case: 14113495501
Practice Area: Criminal Defense
Date: January 15, 2015
Outcome: Finding of No Probable Cause

My client was charged with possession of a controlled substance, a Class 4 Felony 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!