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.
November 14th, 2011
admin
On November 11, 2011, in the case of People of the of State of Illinois v. S.R., a DUI prosecution in the fourth municipal district, Maywood, the trial court granted defendant’s Motion to Quash Arrest and Suppress Evidence, thereby suppressing the breathalyzer results from evidence, and resulting in the State’s dismissal of the case. At a hearing on the Motion to Quash Arrest and Suppress Evidence, Adam Sheppard argued that the reason for the defendant’s stop — an improper turn in violation of section 11-801 of the Illinois Vehicle Code — was not legally justified. Mr. Sheppard presented the trial court with a copy of the statute and case law regarding section 11-801. The trial court determined that the stop was improper and granted defendant’s Motion to Quash Arrest and Suppress Evidence. Mr. Shppard had previously obtained a rescision of the statutory summary suspension in this cause following a hearing wherein a trial judge found that there was no probable cause for defendant’s arrest.
September 28th, 2011
admin
In the matter of People of the State of Illinois v. J.H. (2011), the defendant’s felony gun charge was reduced to a misdemeanor and the defendant received probation following extensive litigation on Sheppard Law Firm’s Motion to Suppress Evidence. Additionally, defendant’s other charge of Felony Disorderly Conduct (based an on allegation that defendant reported a rape in progress without having reasonable grounds for believing that a rape was actually occurring) was dismissed.
The amendment of the gun charge to a misdemeanor and the dismissal of the Felony Disorderly Conduct charge will allow the defendant to continue in his application for citizenship and it saves him from having to face immigration consequences that could have attached to felony convictions.
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.
In the case of People of the State of Illinois v. M.P., in Rolling Meadows, Third Municipal District, the Aggravated Domestic Battery charges against Sheppard Law Firm’s client were dismissed. When the Sheppards first met the defendant she was in custody in the Cook County Jail awaiting shipment to the Elgin Mental Health Center after a Cook County judge had found her unfit to stand trial. Sheppard Law Firm motioned the case back into court, obtained a second opinion regarding the defendant’s fitness to stand trial, and convinced the Cook County Mental Health Forensic Services to reverse its opinion regarding the defendant’s fitness to stand trial. Accordingly, the court also reversed its initial finding of unfitness and the defendant was released from custody. As to the case-in-chief, the charges of Aggravated Domestic Battery — the defendant had been accused of battering her mother-in-law — were dismissed.
On May 18, 2011, in the case of People of the State of Illinois v. J.B., Sheppard & Associates obtained an acquittal on behalf of their client on a charge of Attempt Murder, a Class X, non-probationable felony. The complaining witness in the case was defendant’s ex-girlfriend. She testified that when she was dating defendant, he had become suspicious that she was cheating on him based on his review of her Facebook communications with another man. Incidentally, the complaining witness conceded on cross-examination that she was a “dispatcher” for a phone-sex service.
The complainant testified that defendant confronted her regarding his suspicions of cheating; when she denied the allegations, he picked her up by the throat in the living room, carried her into the bedroom where he continued to strangle her, hit her in the face and body, took off his belt and whipped her with it, and held her in the closet against her will. She further testified that defendant stated that “If I go to jail, it will be for murdering you.” A neigbor, who had worked for an alderman, heard screaming and called the police. Photographs of the complainant’s injuries were introduced into evidence. On cross-examination, Barry Sheppard impeached the complainant with a prior signed statement that she had given to police wherein she stated that the strangling first occurred in the bedroom, and did not start in the living room as she testified at trial.
In closing argument, Sheppard & Associates presented case-law on the offense of Attempt Murder. The offense requires that the defendant act with a “specific intent to kill.” Based on the case-law, the trial court held that the evidence was insufficient to establish that defendant possessed a “specific intent to kill” and acquitted him of the Attempt Murder charge.
On May 5, 2011, in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Barry Sheppard and Adam Sheppard won acquittals on behalf of their clients. One defendant was charged with stabbing a complainant in the chest multiple times resulting in puncture wounds to his lungs. The other defendant was charged with hitting a different complainant causing the complainant a head injury. At trial, Adam Sheppard cross-examined the complaining witness who alleged that he was stabbed. The complainant conceded that his eyes were not on the defendant at the time of the stabbing; he had testified that he had the defendant in a headlock at the time that he was stabbed. On cross-examination, the police officers and security guard who responded that they searched the defendants but did not find any weapons on them. Another police officer testified that he heard a knife drop near a group of females who were standing nearby. Photographs of the defendant with bloodstained clothes were kept out of evidence based on Sheppards’ objection to an improper foundation. Following the testimony of the State’s witnesses, both defendants were found not-guilty.
