Misdemeanor UUW Dismissed: GH hired us after he was arrested in a Chicago Airport for possessing a firearm and going through security. After reviewing the evidence in GH’s case it became clear that although he did possess the weapon he did not know that he had left it in his bag. After many discussions with the prosecutor’s office they agreed to dismiss the charges and allow GH to carry on living his life.

Order of protection dismissed: OP dismissed Dykstra and Winston: MD hired me when he was served with a petition for an order of protection (OP). At the time he hired me, MD was quite nervous about having an OP against him and how that would affect his career/life. I read over the petition and interviewed MD about the situation. At that point, I was very confident that nothing bad was going to happen to MD. The petitioner of the OP was MD’s ex-girlfriend and the two parties’ relationship had ended on mixed terms. The petitioner was still interested in a relationship and MD had recently started dating a new woman. MD had told the petitioner to leave him alone. She in turn filed the petition. I simply showed the judge that the petitioner’s grounds for filing the petition was that he had told her to leave him alone. The judge agreed with me that no proper grounds had been alleged and dismissed the petition.

Order Of Protection Dismissed By Judge: ED hired me after she was served by her neighbor for a Petition for Order of Protection. After filing my appearance, I was given permission by the court to request discovery or evidence from the Petitioner. I made my request, received no response and filed a Motion for Sanctions. In my Motion for Sanctions, I requested that the Petitioner be barred or not allowed to introduce any evidence at the hearing. The judge agreed, and without the Petitioner being allowed to introduce any evidence the petition for order of protection was dismissed.

Cae was dismissed because the state’s witnesses did not attend court.

Aggravated Unlawful Use of Weapon/ Aggravated UUW dismissed. CB hired me after she was arrested for aggravated unlawful Use of Weapon. The State of Illinois was alleging that she possessed a firearm without a conceal and carry license in a way where the weapon was loaded, uncases and readily accessible. In this case, CB had no background, purchased the gun legally and did have a firearm owners identification card (FOID). I spoke to the Assistant State’s Attorney, and they agreed that CB should not be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. They agreed that if CB agreed to stay out of trouble for 12 months, they would dismiss the charges against her. CB agreed, stayed out of trouble for the year and her case was dismissed.

Delivery/ Manufacturing/ Possession with intent to distribute dismissed after preliminary hearing: TB hired me after he was pulled over, had his car searched and he was arrested for manufacturing or delivery of cannabis. In this case, I was able to conduct a preliminary hearing. A Preliminary hearing is also known as a probable cause hearing. For a case to be assigned to a trial judge, a prosecutor must show, that it is more likely than not that, a crime occurred, and the arrested defendant is the person who committed the crime. In Illinois, probable cause is determined two different ways, by way of a grand jury indictment or a preliminary hearing.

During the preliminary hearing the Assistant State’s Attorney did a direct examination of the arresting officer. The officer testified, that he smelled cannabis in TB’s car and then conducted a search of the vehicle. The officer testified to finding a large bag containing several smaller bags and that the contents of the bags came back from the crime lab as cannabis. I conducted a cross examination where I asked question which tied up all loose ends and cemented the police officers into a specific set of facts. After that, I asked the judge if may argue. The judge permitted it. I argued that the State of Illinois failed to show any evidence of a potential delivery or whether the cannabis was for more than just personal use. The judge agreed and found that there was no probable cause for the charge. Case dismissed.

Cae was dismissed because the state’s witnesses did not attend court.

Stolen car dismissed after preliminary hearing: JG hired me after he was arrested for possession of a stolen motor vehicle (PSMV). In this case, I was able to conduct a preliminary hearing. A Preliminary hearing is also known as a probable cause hearing. For a case to be assigned to a trial judge, a prosecutor must show, that it is more likely than not that, a crime occurred, and the arrested defendant is the person who committed the crime. In Illinois, probable cause is determined two different ways, by way of a grand jury indictment or a preliminary hearing.

During the preliminary hearing the Assistant State’s Attorney put the arresting officer on the stand. The officer testified that he ran the license plate of sports car that JG was driving and saw that the plate came back for a similar sports car of a different year. The officer testified that he that the rear lights did not match the year the license plate said the car was from. He furthered testified that he is a fan of this sports car and knew the difference. The officer testified that he then located the Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) and discovered that the car had been reported stolen. Upon cross I only asked a few questions. I asked If JG had made any statements. I asked this because I knew he had, and I knew he had told the officer that he paid for the car. After I was done with my cross examination, I made an argument. I argued that the State’s Attorney failed to establish that the Defendant had any knowledge that the car was stolen. I showed how the only evidence established during the hearing about whether the Defendant knew anything was that he told the officer that he paid for the car. The judge agreed, holding that it is not likely that a person would check the VIN of a car. He ruled in our favor and decided there was no probable cause.