People v. GS
Client was charged with Felony Possession of a Controlled Substance. The case was dismissed at the Preliminary Hearing Stages.
People v. DS
Our Client was Charged with Felony Possession of a Cannabis. The Police claimed that they were in an area known for high narcotics and gang activity. While in the area, they allegedly saw our Client suspiciously throw a yellow package into the open window of a parked car. The decided to conduct a field interview and observed the yellow package on the floor of the parked car. Inside the package, the Police discovered a large amount of cannabis in multiple packages. A further custodial search of our Client revealed additional packages of cannabis. All charges were dismissed at the Preliminary Hearing.
People v. DG
Our Client was charged with Felony Driving on a Revoked or a Suspended License. Our Client was pulled over for a minor traffic violation. During the Police investigation, they learned that our Client's license was suspended. All Charges were dismissed at the Preliminary Hearing.
People v. JG
Our Client was charged with Felony Possession of Cannabis within 1000 feet of a school. The Police allegedly pulled our Client's vehicle over because of broken taillights. They claimed our Client didn't have a driver's license. As a result they arrested him, and searched his person. While searching our Client, the Police allegedly recovered 25 bags of cannabis from his pocket. All of the charges were dismissed at the Preliminary Hearing.
People v. RG - Felony Unlawful Use of a Weapon & Felony Manufacturing and Delivery of Cannabis
Our Client was charged with Felony Unlawful Use of a Weapon by a Convicted Felon and Felony Manufacturing and Delivery of Cannabis. He was facing up to 14 years in prison due to a prior gun conviction. The police claimed that they saw our Client sitting in a vehicle that was parked on abandoned property. As the police approached to investigate, they smelled a strong odor of cannabis coming from our Client and his vehicle. The Police looked inside of the car and saw what they believed to be the handle of a gun protruding from under the driver's seat. They searched under the seat and recovered a loaded gun. A further search of the car revealed 74 baggies of cannabis. The prosecution was offering 7 years in prison. We had a conference with the judge and were able to negotiate the minimum of 3 years.
People v. TD - Felony Aggravated Unlawful Use of a Weapon
Our Client was charged with Felony Aggravated Unlawful Use of a Weapon. The Police claimed to have seen our Client along with several other males drinking an amber colored liquid from clear plastic cups. Believing that a violation of Drinking on the Public Way was occurring, 7 squads and 15+ officers began to chase the males, who scattered. Our Client was allegedly caught in a building courtyard placing a gun on the ground. After being arrested, our Client allegedly made a confession and the gun was sent to forensics for testing and analysis. None of the incident was recorded on body cameras or squad dash cameras. None of the alleged alcohol was preserved or tested. Fingerprint testing of the gun came back negative for our Client's prints. The alleged confession wasn't recorded in any way -- no video, no audio, no written statement. We took our Client's case to Jury Trial and the verdict was a unanimous NOT GUILTY!
People v. EB
Police were responding to a call of shots fired with a description of 2 people running from the scene. Our Client was seen running from the scene with another individual. At trial, the Officer testified that he saw the other individual give the gun to our Client. Our Client then allegedly tried to hide under a car and push the gun away. We successfully argued that our Client had no choice other than to briefly possess the gun when the other individual threw it our Client and did what anyone would do and tried to immediately get rid of it. The Judge agreed stating that our Client had 2 choices: 1.) Get rid of the gun or 2.) Keep the gun, and risk getting shot by the police officers who were arriving. Our Client made the right choice, didn't get shot and was found not guilty!
People v. CB
Client was charged with Felony Manufacturing and Delivery of 30 - 500 Grams of Cannabis. He was facing up to 5 years in prison. The case was dismissed at the Preliminary Hearing.
People v. FP
Client was charged with Possession of 2000 - 5000 Grams of Cannabis with Intent to Deliver. The Police intercepted an overnight delivery package addressed to our Client at UPS. The package contained 10 lbs of Cannabis. The Police formed a plan to engage in an undercover operation to deliver the package. Officers planted an electronic monitoring device inside the package. Then an Undercover Officer posing as a UPS worker attempted to deliver the package to our Client. When no one answered the door the package was left on the porch. Eventually, our Client came out and retrieved the package. The device inside the package alerted the Officers that the package was opened and they forced entry into our Client's house. Allegedly, the Cannabis had been removed and our Client was in the middle of a drug deal with another individual. The Police claimed that our Client confessed to trying to deliver the Cannabis. The main problem with the prosecution's case was that even though the Police went through all the trouble of intercepting the package, having a narcotics dog check it for drugs, obtaining one warrant to open it, fixing it with an electronic monitoring device, obtaining another search warrant for our Client's house, creating an undercover operation and executing that operation - all within the span of a couple of hours - the Police never video recorded the sting operation! The Police never recorded our Client's alleged confession. They didn't even bother to write it out in crayon and have our Client sign it. We took our case to Jury Trial, and when asked why there wasn't any video surveillance footage, the officer claimed that his unit was not provided with the necessary equipment to record the operation. When pressed about why, in this day and age of cell phones, was this incident not recorded in some way? The Officer claimed he didn't know how to use his cell phone and didn't know if any of the other officers knew how to use their phones. The Jury clearly saw through this gaping hole in the case and the verdict was NOT GUILTY!!!
People v. GA
Our Client was charged with Felony Possession of a Controlled Substance. The Police observed our Client standing near a dumpster in the alley. Of course he couldn't have been throwing out the garbage so they had to investigate. Our Client allegedly tossed an object to the ground as the Police approached. That object was allegedly recovered and allegedly tested positive for cocaine. All charges were dismissed at the Preliminary Hearing.
Page 12 of 34