On August 9, 2011, in the matter of  People of the State of Illinois v. G.N., in the Circuit Court of Cook County, 26th and California, the Class X charges of Possession with the Intent to Distribute Cannabis against Sheppards’ client were reduced and the defendant was given probation.  The Class X charges are non-probationable and carry a mandatory minimum of six years’ imprisonment.  The defendant had been charged with possession of over 75 lbs of cannabis after an Illinois State Police narcotics and money laundering task force searched his residence and garage pursuant to a search warrant.   The Sheppard Law Firm filed several pretrial motions challenging the search, including a Motion for a Franks Hearing and a Motion to Quash Arrest & Suppress Evidence.  Prior to argument on the Motion for a Franks Hearing, the prosecution offered Sheppards’ client probation on an amended charge.    The defendant was placed on probation with no jail time.

On August 4, 2011, in the matter of People of the State of Illinois v. J.R., in the Fourth Municipal District, Maywood, Illinois, Sheppard Law Firm’s client was found “not-guilty” of Battery to his employee, a cocktail waitress.  The complaint alleged that the defendant committed the criminal offense of “Battery” in that, without consent, he stroked the complainant’s face, squeezed her around the torso area, and attempted kissing her.  On cross-examination, Barry Sheppard impeached the complainant regarding her allegation about the touching on the torso area and adduced a concession that she was angry at the defendant for refusing to pay her the hourly rate that she had requested.  In closing argument, Sheppard Law Firm introduced caselaw regarding the uncorroborated testimony of a prosecutrix who had bias against a defendant.   Sheppard Law Firm further argued that the acts testifed to by the complaining witness did not rise to the level of a crime.  The trial judge agreed that the testimony of the complaining witness was not sufficiently credible and that the acts that she described did not constitute a “battery,” within the meaning of the criminal code.  Accordingly, the defendant was found not-guilty of the charges.