People v. JP - Felony Possession of a Controlled Substance
Our Client was charged with Felony Possession of a Controlled Substance. Our Client was driving a vehicle thru and alley and was pulled over for allegedly using the alley as a thru-way. The Police claim that after giving them his driver's license and insurance, our Client allegedly told them "I have some dope on me." The Police ordered our Client out of the vehicle and recovered narcotics from his person. We were able to avoid a prosecution altogether and the charges were dismissed during the Preliminary Hearing Stages of the case.
People v. RN
Our Client was charged with Felony Armed Violence and Possession of Methamphetamine. He was facing a mandatory prison sentence of 18-37 years if convicted. State Troopers pulled our Client over for talking on his cell phone while driving on the expressway. The Trooper claimed that there was a strong odor of cannabis coming from our Client's vehicle. There were 3 additional passengers in the vehicle. After pulling our Client out of the vehicle, our Client told the trooper that he had an AK pistol in the car. It was determined that our Client was properly permitted to be in possession of such a weapon. However, when the trooper went to search the vehicle, the weapon was found inside of a red bag (just as our Client said it would be), but there was also a large amount of Meth inside the bag as well. The entire incident was recorded on the dash cam of the State Police vehicle. The issue in the case was whether or not there was proof beyond a reasonable doubt that our Client knew about the meth because the other 3 passengers were left alone in the vehicle for several minutes while the trooper dealt with our Client in the squad car. The prosecution offered to dismiss the Possession charge in exchange for a sentence recommendation of 15 years in prison. We rejected that offer and went to trial. Even though the trooper testified that he kept an eye on the other passengers while dealing with our Client, we were able to show from the video that he couldn't have. The trooper's vision was blocked by our Client's body at certain points as well as by the limo tinted windows of the vehicle. Our Client was found Not Guilty of ALL charges.
People v. AG
TheClient was charged with Felony Manufacturing and Delivery of a Controlled Substance. The Police alleged that they saw our Client talking to someone in a double parked car. According to the police, this meant she was engaged in a drug transaction. They claim they saw her adjusting the waistband of her pants. They felt they had enough to stop and search her. They allegedly recovered narcotics from her waistband. What they forgot to mention in any of the reports is that our Client was VERY pregnant at the time. (which explains why she would be adjusting the waistband of her pants). We filed a Motion to Quash Arrest and Suppress Evidence claiming that the Police violated our Client's rights when they searched her simply for talking to someone in a vehicle and adjusting her pants. The Judge agreed, and the case was dismissed.
People v. VH
Client was charged with Felony Unlawful Use of a Weapon. We set our Client's case for trial and the verdict was Not Guilty!
People v. DW - Felony Manufacturing and Delivery of a Controlled Substance Near a School
Our Client was charged with 3 Class X cases of Manufacturing and Delivery of a Controlled Substance Near a School. He was facing up to 30 years in prison. It was alleged that our Client made multiple drug sales on different days to an undercover officer near a school. The sales were recorded by CPD POD Camera. Despite our Client's previous felony background, we were able to convince the prosecution to reduce to charges to simple possessions and offer a deal of 4 years at 50%. Our Client happily accepted.
People v. MK
Client was charged with Felony Possession of a Controlled Substance. The case was dismissed at the Preliminary Hearing Stages.
People v. KR
Our Client was charged with Felony Attempt First Degree Murder, Felony Armed Robbery, Felony Compelling Organizational Membership, Felony Unlawful Restraint, Felony Aggravated Battery, and Felony Mob Action. It was alleged that our Client, an alleged gang member, and several other alleged gang members approached 2 victims on a CTA train platform. The victims were surrounded by the group. One member of the group brandished a machete and placed it on the back of the neck of one of the victims. Another of the group took a hat from one of the Victims. The Victims stated that the group demanded to know what gang the 2 Victims were in. When the Victims replied that they were not in a gang and tried to defend themselves, the individual with the machete began to violently swing the machete striking one of the victims several times in the head - severely injuring him. Our Client placed himself between the machete wielding assailant and the Victim in an attempt to stop the attack. The entire incident was caught on video surveillance. We set our Client's case for jury trial. Due to the strength of our case, on the day the trial was supposed to start, the prosecution made an offer our Client couldn't refuse. We negotiated an agreement with the prosecution to drop all the charges except the Unlawful Restraint Charge and give our Client time considered served.
People v. KP
Client was charged with Felony Possession of a Controlled Substance. The case was dismissed at the Preliminary Hearing Stages.
People v. NH - Felony Possession of a Controlled Substance
Our Client was charged with Felony Possession of a Controlled Substance. The Police executed a search warrant looking for narcotics at our Client's house. Once inside, they recovered a loaded firearm and narcotics. Our Client allegedly admitted that the gun and drugs were his. All charges were dismissed at the Preliminary Hearing.
People v. VL
Client was charged with Felony Aggravated Unlawful Use of a Weapon. The case was dismissed after litigating a Motion to Quash Arrest and Suppress Evidence. The Judge found that the police who were responding to a call of shots fired had no information connecting Client to the shots fired and, therefore, had no reason to search him and recover a weapon.
Page 32 of 34