A win for a defense attorney can be hard to define. Oftentimes, a win could mean we negotiate a fantastic plea deal after we file several motions and bar several pieces of evidence.
Or sometimes, we get a win for our client when witnesses fail to show up for trial. Trust me, all defense attorneys have these “wins” under their belt, including myself. These are important victories, don’t get me wrong. But to get the most out of your defense attorney, they need to be able to win at trial. This page will highlight cases that a jury or judge decided. It highlights cases where the government would not back off major consequences, but my client chose to make them prove it.
Every case is different and past results in no way indicate how a future trial or hearing would go.
People vs. DJ
Facts:
DJ is a defendant with immigration issues and had been living in the United States for over 6 years. He was charged with 4 counts of Domestic Battery after an incident with his now ex-wife. There were severe allegations levied against DJ. Alcohol was a major factor for both parties.
Offer:
The best offer the State made my client was to plead guilty to Domestic Battery and serve 90 days in the McHenry County Jail. Having immigration issues, taking the State’s offer could have resulted in immigration proceedings that could have resulted in DJ’s deportation.
Trial:
With his back to the wall and facing potential deportation, the jury found that the actions taken by DJ constituted self-defense. After a 3-day jury trial in which 6 people testified, including the alleged victim and the Defendant, and after 2 hours of deliberations, the jury returned with DJ being found NOT GUILTY of all 4 counts of Domestic Battery.
People v. EC
Facts:
EC was terminally ill with cancer and was going through a difficult time with his living situation. An incident occurred in which his wife and teenage children attacked him, the police were called, and everyone ganged up on him and he was hauled away in handcuffs with 6 misdemeanors. After bond court the next morning, he was permanently barred from returning to his residence.
Offer:
The State’s best offer was for EC to plead guilty to Domestic Battery and serve 30 days in jail. Given his dire medical condition, the last thing EC wanted to do was spend some of his final days in a jail cell.
Trial:
So, we went to trial. All 3 alleged victims and 2 police officers highlighted the State’s case, and EC testified in his own Defense. EC did a fantastic job telling the jury about how he was attacked and that he was only acting in self-defense. After an hour and thirty minutes, the jury returned NOT GUILTY verdicts on all 6 counts.
People v. DC
Facts:
DC was a defendant with multiple prior DUI offenses. He was charged and arrested for DUI and blew a 0.334, more than 4 times the legal limit. The police received a driving complaint from an anonymous caller stating that DC was stumbling to his car at a gas station. The police came across the alleged vehicle and stopped DC when he pulled into his own driveway. I reviewed the video evidence and the police report, and it did not add up. I filed a motion to quash arrest and suppress evidence, and we went to hearing.
Motion to Quash Hearing:
At the hearing, the police officer testified that he crossed paths with the vehicle and noticed that his headlights were not turned on at a time when the driver’s windshield wipers were turned on due to rain. This would be a valid basis to pull somebody over, because in Illinois, if your wipers are on, headlights are required.
After the police officer testified, I presented the video to the Court. The video evidence contradicted the officer’s testimony. The officer never crossed paths with the vehicle and, furthermore, the vehicles headlights were ON in the video. After a hearing, the judge granted my motion to quash arrest and suppress evidence based on an unlawful stop of the vehicle. DC’s 3rd DUI arrest was dismissed by the Prosecutor after the judge suppressed all the evidence including the stop.
People v. EX (Expunged)
Facts:
EX was pulled over in Crystal Lake for not using their blinker on their way home from the bar. EX admitted to a couple drinks, failed 2 of the 3 field sobriety tests, and after they were arrested, blew a 0.093, just over the 0.08 limit. This was the first time that EX was arrested for DUI.
Offer:
The best offer the prosecutor made was for EX to plead guilty to a DUI and be placed on court supervision, not a terrible outcome given that they blew over 0.08. But they were young and did a pretty good job on the field sobriety tests, and they wanted to take the case to trial.
Trial:
During the police officer’s testimony, I made several key objections surrounding the breathalyzer result. As a result of the judge’s rulings, I was able to keep the 0.093 breathalyzer result from ever being introduced as a piece of evidence. The jury deliberated for about 30 minutes and came back with a NOT GUILTY of DUI verdict and EX has since expunged the DUI arrest from their record, almost like it never happened.
People v. EN
Facts:
EN was pulled because she forgot to turn on her headlights and tail lights in the well lit downtown area of Crystal Lake. She admitted to having 3 drinks, failed all 3 field sobriety tests, blew a .152 on a preliminary breath test, and was arrested for DUI. She refused to blow at the station.
Offer:
EN had a prior DUI supervision on her record, and since this was her 2nd DUI arrest, the prosecutor’s best offer was to plead guilty to a DUI and be convicted of it with a choice of 5 days in jail or 240 hours of public service work. The conviction would have revoked EN’s driver’s license, and she didn’t want that to happen.
Trial:
I was able to demonstrate to the jury the officer’s lack of knowledge in the administration of the field sobriety tests at trial through a rigorous cross examination. Since the jury is not allowed to hear about the preliminary breath test of 0.152, they agreed that the officer’s administration and evaluation of the field sobriety tests left them with reasonable doubt, and after 45 minutes of deliberating, said that EN was NOT GUILTY of DUI.
EN did not have her license revoked.
People v. CR
Facts:
CR was stopped by the Sheriff for crossing a few lane lines, or improper lane usage. The deputy said he had poor balance and motor skills, glassy and bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, and a strong odor of an alcoholic beverage on his breath. CR failed all 3 field sobriety tests and blew a .162 on a preliminary breath test before he was placed under arrest for DUI.
Offer:
This was CR’s first and only arrest for DUI, and the State wanted him to plead guilty to DUI and be placed on court supervision, forever putting a DUI on CR’s record. He did not want that.
Trial:
After rigorous cross examination of 2 Sheriff’s Deputies with hundreds of DUI arrests made between the two of them, I presented video footage of CR in the booking room contradicting some of the deputies’ contentions of poor balance and motor skills. After 3 hours and 30 minutes of deliberating, the jury came back unanimous that CR was NOT GUILTY of DUI.
CR does not have a DUI on his record.
People v. EX
Facts:
EX was leaving her ex-boyfriends house. Unbeknownst to her, her ex-boyfriend called the cops and said she had drugs in her trunk. The cops waited outside for her to leave and when she finally did, they pulled her over and said it was for an obstructed windshield. They subsequently searched her trunk and charged her with Possession of Methamphetine, Possession of Cannabis, and Open Alcohol.
Offer:
The state had a Class 3 felony charge of Possession of Methamphetine. They did not make an offer prior to the filing of a Motion to Quash Arrest and Suppress Evidence. Something was fishy about the anonymous tip and the stop.
Motion to Quash Hearing:
Several officers testified, and none of them had a straight story about who pulled over the vehicle. The Judge found that the officers were not credible, quashed the arrest, and suppressed all the evidence found by the police after the stop. The state dismissed all charges that day.
People v. JD
Facts:
JD is a single father with full custody of his 16 year old son. His 16 year old was upset at his dad for some of the rules around the house. A disagreement ultimately led to JD being charged and arrested for Domestic Battery.
Offer:
The state made an offer to amend the charge to a class C misdemeanor of Disorderly Conduct after being presented mitigation. JD didn’t want to be guilty of anything and had already lost his job due to the charge. He wanted a trial.
Trial:
After his son and a police officer testified, JD had his chance to tell the jury what happened. In Illinois, parents have the right to use reasonable discipline on their children and a situation caused him to take reasonable actions. After 30 minutes of deliberating, the jury said JD was NOT GUILTY of Domestic Battery.
People v. CS
Facts:
CS was charged with Criminal Damage to Property when he allegedly broke the glass door of a bar by kicking it open as he exited. There were surveillance cameras and everything.
Offer:
The state wanted CS to plead guilty to Criminal Damage to Property, a class A misdemeanor. He didn’t want to, so we took the case to jury trial.
Trial:
The state presented video evidence, testimony from an eye witness from inside the bar, and testimony from the officer who investigated the incident. After some decent cross examination and a solid closing argument, the jury agreed that the state had not proven their case beyond a reasonable doubt and found CS NOT GUILTY of Criminal Damage to Property.
Orders of Protection:
I have represented dozens of clients on either side of requests for Order’s of Protection or No Contact/No Stalking Orders. Many of these types of cases get resolved short of a contested hearing through agreements, divorce proceedings, or even dismissals. While the standard of proof is a bit different in civil proceedings, I have significant experience handling these mini-trials that occur on an expedited basis. Whether a petitioner or a respondent, an order of protection can cause significant issues or challenges that an attorney can assist with. I highly recommend consulting with an attorney for questions about Orders of Protection or No Contact Orders.
Here is an example of a more complicated hearing I did for a Petitioner:
Client v. stalker
Facts:
Client came to me completely terrified of her ex-boyfriend, now stalker, and sought help obtaining an order of protection. This was no ordinary case. Stalker had eluded criminal charges numerous times, causing property damage on many occasions, and outright terrifying her on others. Eventually, criminal charges were filed, but my client needed an Order of Protection.
The difficult part of this hearing was going to be presenting more than 25 different pieces of evidence, including security camera footage, photographs, audio recordings, and business records to establish that this guy was terrorizing my client.
Order of Protection Hearing:
None of the evidence was admitted by stipulation or by agreement. I presented the evidence the old fashioned way, and the judge heard it all and saw it all. After a several-days-long contested hearing for her Order of Protection, the judge granted a 2-year OP and awarded significant monetary damages caused by the stalker.