On January 8, 2011, at the Daley Center, 50 W. Washington, Chicago, Adam Sheppard won an acquittal on behalf of the firm’s client, I.G., following a bench trial.  The arresting officer testified that the defendant’s vehicle was weaving and that the defendant showed several clues of impairment during the field sobriety tests which included the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus test, walk-and-turn test, and one-leg stand test.   Adam Sheppard cross-examined the arresting officer on the concept of  Optokinetic Nystagmus– movement of the pupil when it observes rapidly moving objects such as the oscillating lights on a police vehicle –and how it can affect the accuracy of the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus test.  Mr. Sheppard also elicited testimony from the officer that an overweight individual — as the defendant was in this case — may have difficulty performing the one-leg stand test.    The trial judge granted Mr. Sheppard’s finding for acquittal at the close of the State’s case, thereby obviating the need for the defendant to testify.

On January 7, 2011, at the Chicago Bar Association, Adam Sheppard, who serves on the Executive Council of the Young Lawyer’s Section of the CBA lectured at the Criminal Law Committee for young lawyers.  The lecture concerned being involved in a family-run law practice.  Adam set forth 5 guidelines for working with family and offered some entertaining anecdotes about working with his father.    Look for Adam’s article on family-run law practices in the next edition of the CBA Record.

Below is the link to the Fox news article regarding Sheppard & Associates’ client, K.H., a school teacher, whose case was dismissed after a judge found “no probable cause” at preliminary hearing following Barry Sheppard’s examination of the arresting officer. 

http://www.myfoxchicago.com/dpp/news/metro/kathy-hebel-river-grove-teacher-cleared-charges-drugs-cocaine-20101230

On December 13, 2010, in the criminal courthouse, 26th and California, in the case of People v. E.S., the court granted Sheppards’ Motion to Suppress Evidence – over two kilograms of cocaine – after an evidentiary hearing.   The Sheppards filed a motion challenging the warrantless search of a motor vehicle following a traffic infraction.  The judge disregarded the police assertion that the drugs were visible in plain view after a spirited examination of the arresting officer by Barry D. Sheppard.   The State’s Attorney’s Office contested the driver’s right to challenge the search of the car which been rented by a third party who testified that she gave the defendant permission to drive the rental car.   The court held that the driver did have standing to contest the search in this case.

http://triblocal.com/skokie/2010/11/05/skokie-school-bus-driver-avoids-jail-for-child-endangerment/

The above Chicago Tribune news link concerns the case of People of the State of Illinois v. B.S., where Barry D. Sheppard and Associates obtained an acquittal on behalf of their client who was charged with Aggravated Driving Under the Influence of Drugs (a felony). The charge alleged that the defendant drove a school bus containing 41 Solomon Schechter students while under the influence of drugs.  Skokie police officers curbed the school bus after a concerned citizen had notified the police that the school bus was driving erratically and that the bus driver appeared to be slumped over the wheel.   Skokie police officers testified that after the defendant initially pulled over, he continued to drive, knocking down a sign that had been posted in a Hampton Inn parking lot.  The police officers observed the defendant’s speech and balance to be impaired and believed him to be under the influence of drugs.  The defendant submitted to a blood test which yielded the presence of Tramadol (a pain killer) and Diphenhydramine (Benadryl).At trial, the State called its toxicology expert, Dr. Larson. Dr. Larson testified that the amounts of those drugs in the defendant’s system were at the low end of the therapeutic range.  He could only opine that those drugs, at those levels, could cause impairment. The State’s other witnesses included the concerned citizen who alerted the police, three Skokie police officers, a paramedic, and one of the students on the school bus, a seventh grader.  The student testified that the bus was traveling with the bus door open and weaving.  On cross-examination, the student acknowledged that the defendant was a “nice bus driver” and that he was not acting belligerently towards the kids.On cross-examination of the police officers and the paramedic, the defense adduced that the defendant had informed them that he was a diabetic and that he may have been suffering from a low blood-sugar episode.  Each of the police officers and the paramedic conceded that the symptoms of a low blood sugar episode may replicate the symptoms of apparent intoxication.  However, when the paramedic tested the defendant’s blood sugar levels, it was within the normal range.The defendant then called his treating physician to the stand.  The defendant’s physician testified that he has treated the defendant for Type 1 diabetes for the past ten years.  Moreover, he testified that a diabetic’s blood sugar levels can fluctuate from one moment to the next and, therefore, the mere fact that the defendant’s blood sugar was within normal range when the paramedics tested it, does not negate the possibility that his symptoms were due to a low blood-sugar episode.Following the close of the evidence in the case, the defense submitted a Memorandum of Law In Support of Finding of Not-Guilty.  The memorandum cited appellate court cases which held that a DUI defendant was not proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt because he had presented a ”reasonable alternative explanation” for his symptoms of apparent intoxication.  After taking the matter under consideration, the trial judge found the defendant not-guilty of Aggravated Driving Under the Influence of Drugs.   A finding of guilty was entered on the misdemeanor charge of Endangering the Life of a Child where the State was only required to prove that the defendant drove when he knew or should have known that he was physically unable to do so.  The court ruled that although the defendant may not have been under the influence of drugs, he knew that he was suffering from some type of attack, and, by continuing to drive, endangered the lives of the children.At sentencing on the misdemeanor offense, the State’s Attorney’s office requested the Court to sentence the defendant to jail. The defense objected, noting that the defendant was eligible for court “supervision” on the misdemeanor offense and citing his problem-free driving while this case was pending.  The judge denied the State’s request for jail and placed the defendant on one year probation with 100 hours of community service.The defendant did not suffer any interruption of driving privileges.  As a result of the acquittal on the charge of Aggravated DUI, the defendant’s driving privileges will not be revoked.  The six-month statutory summary suspension of his driving privileges that that had been issued following his arrest was also rescinded.  That rescission was obtained by the defense following a hearing where the judge agreed that a summary suspension was not statutorily authorized because the drugs in the defendant’s system were not “controlled substances.”

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.”

In the case of People of the State of Illinois v. B.R., at preliminary hearing on June 22nd in Branch 50, the Court found “no probable cause” and the case was dimissed.  The allegation was that the defendant, a passenger in another’s vehicle, was responsible for the drugs which were found in the door pocket on the front passenger side of the vehicle.  The officer had attributed a statement to the defendant wherein the defendant allegedly admitted ownership of the drugs.  On cross-exmination, the officer conceded that he did not see the defendant store the drugs in the vehicle and that he did not know who owned the vehicle.  Adam Sheppard further cross-examined the officer about the circumstances under which the defendant made his alleged statement claiming ownership of the drugs.  Following cross-examination, the judge found “no probable cause” and the case was dismissed.