In the case of People of the State of Illinois v. N.V. (Dec., 2011), in Branch 29, Belmont and Western, Sheppard Law Firm obtained an acquittal on behalf of its client who was charged with three counts of battery and Criminal Damage to Property.  Adam Sheppard was sucessful in obtaining a dismissal of the battery counts prior to trial but the State proceeded with the charge of Criminal Damage to Property.  The case arose out of an in a Wriggrelville bar where Sheppards’ client, a female, was involved a physical confrontation with two other females.  The fight spilled outside of the bar and onto a vehicle that was parked curbside.  The owner of the vehicle was across the street at a restaurant and witnessed the entire incident.   The witness testified that she saw the defendant “bash” another girl’s head into her vehicle which caused a dent to the front panel.  Sheppard’s defense at trial was that his client was acting in self-defense and that since the independent witness did not see how the fight began, there was no way for her to know whether the defendant was defending herself when the fight spilled onto the vehicle.  Sheppards’ client testified on her own behalf explaining that she was acting in self-defense at all times.  The trial judge found the defendant not guilty under the theory that defendant could have been acting in self-defense.

In the case of People of the State of Illinois v. W.A. (2012), in the Rolling Meadowws courthouse, Third Municipal District, Sheppard Law Firm obtained an acquittal on behalf of its client who was charged with Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol.  The defendant had been stopped for a traffic violation.  The officer smelled alcohol on defendant’s breath but also smelled cannabis in the vehicle and cannabis “blunts” were also recovered.  A videotape of the defendant’s arrest had shown the defendant with poor balance and failing the field sobriety tests.  Sheppard Law Firm advanced a legal defense at trial, arguing that there was reasonable doubt as to whether the defendant was under the influence of alcohol or whether he was under the influence of cannabis.  The State had not charged the defendant with driving under the combined influence of alcohol and cannabis.  Rather, the defendant had only been charged with driving under the influence of alcohol.  Given the charges,  Sheppard argued that the State was required to prove that it was alcohol which impaired the defendant.   The trial court agreed with Sheppard’s argument and found the defendant not guilty.