Victories

Case Reviews For David L. Freidberg

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

Case: 18 CR 148XX
Case Conclusion Date: September 25, 2019
Practice Area: Criminal Defense
Outcome: Reduced from Felony to Misdemeanor with No Conviction

Description: Client was charged with FELONY Aggravated Battery with Great Bodily Harm. This charge is a Class 3 Felony and carries a possible sentence of two to five years in the Illinois Department of Corrections (Prison). In a nutshell, while attending a carnival at a local Chicago high school, the complaining witness (victim) was attacked my multiple individuals who wrestled him to the ground, stomped on his head and kicked him multiple times about the face and body. There was no question as to whether a battery was committed or that great bodily harm was incurred. The victim suffered multiple fractures and contusions to his face and body. Luckily he eventually fully recovered and appeared in court at the trial. Now, the issue is whether or not MY client committed aggravated battery with great bodily harm. There were multiple cell phone videos provided by the state, taken by bystanders with the cell phones, that clearly show my client involved in the altercation. But, my client only entered into the fray at the end of the fight and only kicked the victim 3 times in the legs.

We prepared a mitigation packet for the State's Attorneys Office to review in the hopes of a reducer to a misdemeanor charge of battery, not a felony. The State reviewed the packet and spoke with the victim's mother about a reduced charge. She would not agree and wanted someone to pay for her sons' injuries. Part of the problem is that the other individuals arrested were juveniles and were not on trial with my client in the "adult" court. As such, we had no option other than to go to trial. There was no question that my client committed a misdemeanor battery, but in my mind, it was not a felony.

Just before the trial started, the State's Attorney came to us with an offer of a reducer for a misdemeanor charge but also requested restitution for the victim's medical bills. I discussed the offer with my client and suggested he reject the offer as he was not responsible for the injuries the victim incurred. He agreed and we wen to trial.

At trial, the video was played of the incident for the judge, the victim and another few witnesses testified and at the end of the State's portion of the trial, I made a motion for directed finding stating that the State has not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that a felony aggravated battery was committed by my client. The judge agreed and granted my motion as it pertained to the felony count and allowed the trial to continue based solely on a lesser included offense of misdemeanor battery. After discussing with my client as to whether he should testify, suggesting he not, he agreed and we rested out portion of the case. Finding of guilty only on a misdemeanor charge. Sentence was 18 months of court supervision, which is NOT a conviction and can be expunged two years after supervision is terminated.

Case: 18 OP 791XX
Case Conclusion Date: June 11, 2019
Practice Area: Order of Protection
Outcome: Dismissed

Description: As if often the case, I was contacted by a Respondent in a Petition for Order of Protection matter. The Petitioner made allegations that my client, on more than on occasion, struck her in the head, grabbed her about the body and made insulting remarks to her. After a careful review of the file and even interviewing the Petitioner in court, it became clear that her allegations were nothing more than that. My client was adamant about proceeding to a hearing and the Court set a date. At the hearing date, I again spoke to the Petitioner about the case and her chances of prevailing on her Petition. Apparently she took my advice to heart and when the case was called for the hearing, she dismissed the matter and I was able to have the Emergency Order of Protection entered previously vacated.

Case: 19 DV 72XXX
Case Conclusion Date: April 16, 2019
Practice Area: Domestic Violence
Outcome: Not Guilty

Description: It never helps to lie. My client was charged with assault and domestic battery against her roommate. Allegedly my client got into an altercation with the "victim" when she tried to move her dining room table back into the dining room after the victim moved it. The undisputed facts are that while the victim was shoving the table into my client, my client grabbed a hammer off the table and threatened her with it. The victim claimed that my client also grabber her by the wrist, thus the domestic battery charge. That was the entirety of the allegations. The States Attorney offered my client court supervision, which I conveyed, and after discussing the ramifications of such a plea with my client, she opted for a trial, smart choice. At the trial the victim testified that not only did my client threaten her with the hammer and grab her wrist, she also threw shoes at her, shoved her into the closet clothing organizer AND actually hit her in the midsection with the hammer. None of this was stated to the officer or in his sworn report. Luckily the officer was in court and upon cross examination, confirmed this lack of information and the victim was impeached. At the close of the State's case, I motioned for a directed verdict which was granted. The Court did not believe a word of the victim's testimony after she was caught lying. NOT GUILTY!

Case: 07C5502XX
Case Conclusion Date: November 21, 2018
Practice Area: Criminal Defense
Outcome: UUW Conviction VACATED

Description: Another gun conviction successfully vacated under People v Aguilar. Client was convicted and sentenced to 30 months of probation back in 2007. Luckily he came upon my website and realized that his conviction qualified for a Motion to Vacate. I filed the proper motion, contacted the Cook County State's Attorney's Office in advance and they had no objection after researching his file. The Motion was granted and he is no longer a convicted felon. Additionally, I filed a Petition to Expunge his record so that neither the conviction nor the initial arrest will appear on a criminal background check.

Case: 17 OP 073XX
Case Conclusion Date: July 25, 2018
Practice Area: Domestic Violence
Outcome: Order of Protection DENIED

Description: My client, the Respondent, is the subject of an Order of Protection filed against him by his own mother. My client owned the property where they were both residing, in separate units, when he decided he wanted to sell the property. His mother refused to move and my client was forced to start eviction proceedings against her. In retaliation, and to stall the eviction process, his mother filed for this Order of Protection. Her attorney attempted to settle the matter but we refused based on the grounds that it would impact the eviction proceedings negatively towards my client. The matter was set for hearing. At the hearing I proceeded to question his mother, the Petitioner, about her actions towards my client AFTER the Order of Protection had been filed. Not only did she contact him numerous times via telephone (records presented at the hearing), but she also accosted the air conditioner repairman when he came to fix her air conditioning unit. The entire purpose of an Order of Protection is to prevent contact between the parties, which clearly she violated. After her testimony I asked the judge for a directed finding, which means that the Petitioner did not present enough evidence for the burden to shift to my client. The judge granted my motion, Order of Protection was denied and my client did not even have to testify on his behalf.

Case: 17 DV 754XX
Case Conclusion Date: May 15, 2018
Practice Area: Domestic Violence
Outcome: Not Guilty

Description: The matter began with the filing of an Order of Protection (OP) against my client by his ex-girlfriend. In the OP, she alleged that my client struck her on the buttocks multiple times while she was pregnant with this child. Three weeks goes by until my client is somehow arrested at the courthouse while appearing on the OP matter. She waited well over 2 months to file any charges against him for domestic battery. He was brought up stairs to a criminal judge for bond to be set. After hearing the charges and actually watching the video of the incident (which is not customary at a bond hearing), the judge gave my client an I-Bond (which means he posts no money to be released) and commented that she couldn't see who is even in the video. A few months go by and we finally get this matter set for trial. At the trial the State shows the video while the "victim" narrates the action. I ask a few questions and once the State rests their case, I ask the judge for a directed finding - meaning that the State has not proven their case beyond a reasonable doubt and thus there is no reason for the defense to put on its side of the case. The judge agreed and made the same comment about not being able to see anyone in the video or who did what to whom. Not Guilty!

Case Conclusion Date: May 09, 2018
Practice Area: Domestic violence
Outcome: Not Guilty

Description: My client is a 70 year old man who worked as an X-Ray technician for a local hospital for the past 11 years with no issues whatsoever. One day this girl walks in for x-rays, follows all of the instructions, and then walks out and says my client tried to pull her pants down and look at her vagina. One might think, "why would she possibly make up something like this if it didn't happen?" Well, turns out that the "victim" hired a civil law firm to sue my client and the hospital based on her allegations. Thus, she has motive to lie for monetary gain. The State's Attorney offered court supervision for three (3) months, which is not a conviction and can be expunged two years after completion. That is a very fair offer but I advised my client not to take the offer as he would still have to enter a plea of guilty and that could be used against him in the civil action. He agreed, the matter was set for trial and my client was found NOT GUILTY!

Case: Default Order of Protection - Vacated
Case Conclusion Date: February 14, 2018
Practice Area: Domestic violence
Outcome: Order vacated, petition dismissed and vacated

Description: A new client reached out to me from Connecticut informing me that he has an order of protection out of Chicago, which was entered against him back in 2016. He had no idea a Petition for an Order of Protection had even been filed against him by an ex-girlfriend. Upon applying for new employment, a background check showed that a Default Order of Protection was entered against him. The Court may enter a default order only after a Respondent has been (a) personally served by the Sheriff or (b) if service was effectuated by publication in a local newspaper. If the Respondent was in fact served, and fails to appear in court on the proper court date, then the Court will often enter an Order of Default. In my client’s case, after a careful review of the file, I was able to determine that he was never served properly. A local sheriff left a copy of the Petition at my client’s residence, but did not personally serve my client. I filed a Motion to Vacate the Default Order of Protection, which the Court granted. Further, I was able to eventually convince the Court to dismiss the entire matter and vacate all orders.

Case: 17 OP 731XX
Case Conclusion Date: December 20, 2017
Practice Area: Criminal defense
Outcome: Order of Protection Denied

Description: This order of protection case was a bit more interesting. I represented the Respondent who had a prior dating relationship with the Petitioner. At some point during the relationship, the Petitioner began receiving numerous telephone calls and even person visits from strangers stating they received his information via online dating profile sites, mostly of the sexual variety. The Petitioner did not post these profiles. For some reason, the Petitioner decided that my client was creating these false profiles. Additionally, someone put up flyers around the Petitioner's neighborhood making defamatory statements about him. Again, he blamed my client. The only issue that was a problem for my client is that he did meet with the Petitioner at the end of their relationship and apologized for his actions and stated that everything would stop. My client unfortunately also texted this apology to the Petitioner, which was presented at the hearing. The Petitioner's attorney make my client an offer: agree to a one year order of protection with an addendum, or agreement, that IF there were no violations of the Order, then after the one year period ended, they would agree to vacate the Order of Protection, thereby removing it from his criminal background. As my client was adamant that he did not do what he was accused of, he refused and the matter went to hearing. Everything went well – the Petitioner presented his evidence, which unfortunately was purely circumstantial and coincidental, as he could not prove that it was my client who was falsifying profiles and posting flyers in his neighborhood. The judge did want to hear what my client was apologizing for exactly, and after his testimony, the judge ruled in our favor. The Order of Protection was DENIED and DISMISSED!

Case: 931335956XX
Case Conclusion Date: December 12, 2017
Practice Area: Criminal defense
Outcome: Misdemeanor UUW Vacated

Description: This was another Aguilar type of motion to vacate and dismiss a gun charge. In this matter, my client was convicted in 1993 for the misdemeanor offense of unlawful use of weapon. The conviction for this older offense became an issue when my client was sentenced on a federal drug charge to the federal penitentiary for 35 years – I did not handle the federal matter. Because of this prior gun charge, he was given a level 44 under the federal sentencing guidelines. The prior gun charge enhanced his sentencing level by 12 points. By vacating this prior charge, his sentence could possibly be reduced by 13 years. In 2013, the case of People v. Aguilar, held that the unlawful use of weapons statute is unconstitutional, and as such, my client’s 1993 conviction should and has been vacated.

Case: 13 CR 136XX
Case Conclusion Date: October 07, 2017
Practice Area: Criminal defense
Outcome: Felony reduced to Misdemeanor

Description: This is one of my favorite recent cases, and it wasn't a trial. To give some background, my client was charged with ten counts, most of which were aggravated unlawful use of weapon charges. This was the situation. My client's elderly father was involved in an altercation with another party while in the drive-thru lane at a McDonald's. His father felt threatened and called his some to come help him. Well, unfortunately, my client came to his aid while in the possession of an illegal firearm. No matter what the circumstances, if you do not possess a FOID card, you cannot possess a firearm in the City of Chicago. The penalty, upon a plea or finding of guilty, is a sentence in the Illinois Department of Corrections, otherwise known as prison. Probation is not an option. The case started in 2013. After about a year or so, after reviewing all of the evidence and having a few of the counts dismissed, I prepared a mitigation packet for the State's Attorney to review in the hope of obtaining a reduced charge of some sort. It took over 2 years for the State to finally make a determination as to my client's fate. Part of this was due to changes in personnel at the court level but the main factor was the change of the State's Attorney herself, from Anita Alvarez to Kim Foxx. Once Kim Foxx was sworn into office, she allowed her Assistant State's Attorneys more discretion on how to dispose of their cases. After reviewing my mitigation packet and my client's lack of background, they offered my client a reducer from a felony to a misdemeanor. No prison time whatsoever!

Case: 17-1999XX – Battery
Case Conclusion Date: October 05, 2017
Practice Area: Criminal defense
Outcome: Not Guilty

Description: In this matter, my client is the Assistant Manager of a hotel located in downtown Chicago. The allegations were that while she was reprimanding an associate, she grabbed him by the shoulders, shook him violently and shoved him into a doorway, causing injury. The State offered my client deferred prosecution, which means that if she were to have completed what was required of her, the case would be dismissed. Once she learned that the “victim” was suing her employer as a result of this incident, she rejected the offer and the matter was set for trial.

There is no better defense to a charge of battery than being in possession of a video that depicts the entire incident, which the hotel had. After the complaining witness/victim testified, the State's Attorney played the video for the Court. The video clearly showed that my client did in fact touch the victim on the arm but in no fashion did she grab him or shove him. The Court found the testimony of the victim to be incredible and granted my motion for directed finding. Not Guilty!

Case: 17 OP 728XX – Order of Protection
Case Conclusion Date: October 04, 2017
Practice Area: Criminal defense
Outcome: Order of Protection DENIED

Description: This was a fairly simple one. The Respondent, my client, was being accused of stalking his neighbor. The Petitioner was alleging that: (1) my client accosted her because she was parking in a guest spot at their townhouse compound and as a result, his contractors were unable to park their vehicles, thus preventing them from working on my client's unit and charging him extra fees for a return trip. This was the reason for his visit to her unit. (2) she alleged that he was walking back and forth in front of her window, calling her out and making threats that she would be removed from the building. Stalking requires more than one event or occurrence under the statute. The Petitioner was unable to show that my client was stalking her in the first instance because all he was doing was trying to talk to her about the parking issue. Regarding the second allegation, the Petitioner was not even allowed to get into it as a result of the fact that her witness was never disclosed to the Respondent and she herself could not testify as to what occurred. The Court correctly ruled that the Order of Protection should be denied.

Case: 15 CR 155XX – Aggravated Battery/Mob Action
Case Conclusion Date: October 03, 2017
Practice Area: Criminal defense
Outcome: Dismissed

Description: Good things come to those who wait apparently. Case started back in 2015 and my client was charged with aggravated battery with bodily harm and mob action, both felony charges. Four defendants were charged with beating someone with a baseball bat while at a party, among other things. My client was allegedly the driver of one of the other three defendants. The State’s theory was that of accountability. What this means is that my client can be charged with the actions of the other defendants solely because he was “involved” at some point. Two of the defendants pled guilty and another went to trial. After reviewing the evidence and speaking with the witnesses, on the day of trial the State's Attorney realized he could not meet his burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt and dismissed all charges against my client!

Case: 16 OP 783XX Order of Protection
Case Conclusion Date: July 25, 2017
Practice Area: Domestic violence
Outcome: Order of Protection DENIED

Another Order of Protection (OP) denied! As usual, I represented the Respondent in an OP pending at 555 W. Harrison in Chicago. In this matter, my client was accused of cyberstalking a woman he used to date. The problem with her case is that the alleged "stalking" came from posts he allegedly made on Instagram that she felt were directed towards her. The interesting issue with this is that Instagram is not like other social media sites. First, someone can only post pictures on Instagram with hashtags placed underneath the pictures. Second, you can only view the pictures and hashtags IF you decide to follow that poster or just view their page(s). In this case, the woman had to avail herself to those posts on purpose to even be able to see what was posted. I argued that even if my client was the person behind the posts, she had to make the effort to actually view the posts and even then, the posts were innocuous and her name was never even mentioned. I argued to the Court that if she was so traumatized by these posts, which occurred for over a month, why was she even looking at them? The judge agreed that the only stalking that was being performed, was by her!

Case: 17 OP 502XX 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 1XX 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: 16-2103XX 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 660214XX 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: 161210275XX 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 -12102XX - 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 753XX - 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 709XX - 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 738XX - 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 0058XX - 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 71XX – 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 704XX - 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!