• Lawyer Profile
• |
• Chicago DUI Law
• |
• Satisfied DUI Clients
• |
• DUI Resources
• |
• Attorney Blog
• |
• Contact Lawyer

People v. C. C.

When our client came to us, she had been indicted by a Cook County Grand Jury on two counts of failing to report an accident that involved the death of another individual. In other words, she was charged with killing an individual with her vehicle and leaving the scene of that fatality. The offense itself was punishable by three to fourteen years in the Illinois Department of Corrections and would call for the revocation of her driving privileges for a period of time to be determined by the Secretary of State. Of course, these are the terrible things that would happen to our client if, in fact, she were convicted of the offenses for which she was charged.

We began an exhaustive and aggressive defense of our client, which included the use of private investigators and expert witnesses that came from across the country. It entailed the use of computer-generated animation, which we intended to use as evidence if the case proceeded to trial and we needed to use such evidence. There were no plea negotiations in this case, since we believed from the onset that our client was not guilty of this offense, and we believed she would be proved not guilty at trial. It was a very difficult case to proceed to trial on, and it lasted four days. The State called approximately twelve to fifteen witnesses on their side and introduced eighty separate pieces of evidence to help prove their case against our client. Our client had also given a statement to a prosecutor, and the statement was admitted into evidence at her trial, also. Despite all of the evidence that the state believed would make her guilty of the offenses she was charged with, we proceeded to a lengthy trial on her behalf. Our cross-examination of the State’s witnesses proved not only to be intense but extremely effective in producing evidence that was favorable to our client.

At the end of the case, the judge found our client not guilty of all charges. She received no conviction in this matter because of our skillful, intense and aggressive defense of her. We are currently in the process of expunging her arrest record and having her file sealed.

People v. KB

Our client was stopped by the Rolling Meadows Police Department and charged with his fourth DUI. At the time our client was stopped, the officer found that he was riding a motorcycle without the proper equipment. As the officer turned to follow the bike and activated his emergency lights, the driver turned on to a street in order to pull over. The officer testified that his turn was wobbly and unsafe, and when the driver stopped the motorcycle, it took several tries to lower the kickstand. The officer said he approached our client and asked for a driver’s license and insurance information. The officer said our client had red, glassy, bloodshot eyes, slow slurred speech, the strong odor of an alcohol based beverage coming from his breath and an admission from our client that he had been drinking beer that evening. The officer performed field sobriety tests on our client and came to the conclusion that as far as his balance, he was wobbly, swaying and unsure. The officer videotaped all of our client’s performances on the field tests and arrested him for his fourth DUI. The officer also sent in documentation so that the Secretary of State would take steps to suspend our client’s driving privileges.

We began a very aggressive defense of our client because of the fact that with a fourth DUI, it was very possible that charges would be enhanced to a felony. We proceeded to file a motion to quash his arrest determining that the stop, in our opinion, was illegal, and we filed a separate motion to have the suspension of his driving privileges rescinded. We followed this up with photographic information and were able to present our case to the prosecutor and the arresting officer.

As a result, on the second court date, the charges of driving under the influence of alcohol were dismissed. The suspension of his driving privileges was rescinded by order of the judge in this matter. All other charges regarding the officer’s contact with our client were dismissed. Our client plead guilty to a minor traffic violation and received a $300.00 fine. Because of our very aggressive defense of our client, he did not receive any kind of a conviction for driving under the influence of alcohol, much less be sentenced to a period of time in jail. Moreover, because of our work, the suspension of his driving privileges was rescinded by the Secretary of State’s Office.

People v. J.R.

On February 29, 2008, our client was stopped by the Schaumburg Police Department, who said they observed our client’s car speeding at close to midnight. The arresting officer pursued our client’s vehicle due to the alleged speeding. Our client came to a stop, and the arresting officer approached the car. She wrote in her report and testified that she could smell a strong odor of an alcoholic beverage coming from our client’s breath, observed his eyes to be bloodshot and glassy, and saw two empty twelve-ounce green glass bottles of alcohol near the front passenger seat. At that time, the officer had a conversation with our client, who said that he only had two beers. Obviously, the police officer did not believe him and had him exit the car to perform field sobriety tests. The officer administered three field sobriety tests to our client, one of which was the horizontal gaze nystagmus test, which our client failed according to the officer. She then administered a walk and turn test to him and indicated that he failed that test also. She then administered a one-leg stand test, indicating also that our client failed that test. The officer then gave our client two portable breath test results. The first one resulted in a blood alcohol content of .100, and the second one indicated a blood alcohol content of .107. Back at the police station, the officer administered a breath test, which our client took. It showed our client’s blood alcohol content to be .097. This was our client’s first DUI arrest, and he did not wish to plead guilty nor did we believe he should under these circumstances.

We began a very aggressive defense of our client. We retained an expert witness, who we had review the entire case file, and our witness was prepared to come to court and testify on our client’s behalf. The prosecution, however, also contacted their expert, and he indicated that he would testify on behalf of the prosecution and indicated that our client’s blood alcohol content was either a .112 or a .121. Obviously, the state’s expert would put our client significantly over a .08. Nevertheless, we were undeterred and convinced in our client’s innocence. Since he had transferred his residence back to Texas, our client was unable to even accept court supervision in this matter because Texas would have revoked his driving privileges, even though he received a sentence of court supervision in Illinois. Court supervision in Illinois was offered to him as a means of disposing of his case without proceeding to trial, however, we rejected that offer. At the trial, we conducted and extremely lengthy, aggressive and actually brilliant cross-examination of the arresting officer. At the close of the case, after the state had rested and after our cross-examination had completely dismantled the state’s case, it was not necessary for us to call our expert witness, nor was the state able to call their expert witness to testify in this matter.

At the close of the case, the court found our client not guilty of driving under the influence of alcohol, not guilty of driving with a blood alcohol content of .097 in excess of .080, and she found our client guilty of speeding. The speeding was 13 miles per hour over, however, the court sentenced our client to a period of court supervision, which is not a conviction at all. Because of our aggressive defense of our client and our complete belief that the prosecution should be held to its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt in all matters, we were able to obtain a successful disposition of our client, even though he actually tested positive for driving under the influence of alcohol and had a blood alcohol content in excess of .08 at three different times during the arresting officer’s contact with him. Our client was found not guilty and did not have to accept court supervision on anything connected with a charge of driving under the influence of alcohol.

« More DUI testimonials from Illinois