People v. OP
Our Client was charged with Felony Driving on a Revoked or a Suspended License. The Police stopped our Client because they claimed that he failed to stop at a stop sign and that he was not wearing a seatbelt. When they ran his license, they discovered that it was revoked. All charged were dismissed at the Preliminary Hearing!
People v. DL
Client was charged with a Class 3 - Felony Unlawful Use of a Weapon - 1000 feet of a school. The Police, who were investigating a battery, say they saw our Client and other people sitting on the steps of a school. They patted our Client down and discovered a weapon in his pocket. We filed a Motion to Quash Arrest and Suppress Evidence claiming the Police violated our Client's rights when they searched him. Just prior to litigating the Motion, the prosecution made an offer of 5 years in prison (the max). We then held a conference with the Judge and were able to work out probation for our Client.
People v. SA
Client was charged with Possession of a Controlled Substance. Surveillance Officers claim to have witnessed the driver of a vehicle that our Client was a passenger of exit the vehicle and approach another parked vehicle. After a brief conversation, the driver of our Client's vehicle gave the driver of the other vehicle some money and received several objects in return. Then the driver returned to the vehicle where our Client was still waiting and drove away. Believing a narcotics transaction had occurred, the Surveillance Officers radioed the Enforcement Officers who then pulled our Client's vehicle over. The Enforcement Officers claim that as they approached, the driver passed some paper object to our Client in the passenger seat in the car who then placed the object in her bra. All right in front of the Officer. When the Officer asked what was in her bra, our Client said "it's just some blows," and then gave the Officers 12 tinfoil packets of heroin. The charges were dismissed at the Preliminary Hearing.
People v. AR
Our Client was charged with Felony Possession of a Controlled Substance. Police were serving a search warrant looking for an individual other than our Client. Although the person the police were looking for was not present in our Client's house, the police did allegedly recovered 52 bags of narcotics totaling over 10 grams. We set our Client's case for trial. While previewing our case to the prosecution prior to trial, they saw the stregnth of our position. Instead of proceeding to trial, the prosecution dismissed the case!
People v. TG
Our Client was charged with Felony Manufacturing and Delivery of a Look-A-Like Substance. It was alleged that he arranged and sold "fake" drugs to an undercover officer. Even though our Client was looking at up to 5 years in prison, we were able to negotiate a deal with the Judge for probation with drug treatment.
People v. CT
Our Client was charged with Felony Possession of Cannabis. Our Client was facing up to 3 years in prison if convicted. It was alleged that our Client was pulled over by State Troopers for speeding. When the Trooper approached, he allegedly smelled a strong odor of burnt cannabis coming from the vehicle. Our Client was the driver of the vehicle, and his wife and infant child were passengers. Our Client allegedly admitted to driving on a suspended license. A search of the vehicle revealed cannabis in the trunk. Our Client then attempted to flee on foot and was eventually detained and subdued after the trooper had threatened to fire his taser. Although the case went beyond the Preliminary Hearing Stages, we were able to successfully avoid prison for our Client. We were able to convince the prosecution to offer our Client probation.
People v. KM
Client was charged with Felony Theft. It was alleged that our Client, a truck driver, stole a trailer full of tires valued at approximately $85,000 during the course of his employment. The prosecution had video of the truck showing the truck number that our Client admitted to driving while pulling the stolen trailer. In a pre-trial conference, the Judge was adamant that he would not offer our Client a deal for probation...any deal would consist of a prison sentence of between 3-7 years of incarceration. We took the case to trial. After vigorous cross examination of all of the prosecution's witnesses, the Judge stopped the trial to hold a conference. During the conference, the Judge conceded that the Prosecution's case was not as strong as he initially believed. As a result, we were able to cut a deal for our Client for only 18 months of probation and NO RESTITUTION!
People v. DG
Client was charged with Felony Possession of a Controlled Substance. The case was dismissed during the Preliminary Hearing Stages.
People v. JR
Our Client was in court for Failing to Reduce Speed to avoid an accident with major injuries. Our Client was crossing an intersection when he was struck by a speeding vehicle. The occupants of the other vehicle were taken to the hospital. All of the charges were dismissed.
People v. MS
Our Client was charged with Felony Unlawful Use of a Weapon by a Convicted Felon and Felony Possession of a Controlled Substance. The Police served a search warrant at an address they claimed was the residence of our Client. Our Client was not present while the police executed the search warrant and was arrested hours later, miles away. There were, however, other adults present at the location while the search warrant was served. Even though the search warrant limited the search of the Officers to the 1st floor of the 2 flat apartment building, the Officers took it upon themselves to search the basement. While searching the basement, the Officers claim to have recovered, from a bedroom, narcotics and ammunition as well as a letter addressed to our Client with the address of the search warrant on it. We took our Client's case to trial. At trial, several of the officers testified inconsistently. One officer testified that the residence that was searched was a single family home with a mid apartment exit door which led to the basement. Another testified that there was no door leading to the basement. An evidence technician who photographed all the evidence testified that the letter was recovered from the basement bedroom (where he photographed it). However, the evidence technician must've forgotten that he had testified under oath at another hearing that the letter was recovered from an upstairs dining room. When asked about his inconsistency, he said "I was mistaken." The prosecution presented photographs of the 1st floor to the court. However, none of those photographs showed any of the bedrooms upstairs. In fact, one of the officers claimed that there wasn't a bedroom upstairs, when it was clear from the photographs that the person taking the photograph was standing in the door frame of the bedroom. The verdict was Not Guilty and our Client was Acquitted!
Page 8 of 34