In the case of People of the State of Illinois v. J.C. (9/15/10) at the Daley Center, Chicago, Adam Sheppard obtained a dismissal of the DUI charges against his client.   Sheppard started filing Speedy Trial Demands after the police officer was not present on the first trial date and persisted in those written demands at all subsequent court dates.  The officer was not present on the last day of the 160-day Speedy Trial term and the State was forced to dismiss all charges against the defendant.

Adam Sheppard also obtained a rescission of the defendant’s one-year statutory summary suspension following a hearing wherein the Court held that the defendant was not properly read the Warnings to Motorist which officers must recite to a motorist prior to asking him to submit to a breathalyzer test.

In the case of People of the State of Illinois v. O.G. (9/15/10) at the criminal courthouse, 26th and California, the Court granted Adam Sheppard’s Motion to Quash Arrest and Suppress Evidence on behalf of his client.  Chicago Police Officers had approached the defendant and another individual based on their observation of the young men rolling car tires down the street at 1:30 a.m. in an area that was known for thefts.   The defendant had appeared nervous when police officers questioned him and he could not provide an explanation over ownership of the tires.  The officer handcuffed the defendant and conducted a pat down search of his person, which resulted in a seizure of a loaded firearm from the defendant’s waistband.  

At the hearing on the Motion to Quash Arrest and Suppress Evidence, Adam Sheppard adduced from the police officer that he was not responding to a call about a theft of tires or an auto-theft and that he was patrolling the area because he knew it to be an area riddled by thefts.   The officer could not recall whether the tires had rims or whether the rims were removed.   Sheppard’s motion cited to an Illinois Appellate Court Case where a the court held that officers were not justified in seizing a defendant who was pushing a bicycle late at night in an area known for thefts and vandalism.  Sheppard also contested the pat-down search of the defendant, arguing that even if the initial stop was justified, the officer did not have an articulable, reasonable suspicion that the defendant was armed and dangerous.

The court granted the motion to suppress, agreeing that the defendant’s act of rolling tires down the street in the early morning hours, even in an area that had been plagued by thefts, was insufficient to justify the seizure and search that occurred in this case.

Adam Sheppard’s Article on Justice Stevens and Federal Sentencing Matters

On August 31, 2010, in the matter of People of the State of Illinois v. K.M., at Branch 29, Belmont & Western, Adam and Barry Sheppard won an acquittal for their client, K.M., a 73 year-old Orthodox Jew who was accused of punching his downstairs neighbor 12-15 times and kicking her.   The complainant testified that she went upstairs to knock on K.M.’s door to ask him to turn his television down and to stop playing his acoustic guitar and singing.  The complainant was also bothered by creaky floor boards in the defendant’s apartment.  On cross-examination, the complainant denied that she was using the judicial process as a means of reprimanding the defendant for the noise disturbances.   The complainant was then impeached with a note that she had written four months before the incident in question where she had threatened to call the police based on the noise.   Barry Sheppard also cross-examined the complainant about whether she had photographed her injuries, sought medical treatment or informed any of her friends or family of her injuries.  The complainant revealed that she did not have any friends in the area.  Nor was there any other corroboration of the complainant’s injuries.  Sheppard also explored the complainant’s bias against the defendant’s practice of orthodox Judaism or whether there were any issues in the complainant’s social life that resulted in her having a ”displaced embitterment” against men in general.

On direct examination, Adam Sheppard walked K.M. through his version of events.  K.M. testified that he was roused from his sleep by loud pounding on the door and that when he opened the door abruptly, the complainant stepped backwards, falling over shoes that had been left in the hallway.  K.M. denied ever touching the complainant.

In closing argument, Adam Sheppard emphasized the lack of corroboration of the complainant’s purported injuries, the three week time lag between the filing of the complaint and the date of the alleged offense, and the complainant’s lack of credibility.   The trial judge found the defendant “not guilty.”