On April 7, 2011, at the criminal courthouse, 2600 South California, in the case of People of the State of Illinos v. A.S., the defendant was found not-guilty of Aggravated Battery to a Peace Officer and felony Obstruction of a Peace Officer (the charge was a felony based on the allegation that the defendant’s actions were the proximate cause of an injury to the officer). The testimony at the trial was as follows: The arresting officer — an Illinois State Trooper – testified that he came upon an accident scene where defendant’s vehicle had travelled off the road on the Kennedy expressway and hit the side wall. IDOT workers were on the scene who testified that the defendant appeared extremely intoxicated and was combative with them, spitting on them and swearing at them. The arresting officer placed the defendant in the back of his squad car. The defendant began banging her own head on the partition in the squad car to the point where she caused herself to bleed. She had also offered the arresting officer $6,000 to shoot her.
On cross-examination, the arresting officer agreed that the defendnat was “hysterical” and was acting ”irrationally.” While the officer was investigating the crash, he noticed that the defendant was attempting to crawl through the partition of his squad car into the front seat. The officer went to subdue the defendant in the back seat. The officer testified that the defendant kicked him. He tried to control her by placing his right arm on her left arm but she pulled away, which resulted in the dislocation of his shoulder.
In the defense case, Adam Sheppard called an expert in the field of clinical and forensic psychiatry. Sheppard & Associates had referred the defendant to this expert in the early stages of the case. Accordingly, the psychiatrist was more than just an expert for the purposes of trial, he was also the defendant’s treating physician. At trial, the expert opined that, based on his meetings with the defendant and her history, the defendant suffered from stress and anxiety disorders. The expert testified to a reasonable degree of psychiatric certainty that defendant was suffering an “Acute Stress Disorder” at the time that she kicked the officer and pulled away from him, and, therefore, her acts were non-volitional and she was not acting with a knowing mental state at the time of the offense.
Based on the testimony of the expert, the trial judge found the defendant not-guilty of Aggravated Battery to a Peace Officer and Felony Obstruction of a Peace Officer.
On March 29, 2011, in the Circuit Court of Cook County, 555 W. Harrison, M.B. and R.B. the uncles of the complaining witness, were acquitted of charges of Domestic Battery following a bench trial. The allegation was that one uncle kicked his nephew, the complaining witness, in the face and that another uncle punched him in the face at an Arabian restaurant and hookah lounge on the north side of Chicago. The complaining witness had a photograph depicting a black eye and bruises to his face. The complaining witness testified that his uncles attacked him because he had taken vodka from a refrigerator in the back of the restaurant without the permission of his uncle, who managed the restaurant. On cross-examination, Barry Sheppard adduced from the complainant that he was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the alleged offense, that he did not have a clear recollection of the events, that he was trained as a boxer in Germany, that he was aggressive with the defendants and did not leave the restaurant when asked to do so. At the close of the State’s case, Adam Sheppard made a motion for a finding of acquittal on behalf of R.B., noting discrepancies between the allegations in the complaint and the complaining witness’ testimony. The trial judge granted the motion for a finding of acquittal as to R.B.. As to M.B., Barry Sheppard called M.B. to testify on his own behalf. M.B. denied kicking the complainant in the face and explained that the complainant was upset about being asked to leave before he had a chance to win back money in a blackjack game that he had been playing before he was asked to leave. The judge held that the testimony of the complainant was not sufficiently clear or credible and that any contact between defendants and the complainant likely resulted from a mutual-combat scenario. Accordingly, both defendants were found not-guilty.
In the case of People of the State of Illinois v. J.H., on March 7, 2011, in DuPage County, a judge granted the Sheppards’ Motion to Suppress a loaded handgun that was seized pursuant to a search of the defendant’s parked vehicle. Officers had arrested the defendant for an unrelated offense at a house that was around the corner from where his car was parked. Officers had suspected that the defendant had driven to the location in question and drove around with him until they found his car. At the hearing, officers testified that the car was parked 4-6 feet off the curb and blocking traffic. Officers were going to tow the vehicle and, before they did so, they conducted an inventory search of the car. Officers seized a loaded handgun from within a closed gym bag that was inside of the vehicle’s trunk.
Following the conclusion of testimony, Adam Sheppard presented an Illinois Appellate Court case to the judge which held that officers do not have the authority to conduct an inventory search of vehicle when they are towing it due to a mere parking violation. Adam Sheppard also presented a United States Supreme Court case which held that police departments must have a policy with respect to the opening of closed containers during an inventory search; absent such a policy, the inventory search of closed containers will be deemed illegal. The trial judge held that the precedents which the Sheppards presented were controlling and granted the Motion to Suppress the gun.
On March 11th, at the Chicago Bar Association, Barry Sheppard was honored to lecture to the Young Lawyer’s Criminal Law Committee of the Chicago Bar Association on the affirmative defense of entrapment. Barry reviewed the Seventh Circuit jury instruciton on entrapment as well as the Illinois statute. Barry focused on the application of the entrapment defense when confidential informants or cooperating individuals are involved. Specifically, Barry lectured on how to flush out non-transactional informants who may have been pivitol in laying the groundwork for the offense or assisting in its commission. Barry discussed People v. Raess which the Sheppard firm has used several times to obtain an Order compelling the prosecution to reveal a non-transactional confidential informant or risk the sanction of dismissal of charges. Barry passed out a sample motion and affidavit that the Sheppard firm uses to compel disclosure or production of a non-transactional informant.
On Tuesday, February 1st, 2011, in the case of People of the State of Illinois v. A.C., at the Daley Center, 50 W. Washington, Adam Sheppard won an acquittal on behalf of the firm’s client, A.C., who was charged with the offense of Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol. Several months earlier Adam had tried the case to a hung jury. This time, the trial was before a judge. At trial, the arresting officer — who conceded that he was one of the top writers of DUI citations in the district — testified that at approximately 2:52 a.m. on a Monday morning, he observed the defendant’s vehicle speeding, making a wide left turn into a parking lane, jet across three lanes of traffic, and then pull off the road and shut off his lights, seemingly in an attempt to evade the officer. The defendant then resumed driving and the officer curbed his vehicle shortly thereafter. The officer testified that the defendant failed every aspect of all four field sobriety tests that were conducted. The defendant refused a breathalyzer test at the police station. The officer testified that the defendant used extreme profanity with him and was agitated.
In the defense case, Adam Sheppard called a civilian witness whom he had subpoenaed to be present in court. The witness testified at approximately 2:30 a.m. on the morning in question, she had locked her keys in her car and called the defendant’s 24 hour tow/rescue unit service to assist her. The witness testified that it sounded as though she had woke up the defendant with her call. The defendant testified that when he received this call at approximately 2:30 a.m., he attempted to drive to the address where the civilian was stranded. He testified that he did make a wide left turn on the way but that was only because a car was jetting out into the intersection thereby forcing him to swing wide on his turn. He also testified that he pulled off of the road to call the civilian to get her exact location. As to the field sobriety tests, the defendant testified that he believed that he had performed the tests as directed. He admitted that he put his foot down on the one-leg-stand test but that he recently had knee surgery. He testified that, on the night before this incident, he had two beers with dinner which explained why the officer detected the odor of alcohol on his breath. The defendant testified that he was not under the influence of alcohol when he woke up at 2:30 a.m. on Monday to respond to the rescue call. In closing argument, Adam Sheppard argued that “reasonable minds could differ” as to whether the defendant’s appearance was due to alcohol consumption or an alternative innocent explanation such as grogginess. The court agreed and found the defendant “not-guilty.”
Adam Sheppard is on the Chicago Bar Association’s Editorial Board and an Assistant Co-Editor of the Young Lawyer’s Journal. This year he was again honored to review the Chicago Bar Association’s 87th Annual Christmas Spirits Show. Here is a link to the review: Adam Sheppard’s Review of the Chicago Bar Association’s Annual Christmas Spirit’s Show (2)
Barry and Adam Sheppard recently received this letter from a grateful client. The letter embodies the level of profesionalism, dedication, and skill that we devote to all of our clients and cases.
Letter of Gratitude from KF
Following a detention hearing involving the case discussed in the Department of Justice presss release and Fox News Article below, a federal magistrate judge denied the government’s request to detain D.S. – Sheppard & Associates’ client — without bond. Sheppard & Associates had submitted a memorandum of law in support of their request to allow bail for D.S.. The case is currently pending in the Federal District Court in the Northern District of Illinois. See DOJ Press Release & Fox News Article: http://www.myfoxchicago.com/dpp/news/metro/john-daniel-sullivan-patrick-rooney-home-repair-scam-targeted-elderly-arrested-20101006
On January 6, 2011, in the Fourth Municipal District, Maywood, Illinois, Adam Sheppard won an acquittal on behalf of his client, F.R., who was charged with Harassment Through Electronic Communication and Disorderly Conduct. The charges alleged that the defendant sent “obscene” text messages to the complaining witness with an intent to offend her. On cross-examination, the complaining witness conceded to Adam Sheppard that several of the phrases in the text messages such as “hook up” were subject to varying interpretations. Adam Sheppard also cross-examined a Berwyn police deparatment officer regarding the Department’s investigation of the defendant’s phone records and gmail account. After the State rested, Adam Sheppard made an argument in support of his motion for a finding of acquittal at the close of the State’s case. Mr. Sheppard presented several United States Supreme Court cases on the definition of obscenity, which included Justice Potter Stewart’s classic definition of obscenity – ”I know it, when I see it.” Mr. Sheppard also attacked the chain of records which allegedly linked the defendant to the telephone number associated with the text messages, Following argument, the judge agreed that the text messages were not “obscene.” The judge also questioned whether the telephone records sufficiently linked the defendant to the text messages in question. The judge granted Mr. Sheppard’s motion for a finding of acquittal at the close of the State’s case and found the defendant “not-guilty” of all charges.
