Recent Cases

May 2, 2017: Preliminary Hearing Judge Overturns Bond Court Judge's Bail Decision Pursuant to Sheppards' Motion to Set Bail

In People v. xxxx (Circuit Court of Cook County) a judge in bond court had set "no bail" for the defendant who was charged with Harassment of a Witness (the witness being a police officer) as well as Class X charges of Possession with the Intent to Deliver cocaine, schedule I and II pills (Xanax, etc.), ecstasy, liquid cannabis, cannabis, steroids, and psilocybin. At the initial bond court hearing, the judge had set "no bail" based on the defenant's alleged threat to the officer coupled with the fact that several of the drug offenses were non-probationable. However, Sheppard filed a Motion to Set Bail in the preliminary hearing court and presented law which showed that the bond court proceedings had not been conducted in accordance with Section 110-6.1 of the bail statute. That section sets forth the due process requirements that must be complied with before a judge can set "no-bail" based on the defendant being an alleged "threat." The judge in preliminary hearing court (and ultimately the prosecutor) agreed that Sheppards' client was entitled to bail and the judge set bail.

April 27, 2017: Not Guilty of All Charges -- Aggravated Domestic Battery and Aggravated Battery -- Where Victim Sustained a Broken Orbital Bone and Alleged that she was Hit 25-50 Times.

In the case of People of the State of Illinois v. xxxx, Circuit Court of Cook County, 4/27/17, Sheppard Law Firm's client,  was acquitted of all charges. The defendant, a reputable hedge fund trader, had been charged with Aggravated Domestic Battery (which carried a mandatory 60 day jail sentence) and Aggravated Battery of a woman. The complainant had testified that she sustained a broken orbital bone at the hands of the defendant while she was  inside of his apartment; the State introduced medical records to that effect and presented photographs of her injuries. At trial, however, Sheppard was able to impeach the complainant's testimony through inconsistent statements that she made to Sheppard when he had cross-examined her at the preliminary hearing. In addition, through an argument on the law, Sheppard was able to have the "domestic" element of the charges dismissed pursuant to a motion for a finding of acquittal at the close of the State's case. In the defense case, Sheppard called a witness from a private club of which the defendant was a member, to testify that the complainant had pursued the defendant by appearing, uninvited, at the defendant's private club. The judge found the defendant not guilty of all counts.

April 25, 2017: Adam Sheppard Argues Before the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Multi-Million Dollar wire fraud/internet marketing scheme

The case of United States v. xxxxx (oral arguments: 4/25/17) involved a wire fraud case where the defendant had been charged with unlawfully obtaining millions in illicit proceeds through internet marketing companies that he controlled. After the client's initial sentencing hearing, the Court of Appeals remanded the case for a resentencing. At resentencing before the district court, Sheppard argued for a further sentencing reduction based on defendant's post-sentencing rehabilitative conduct. Sheppard then represented the defendant in an appeal of the sentence that was issued in the resentencing proceedings.The oral argument centered on when a defendant's post-sentencing rehabilitative conduct can lead to a lower sentence at resentencing.

April 24, 2017: Sheppard's client found not guilty of sexual assault allegations in Title IX University of Chicago Proceeding:

Two female students had filed a Title IX complaint against Sheppard Law Firm's client, the respondent, alleging sexual assault and requesting that the respondent be expelled or suspended from the University. Following a six hour hearing, the University, through a panel in formal disciplinary proceedings, found Sheppard's client not guilty of the sexual assault and the student will remain on campus without any interruption of his college education.

April 7, 2017: District Court Grants Sheppard's Motion to Dismiss Lawsuit Against Airline Pilot

In the case of B. v. M (Northern District of Illinois and pending in the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals), Sheppard is representing an airline pilot for an international airlines in a civil suit which alleges that Sheppards' client battered a co-pilot when they were on a layover in Chicago. The plaintiff is a British citizen and does not reside in the United States. Similalry, Sheppards' client is not a United States citizen and does not reside in the United States. Accordingly, Sheppard filed a Position Paper as to Diversity Jurisdiction in the district court, arguing that the case should be dismissed from federal court for a lack of jursidiction. The district court judge agreed and dismissed the case. The plaintiff has filed an appeal and Sheppard Law Firm is defending against the appeal in the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

February 22, 2017: Civil Fraud, Undue Influence, and Unjust Enrichment Charges Dismissed. Daley Center, Circuit Court of Cook County. In a large fraud case against one of the world's largest banks and other defendants, Sheppard Law Firm obtained a dismissal of all charges against its clients.

The case involved an allegation that Sheppard Law Firm's clients had conspired with an agent of one of the world's largest banks to improperly become beneficiaries of a family member's brokerage accounts. The plaintiffs were the decedent's siblings. Sheppard Law Firm first obtained dismissal of a fraud count through a pretrial motion to dismiss. The other counts were dismissed following depositions where Sheppard Law Firm was able to obtain testimony from witnesses who supported the defendants' version of events. Following depositions, the plaintiffs dismissed the remaining counts.

January, 2017: Teacher Receives Probation and Avoids Sex Offender Lifetime Registration Requirement.

In a case where a teacher was accused of having sexual relations with a 15-year old, the defendant received non-sex-offender probation with no lifetime registration requirement. Sheppard had filed a Motion for Bill of Particulars which challenged the complainant's timeline of events. Moreover, Sheppard had filed a Position Paper as to Sentencing Fators and a Mitigation Binder which persuaded the State and the Court to enter into the disposition described above.

January 4, 2017: Chicago, Daley Center, Circuit Court of Cook County - DUI "Slumper" Found Not-Guilty at Trial.

In the case of People of the State of Illinois v. D....., the defendant, a reputable professional in the Gold Coast area, was found not-guilty of Driving Under the Influence. This was so despite the officer's testimony that he found the defendant passed out behind the wheel, slumped over the steering wheel, after a concerned motorist called the police. The officer testified that when he was finally able to rouse the defendant out of his sleep, he detected a strong odor of alcohol on the defendant's breath and the defendant was stumbling and fumbling with the contents of his belongings. Prosecutors and defense lawyers who regularly practice at the Daley Center refer to such a case as a "slumper" - i.e., cases where the defendant is "slumped" over the wheel."Slumper" cases are often considered challenging. Sheppard Law Firm was able to obtain an acquittal for its client by calling three witnesses, including the defendant, to explain the defendant's extreme fatigue. Sheppard Law Firm also introduced photographs of the scene which showed that, contrary to the officer's testimony, the defendant's vehicle was not parked in the middle of the street as the officer had alleged. Sheppard's cross-examination of the officer regarding the field sobriety tests also revealed that the officer did not have an independent recollection of the events in question but was largely relying on his reports when testifying. The judge determined that, based on the credibility of the defense witnesses, reasonable doubt existed and found the defendant not guilty.

December, 2016: Skokie Courthouse, 5600 Old Orchard Road - Teacher Found Not Guilty of (Sexual) Battery to 6-Year Old Student.

In the case of People of the State of Illinois v. A......., Sheppard Law Firm's client, a teacher at a local elementary school, was found not guilty of inappropriately touching one of his students. The 6-year old student had alleged that the teacher had touched her genitals over her clothing with his hands and "blew air" on her rectum. The child testified at the trial. Sheppard Law Firm located and subpoenaed a student-teacher who was in the same room as the defendant and the 6-year old when this occurred. The student-teacher testified that she did not observe anything unusual occur. Sheppard Law Firm's cross-examination of the 6 year-old resulted in her concession that the defendant was giving her a piggy back ride at that the time of the alleged inappropriate contact. Sheppard Law Firm used that fact to argue that any touching could have been inadvertent or accidental. The judge found the defendant not-guilty of all charges.

Fall, 2016: Skokie Courthouse, 5600 Old Orchard Road, Cook County - Craig's List Solicitation/Sexual Conduct with a Minor Case Results in Straight Probation (Non-sex Offender Probation) and Avoidance of the Lifetime Sex Offender Registration Requirement.

  • In the case of People of the State of Illinois v. C........, Sheppard Law Firm's client received "straight" probation, which is different and extremely less stringent than the oft-required "sex offender" probation. Sheppard's client also avoided a lifetime sex offender registration requirement. He had been charged with soliciting a minor over the Internet and subsequently engaging in sexual conduct with that minor. Sheppard Law Firm was prepared to mount a "reasonable mistake of age" defense after its investigation into the accuser revealed that this minor had himself out on the internet, at one point, as being 17. On the eve of trial, the State agreed to amended the charges and Sheppard Law Firm's client received straight probation on amended charges with no lifetime registration requirement.

  • June 1, 2016: Sheppard's Motion Attacks National Johns Day Operation - Leads to Dismissal of the Charges - Rolling Meadows.

    In one of the inaugural challenges to a government operation known as "Nation Johns Day," the state agreed to dismiss all charges - the charges were "solicitation" -- after Sheppard Law Firm filed a motion challenging police procedures on National Johns Day. National Johns Day is an undercover operation by police agencies across the nation where officers pose as prostitutes on Backpage.com. Sheppard Law Firm filed a motion which sought to suppress conversations that officers overheard through the use of electronic devices without first obtaining judicial approval. The case involved an interpretation of the Illinois Eavesdropping Act. On the eve of the hearing on the motion, the State agreed to a disposition which resulted in the dismissal of all charges against the defendant.

  • June 1, 2016: .12 Blood Alcohol Content DUI Defendant Found Not-Guilty - Expert Testimony on Retrograde Extrapolation

    In the Skokie courthouse, Cook County, Sheppard Law Firm's client was acquitted of driving under the influence of alcohol despite a breathalyzer score of .12. To attack the breathalyzer result, Sheppard Law Firm introduced expert testimony on "retrograde extrapolation," a process used by scientific experts to estimate a person's blood alcohol content at the time of driving, not at the time he submitted to the breathalyzer test. What a person ate and drink could affect the rate of absorption of alcohol in the bloodstream. In many cases, if a person had a large meal just prior to drinking, the alcohol may take longer to make its way into the bloodstream. Accordingly, a person may not be impaired until after he is done driving. In other words it is possible that a person's blood alcohol content is actually higher at the time that he takes the breathalyzer test at the police station (which could be an hour later) than at the time of driving. In this case, the expert opined that the defendant's blood alcohol content could have been under a .08 at the time he was driving even though his blood alcohol content was a .12 at the time of the breathalyzer test. Sheppard Law Firm challenged the reliability of the breathalyzer test in other ways as well. The judge was left with reasonable doubt and the defendant was found not-guilty.

  • May 26, 2016 - Rolling Meadows, Cook County, Class X Aggravated Criminal Sexual Assault charges dismissed, defendant receives probation on an amended charge whereby he avoids the lifetime sex offender registration requirement.

    This case involved an allegation by a 15 year-old that a 22 year-old, who had met her on Facebook, furnished her with alcohol, and forced her to have sex. The matter was set for trial. Sheppard Law Firm's investigator located a witness who was prepared to contradict the complainant's allegation. On the day of trial, the State agreed to dismiss the non-probationable charges and amend the remaining charge to a lower class offense whereby the defendant received probation (with no jail time). The amendment of the charges also allowed the defendant to avoid the lifetime sex offender registration requirement.

  • May 17, 2016, Federal Court, Northern District of Illinois

    In a 240,000-pill ecstasy case, Sheppards' client receives a sentence of 70% off the advisory guideline range. The initial advisory guideline range in this case, which involved defendant's alleged dealing of 240,000 pills of ecstacy over a two-year period was 97-121 months. However, following Sheppards' submission of Objections to the Presentence Investigation Report and Position Paper as to Sentending Factors as well as a Reply to the Government's Sentencing Memorandum, the Court sustained a motion to cut the guidelines in half and then gave a sentence even below the new guideline range. The key factors in sentencing was Sheppards' comparison of its client to other similarly situated defendants and an argument that the defendant's conduct while on bond revealed that he did not require a sentence within the advisory sentencing guidelines.

  • May 17, 2016, Federal Court, Northern District of Illinois

    Sheppard's client receives probation for Social Security Administration Fraud after contested sentencing hearing. In the matter of United States v. J......, the government was seeking a prison sentence within the advisory federal sentencing guidelines in a case which involved the unlawful conversion of government funds for the defendant's personal use. Sheppard filed a sentencing memorandum petitioning the Court for a sentence of probation -- i.e., a sentence below the advisory guideline range. Following oral arguments at sentencing, the judge granted Sheppard's client "straight probation" (without any home confinement and even without any community service).

  • May, 2016, Sheppards' Client Not Guilty of Domestic Battery Following Self-Defense Trial.

    In the Circuit Court of Cook County, Maywood, Sheppard Law Firm's client was acquitted of all charges (domestic battery and assault) following a 5-hour bench trial. Sheppard impeached the complaining witness through the testimony of a police officer who initially interviewed the complaint. Sheppard also introduced photographs of the complainant shortly after the first alleged incident; the photographs showed the complainant smiling and without marks on her face. The State introduced photographs of injuries that allegedly occurred during a second incident between the parties; however, Sheppards' client testified that he was acting in self-defense. The judge found the defendant not-guilty of all charges.

  • May, 2016: Judge Grants Sheppards' Motion for Reconsideration and Suppresses Ammunition Found

    Search of Defendant's Person Held Unconstitutional; Case Dismissed, 2600 S. California: A police officer had testified that he observed the defendant with ammunition in his hand, approached him, engaged in a "voluntary" conversation with him, determined he was a felon and arrested him for felon in possession of ammunition. The judge initially believed that the officer did not detain the defendant without legal justification, but Sheppard Law Firm convinced him otherwise in a motion for reconsideration. The judge reversed himself and granted the motion to quash arrest and suppress evidence. All charges against the defendant were dropped.

  • April 21, 2016: Sheppard Law Firm's client acquitted of Class X charges of heroin delivery.

    Circuit Court of Cook County, 2600 S. California. In the case of People v. M......, Sheppard's client was charged with delivering a Class X amount of heroin to a vehicle. Officers testified that they observed the defendant throw a softball size item into a vehicle. The vehicle was stopped and heroin was recovered from the item that the defendant allegedly threw in the vehicle. Following Sheppard's cross-examination of the officers, the court found reasonable doubt as to the identity of the person who threw the item in the vehicle. The court also found that the drugs in question could have come from a different source other than the softball size item that the defendant allegedly threw in the vehicle.

  • March 30, 2016: Court Clerk Acquitted of Battering Sherrif -Circuit Court of Cook County

    Following trial, Sheppard Law Firm's client, a veteran clerk with the Office of the Circuit Court of Cook County was acquitted of battery to a Cook County Sheriff who worked at the same courthouse with the clerk -- the Daley Center. Animosity between the two had been brewing for over a year and escalated into a physical fight inside of one of the elevators at the Daley Center. Sheppard Law Firm was able to show bias on the part of the sheriff by obtaining records which showed that the sheriff had filed a complaint about the clerk prior to this incident. At the conclusion of trial, Sheppard's client, the clerk, was found not-guilty.

  • Summer, 2015: Teacher's Aide charged with criminal sexual assault of special needs student has charges amended and receives probation after Sheppard Law Firm conducts competency hearing of complaining witness.

    A link to the Chicago Tribune Article regarding the case is set forth below:

    http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2014-03-21/news/chi-teachers-aide-charged--20140321_1_sexual-assault-special-needs-child-aide

  • September 17, 2015: Sheppard's client acquitted of Aggravated Assault following bench trial.

    The defendant was charged with Aggravated Assault based on allegation that he brandished a knife with a 4-inch curved blade. On cross-examination of the complaining witness in the case, the complainant admitted to Sheppard that he drew a gun on the defendant. The complainant attempted to claim that he drew a gun in response to the defendant's brandishing of a knife. Sheppard's client testified and rebutted those allegations. The judge ultimately found Sheppard's client not-guilty.

  • September 11, 2015: Adam Sheppard wins proceeding at the Department of Homeland Security.

    The Department of Homeland Security had instituted deferred inspection proceedings against Sheppard's client based on separate criminal proceeding in the Circuit Court of Cook County. In the Circuit Court of Cook County, following a pre-trial hearing, Sheppard obtained a dismissal of the criminal charges which were the basis of the Homeland Security proceedings. Following a proceeding at the Department of Homeland Security, where Sheppard presented an explanation of the underlying criminal case to the Department and other mitigation on the client's behalf, the Department entered a determination that the defendant shall remain admissible to the United States.

  • August 12, 2015: Restaurant Owner found Not-Guilty of Possession of Illegal Gambling Device Under the Video Gaming Act, 230 ILCS 40/35.

    Following trial at 26th & California, Circuit Court of Cook County, Sheppard Law Firm's client was found not-guilty of all charges. The defendant was charged with possession an illegal video gaming terminal which was capable of recording and removing credits. The machine in question was a "Chery master" machine. The prosecution attempted to qualify the police officer who conducted the search as an expert in the field of illegal gambling devices; however, following Sheppards' questioning of the officer regarding his training, the trial court refused to recognize the officer as an expert. Sheppard then introduced records from the Office of the City Clerk of Chicago which Sheppard Law Firm had subpoenaed. The records from the City Clerk's Office revealed that the defendant was granted a valid "amusement device" tax decal for the machine. The trial judge ultimately found the defendant not-guilty, reasoning that there was insufficient evidence that the defendant knowingly possessed an illegal gambling device.

  • July 28, 2015: Chicago Sports Reporter Found Not-Guilty of Resisting Arrest.

    Sheppard Law Firm, P.C. won an acquittal for its client, a Chicago sports reporter, who was charged with resisting arrest. The trial took place at 555 W. Harrison. Two police officers had testified that the defendant resisted arrest when officers attempted to arrest him for allegedly battering a Walgreens employee and committing a trespass in Walgreens. The battery and trespass charges were dismissed prior to trial. The trial proceeded on the more serious charges of resisting arrest. At trial, Sheppard Law Firm introduced surveillance video footage from the Walgreens in question which combated some of the officer's allegations in this case. In closing argument, Sheppard Law Firm tendered case-law to the judge for the proposition that merely arguing with a police officer, even with vulgar language, does not constitute resisting arrest. The judge found the defendant not-guilty of all charges.

  • July 16, 2015: U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois: Sheppard's Client, a defendant in a Counterfeiting Ring receives the unusual sentence of essentially "time considered served.

    The court granted Sheppard's motion for a "mitigating role" adjustment based on his argument that his client, as a facilitator of meetings between buyer and seller, was less culpable than the average participant in the conspiracy. The application of the "mitigating role" adjustment substantially lowered the sentencing guidelines for Sheppard's client, resulting in a sentence of essentially "time considered served."

  • June 10, 2015: Child Pornography Dissemination Charges Dismissed -- class x charges which carried a 6-30 year sentence (non-probationable); Probation on remaining charge of possession of child pornography. (See Chicago Tribune news story following this paragraph).

    Lake County, Illinois, in the Circuit Court of the Nineteenth Judicial District, charges of dissemination of child pornography were dismissed against the defendant, who was a scientist at a renowned laboratory. Sheppard Law Firm, P.C. had utilized a technical investigator to analyze the Tumblr website and recent case-law in pointing out flaws in the dissemination charge which was non-probationable. It then presented a mitigation binder in support of its request for probation on the remaining charge of possession of child pornography. The defendant was ultimately granted probation without any jail time. See Chicago Tribune News Story regarding the case:

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/lake-county-news-sun/crime/ct-lns-jones-porn-plea-st-0611-20150610-story.html Buffalo Grove man gets probation for child porn guilty plea

  • May 21, 2015: Nightclub Employee Found Not-Guilty of Battery.

    People of the State of Illinois v. Client X, Circuit Court of Cook County, the defendant was found not guilty of Battery. The defendant, an employee at a nightclub, had been accused of smashing three carafes into a customer's face which resulted in a broken nose and stitches to the complainant. The complaining witness testified that she and the defendant bumped into each other in a crowded nightclub and that the defendant then hit her in the face with three glass carafes filled with juice. Sheppard's client and another employee from the nightclub testified. The complaining witness and one of her friends testified for the State. The judge ultimately ruled that the testimony of Sheppard's client and the defense witness was credible and the testimony of the complaining witness was not. Accordingly, the judge found Sheppard's client not guilty of all charges.

  • May 15, 2015: Jury Finds Sheppards' Client Not-Guilty of Battery to a Police Officer.

    In the case of People of the State of Illinois v. Client X (Rolling Meadows, Third Municipal District, May 15, 2015), following a three day jury trial, the jury found Sheppards' client, a U.S. mailman, not-guilty of battery to a police officer. The officer and two other officers from the same department testified that the defendant elbowed an officer when the officer tried to forcefully, and unjustifiably, detain the defendant as he attempted to walk inside of his own home. The defendant and his wife testified for the defense. In closing argument, Sheppard implored the jury to send a message to the officers that they would not accept the type of police misconduct at issue in this case. The jury sent that message to the officers by finding the defendant not-guilty.

  • April 30, 2015: In the Rolling Meadows courthouse, Third Municipal District, the trial judge granted Sheppard Law Firm's Motion to Dismiss a Complaint for Obstruction/Resistance of a Peace Officer based on failure of the complaint to state an offense, a rarely granted motion.

    Citing recent case-law on this issue, Sheppard moved to dismiss the complaint on grounds that it failed to allege facts which established that the officer was engaged in an "authorized act" at the time of the alleged obstruction. After taking the matter under advisement and reading the cases tendered by Sheppard, the judge ruled that the complaint was insufficient and dismissed the complaint.

  • April 23, 2015: Critically acclaimed Chicago restaurateur found Not Guilty of Domestic Battery following a bench trial at 555 Harrison.

    The complaining witness testified that she met the restaurant owner at his restaurant and that a steamy romantic relationship ensued. She testified that the defendant battered her on one occasion when she was in his home. On cross-examination, she conceded to Sheppard that she slapped the defendant first. The defendant subsequently testified that any contact that he had with the complainant was in self-defense.

  • April 22, 2015: Not Guilty of Unlawful Use of Weapon following hearing on Motion to Quash Arrest & Suppress Evidence.

    In the case of People of the State of Illinois v. R.H. (2015), in the Circuit Court of Cook County, 2600 S. California, the defendant, who was the driver -- and sole occupant -- of a vehicle at the time of a search was found not guilty of Unlawful Use of a Weapon despite an officer's testimony that he saw the defendant reach to the rear of the vehicle from which a gun was found. At a pre-trial motion, the officers testified that he and other officers had responded to a the scene of "shots fired" outside of a funeral home. The officer became suspicious of the defendant's vehicle and stopped the vehicle on a theory that the vehicle had altered license plates. Sheppard painted a picture of an unlawful pretexual stop at the pretrial hearing and the judge, seemingly sensing the pretextual nature of the officer's conduct, found the defendant not-guilty at trial.

  • April 2, 2015: Northwestern Law Student Acquitted In Order Of Protection Proceedings Where The Complaining Witness, Another Northwestern Law Student Was Seeking A Plenary Order Of Protection.

    In March, 2015, At 555 W. Harrison, Circuit Court of Cook County, following a 6-hour bench trial, the judge ruled in Sheppard's client's favor, ruling that an Order of Protection would not be issued against him. The case involved allegations by one Northwestern law student that another student was harassing and abusing her. Following months of discovery, Sheppard obtained Facebook correspondence which discredited the petitioner's claims. He also subpoenaed witnesses who testified in favor of the respondent. At trial, the judge ruled that petitioner's claims had been discredited and denied her request for a plenary order of protection. The judge also granted Sheppard's motion to vacate the emergency order of protection.

  • March 30, 2015: Class Super-x 700-lb Drug Conspiracy And Money Laundering Charges Result In "probation" For Sheppard's Client After Sheppard Law Firm Files A Motion To Quash Arrest & Suppress Evidence.

    In the case of People of the State of Illinois v. Client X, DuPage County, in 2015, Sheppard Law Firm obtained probation for the defendant who was charged with Calculated Cannabis Drug Conspiracy, Drug Trafficking, and Money Laundering where the charges alleged that she was involved in a 700-lb cannabis trafficking conspiracy and money laundering ring. The charges carried a mandatory minimum of 12 years but the state agreed to amend the charges and a sentence of probation after Sheppard Law Firm filed an extensive Motion to Quash Arrest & Suppress Evidence in the case.

  • January 26, 2015: United States v. J.R. (Northern District of Illinois), Sheppard Law Firm's client had his sentence reduced by 17 months pursuant to a Motion for Reduction of Sentence that Sheppard filed based on the recent amendments to sentencing guidelines regarding the drug quantity table.

    Adam Sheppard, and lawyers across the country, join in the filing of motions for discovery on the issue of racial profiling in phoney "stash house" cases to determine if Alcohol Tobacco Firearms agency unfairly targeted minorities in phony "stash house" cases. Sheppard's case is pending in the Northern District of Illinois in United States v. Client X. Read the Chicago Tribune article below regarding these "stash house" cases:

    http:// www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-stash-houses-charges-dropped-met-20150129-story.html#page=1

  • Sheppard Law Firm Obtains Dismissal of Date Rape Case (Civil Case) Following Questioning at Plaintiff's Deposition. See Chicago Tribune Article describing the case:

    Adam Sheppard defending one of the lead defendants in the significant case discussed in the FBI Press Release below:
    http://www.fbi.gov/chicago/press-releases/2014/twenty-two-defendants-charged-for-alleged-roles-in-connected-drug-rings-extending-from-mexico-to-chicago-and-across-the-u.s

  • United States. v. D.P (Dispositon date: October, 15 2014: In a case described in the FBI press release below, where the charge against Sheppard's client typically carries a mandatory minimum of 5 years imprisonment, Sheppard's client received a sentence of a "year and a day," meaning that the defendant would serve at most 6-9 months in custody.

    In UNITED STATES V. D.P., U.S. DISTRICT COURT, NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS Sheppard's motion for the rarely granted "mitigating role" adjustment was granted and the judge sentenced Sheppard's client to a "year and a day," meaning that Sheppard's client would serve less than nine months in custody on a case where he was charged with possessing with the intent to deliver over 500 grams of cocaine (That charge which typically carries a five year mandatory minimum). Sheppard had argued that the defendant was acting under the control of his older brother and the judge found sufficient evidence to suppor that proposition. Accordingly, the judge granted Sheppard's request for a "mitigating role" adjustment and then departed even further from the advisory guideline range based on the defendant's history and characteristics. See FBI Press Release Below:
    http://www.fbi.gov/chicago/press-releases/2013/fourteen-defendants-facing-state-or-federal-narcotics-or-firearms-charges-alleging-sales-of-guns-and-drugs-in-chicago

  • Lawyer Found Not Guilty Of Personation Of A Public Official

    In the case of People of the State of Illinois v. X (decided March, 2014)(Lake County, Illinois), Sheppard Law Firm's client, another lawyer, was found not-guilty of personation of a public official and public employee. The allegation was that when the lawyer was stopped for a traffic offense he falsely represented himself to the officer as a "special assistant attorney general". At trial, Sheppard pointed to a government resolution that, at one point, the defendant was authorized to handle cases on behalf of the Illinois Tollway Authority as a "special assistant attorney general." However, the state argued that the defendant did not actually practice as a special assistant attorney general and that, at any rate, he had not been designated a "special assistant attorney general" since the 90's. Sheppard cross-examined personnel from the toll-way authority and presented various statutes defining public employees and public officials, including the Illinois Labor Act. Sheppard further argued that there was no evidence that defendant knew or should have known that his status a "special assistant attorney general" had been revoked; and, therefore, he did not knowingly attempt to impersonate a public official. After taking the matter under advisement, the trial judge found the defendant not-guilty of all charges. The court agreed with Sheppard's argument that the defendant did not knowingly impersonate a public official.

  • U.S. District Court: Judge Grants Sheppard's Client Probation Notwithstanding His Role In A Scheme That Ultimately Resulted In An $8.7 Million Loss To Unemployment Insurance Benefit Agencies

    In the case of the United States v. C.K. (U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois, decided March, 2014), in a contested sentencing hearing, the judge granted Adam Sheppard's objections to the pre-sentence investigation report and granted the defendant straight probation (no home confinement) where the sentencing guidelines called for a substantial penitentiary sentence. The scheme in this case was that the defendant's mother and others created phony companies and phony applicants for unemployment benefits; they then received debit cards with unemployment funds on them and unlawfully withdrew unemployment funds from those cards. The defendant was a runner in his mother's scheme. That is, he went to ATMs and withdrew funds with the debit cards that his mother unlawfully procured. The scheme is described in the FBI Press Release below. At sentencing, Sheppard argued that a sentencing enhancement for use of 5 or more means of identification should not apply to his client and the judge agreed. The judge also granted Sheppard's request for a "minor-role" adjustment based on the fact that the defendant was a "runner" at his mother's direction. The judge granted Sheppard's request for probation. The scope of the larger scheme is described in the FBI press release set forth below:

    Fifteen Defendants Indicted for Alleged Roles in Scheme to Use More Than 80 Fictitious Companies to Defraud Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota Unemployment Insurance Agencies of $8.7 Million

  • Motion To Quash Arrest And Suppress Heroin Sustained Following Defendant's Arrest During Execution Of A Search Warrant

    In the case of People of the State of Illinois v. L....., (2014), 26th and California, the trial court sustained Sheppard Law Firm's Motion to Quash Arrest & Suppress Evidence. Officers executed a search warrant at defendant's residence and seized capsules which they suspected contained brown heroin. Officers arrested the defendant. At the police station officers searched the defendant and allegedly seized items containing a controlled substance from his person. Sheppard argued that the officers did not have probable cause to arrest the defendant based on the capsules that they recovered from the residence. Sheppard offered several possible innocent explanations for the capsules, such as the possibility that they were vitamins. Officers did not field test the items. The trial court agreed and therefore held that officers did not have the right to arrest defendant and search his person.

  • Judge Grants Sheppard's Motion For Reconsideration; Defendant Facing Mandatory Four-Year Prison Sentence Receives Probation After Sheppards' Motion Persuades Judge To Reconsider His Initial Ruling

    DuPage County, IL. In the case of People of the State of Illinois v. X (November, 2013), Sheppard Law Firm's client, a young lady, who was charged with selling heroin, and who was already on probation for a drug offense, was charged with a subsequent drug dealing offense and faced a non-probationable class 1 felony -- i.e., a mandatory minimum of 4 years in prison. A judge had found her guilty of the class 1 felony but Sheppard Law Firm filed a Motion to Reconsider. In its Motion for Reconsideration, Sheppard Law Firm cited an out-of-state case for the proposition that the defendant lacked the intent to sell all of the drugs which officers recovered. The judge ultimately agreed and reversed his initial ruling. Accordingly, the defendant avoided the mandatory prison sentence and received probation.

  • Social Worker Not Guilty Of DUI And Petition To Rescind Statutory Summary Sustained

    In the case of People of the State of Illinois v. X......(November, 2013) in the Skokie Courthouse, 5600 Old Orchard Road, the defendant, a social worker at a reputable educational institution, was found not guilty of Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol. The officer had testified that he seized a water bottle containing what he believed to be wine from the cup-holder in the front seat of the vehicle and that the defendant failed three standardized field sobriety tests and three non-standardized field sobriety tests. Adam Sheppard cross-examined the arresting officer regarding whether there was any correlation between a defendant's performance on the non-standardized field sobriety tests and a blood alcohol content; the officer conceded that he was unaware of such a correlation. In addition, Mr. Sheppard introduced evidence that the defendant suffered from a learning disability which may have affected her ability to follow instructions during the field sobriety tests. Mr. Sheppard had also subpoenaed the defendant's tennis instructor - who also runs a physical therapy center -- who was prepared to testify that the defendant had just come from tennis and was symptomatic of plantar fasciitis. The judge found that there was reasonable doubt as to the defendant's guilt and found her not guilty.

    On a prior date on the same case, Sheppard Law Firm was also successful in having the defendant's 12-month statutory summary suspension -- based on her refusal to submit to the breathalyzer test -- rescinded. Sheppard filed a memorandum of law in support of the petition to rescind statutory summary suspension. The memorandum submitted that a technical defect in the notice of summary suspension form violated the defendant's due process rights -- the judge agreed and granted the petition to rescind the summary suspension. Accordingly, the defendant did not suffer any interruption of her driving privileges.

  • U.S. District Court: The Court Grants Over 50 Percent Reduction From Federal Sentencing Guidelines' Calculation In Illegal Re-entry Case -- The Court Agrees With Sheppard's Argument That A 16-Level Enhancement Based On Prior Conviction Was Unduly Harsh In This Case

    On November 1, 2013 in U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois, 219 S. Dearborn, in the case of United States v. S.H. (2013), the chief judge sustained Adam Sheppard's Objections to the Pre-sentence Investigation Report and granted a 50% Departure from the initial Guideline Range in an illegal re-entry case. The departure was based on the argument that the guidelines unfairly increased the defendant's offense level by 16 levels based on his prior drug delivery conviction. The guidelines call for a 16 level increase in an illegal re-entry case where the conviction that led to the defendant's deportation resulted in a sentence in excess of 13 months' imprisonment. Sheppard argued that it was unfair to blindly apply that 16-level enhancement in every case. Rather, Sheppard asked the chief judge to look at the age of the underlying conviction (it was 2004) and the nature of the underlying conviction (defendant was more of a courier than drug kingpin). The chief judge considered this argument, as well as the fact that the defendant was motivated to return to the U.S. to provide for his family. The chief judge thus imposed a sentence that was 50% less than what the initial Federal Sentencing Guideline calculation called for.

  • Petroleum Engineer Sweeps Table (Two Not-Guilty Findings) In Two Aggravated DUI Cases To Avoid Mandatory Four-Year Prison Sentences — Use Of Expert Witnesses Carry The Day For The Defense

    The defendant needed two not-guilty findings on two Aggravated DUI cases to avoid being imprisoned for a minimum of four years on each -- he was victorious.

    In the case of People of the State of Illinois v. K.J., in the Skokie courthouse, 5600 Old Orchard Road, the defendant was acquitted a DUI charge involving a breathalyzer result of .09. Sheppard Law Firm was successful in suppressing the breathalyzer result from evidence based on testimony from the defendant's physician that the defendant had GERD - gastroesophageal reflux disease -- coupled with testimony from a breathalyzer expert that GERD could affect the breathalyzer result. Following the suppression of the breathalyzer results, Sheppard's client was acquitted at trial.

    In the other case for the same defendant, the defendant was also acquitted at trial. That case involved a concerned citizen - a lawyer - who called the police about the defendant staggering to his car. When the officer came upon the defendant, the defendant was asleep behind the wheel. The officer testified that the defendant appeared intoxicated and failed the field sobriety tests. Sheppard called the defendant's allergist as a witness. The allergist testified that the defendant could have been suffering from an anaphylactic episode which mimicked the symptoms of drunkenness. Sheppard also tracked down the bartender, who had served the defendant a drink, just before the defendant went to his vehicle. The bartender testified that the defendant was not drunk. The judge found that there was reasonable doubt as to whether the defendant was under the influence of alcohol and found the defendant not-guilty.

  • Acclaimed Spa/Resort Owner Not Guilty Of DUI/Legal Argument Whether Officer Properly Demonstrated The Field Sobriety Tests Adds To Reasonable Doubt

    In the case of People of the State of Illinois v. ....., (September 2013), in the Skokie Courthouse, the defendant, who owns and operates a widely acclaimed spa/resort, was found not guilty of driving under the influence. Barry Sheppard impeached the officer regarding the proper demonstration of the field sobriety tests under the National Highway Transportation Safety guidelines and the court was left with reasonable doubt as to defendant's impairment.

  • Exclusion Of Telephone Recording From Evidence Results In Not Guilty Of Telephone Harassment Charges

    The case of People of the State of Illinois v. ...., (September, 2013), at 555 Harrison, Harrison/Jefferson, featured a Romanian defendant and Romanian complaining witness. The alleged harassing telephone messages were in Romanian. Sheppard Law Firm had the messages translated but the complaining witness testified that the messages contained content that was not in the transcript received by Sheppard Law Firm. Barry Sheppard cross-examined the complaining witness regarding his basis for stating that the telephone conversation, which occurred in Romanian, contained threatening messages. Following Sheppard's cross-examination, the judge refused to allow the prosecution to introduce into evidence a recording of the telephone conversation in question. The defendant was found not guilty of all charges.

  • Boxer Found Not Guilty Of Battery At McDonalds

    In the case of People of the State of Illinois v. J...(July 2013), 2600 S. California, Sheppards' client was found not-guilty of battery following trial. The defendant, a professional boxer, was charged with battering the alleged victim. The complainant testified that after a verbal argument with the defendant, the defendant used a combination of punches to knock him down. However, a McDonald's employee whom Sheppard Law Firm had located prior to trial testified that the complainant was the initial aggressor. The trial judge ruled that the conflicting evidence warranted a finding of not guilty.

  • Acquittal Of Domestic Battery Charges And Petition Order Of Protection. Defendant Was Acting In Self-Defense; Subpoenaed Witnesses Corroborate Defendant's Testimony.

    In the case of People of the State of Illinois v. J.B, (July 2013) at 555 Harrison, the defendant was acquitted of domestic battery charges and the judge denied the complainant's request for an Order of Protection following a lengthy evidentiary hearing. The complainant had alleged that Sheppard's client punched him and threw him into a wall resulting in injuries. On cross-examination, Adam Sheppard adduced that the complainant had been drinking and that police did not initially view the complainant as the victim. Sheppard had also subpoenaed two witnesses who testified in support of the defendant's version of events. The defendant had testified that he raised his arms in self-defense and the complainant stumbled backwards into a wall. The judge ruled in favor of the defendant and denied the complainant's request for an Order of Protection. The domestic battery charges were dismissed as well.

  • Not Guilty Of Resisting/Obstructing A Peace Officer: Defendant Had Right To Resist Unlawful Stop And Search

    In the case People of the State of Illinois v. F.B. (March, 2013), in Branch 43, 3150 W. Flournoy, the defendant was found not-guilty following a bench trial. The defendant had been charged with resisting/obstructing a peace officer based on an allegation that he refused to show officers what was in his mouth. Officers testified that they stopped the defendant's vehicle to conduct a drug investigation and that they observed the defendant holding a plastic bag containing white powder, put the bag in his mouth, and then refuse to open his mouth for officers. Officers then handcuffed the defendant and the defendant allegedly lunged to the ground in an effort to get away, resulting in substantial abrasions and stitches to defendant's left eye socket.

    Adam Sheppard cross-examined the officers regarding their legal justification for the stop and the subsequent search of the defendant's mouth. Citing case-law, Sheppard argued that a defendant does not have to open his mouth in response to an officer's direction to do so. Sheppard further cited cases for the proposition that a defendant does not have to submit to an unlawful Terry-stop.

    Sheppard also introduced photographs of the defendant's injuries, arguing that the officers' testimony about the cause of those injuries was incredible.

    The trial judge agreed with Sheppard's legal argument and found the defendant not-guilty of resisting/obstructing a peace officer.

  • Science Behind The Romberg Balance Test And Lack Of Convergence Test Leads To Not-Guilty Finding For Defendant Charged With DUI-Cannabis And/Or Alcohol

    In the case of People of the State of Illinois v. W.N. (March, 2013), in the Skokie courthouse, the defendant's 12-month statutory suspension of his driving privileges was rescinded and he was found not guilty of driving under the influence of cannabis, the combined influence of alcohol and cannabis, and alcohol. Adam Sheppard's cross-examination of the arresting officer regarding his drug detection training and the science of the Romberg Balance Test and the Lack of Convergence Test (two tests officers use to detect cannabis use) rendered the evidence insufficient to sustain any of the charges. The defendant's 12-month statutory summary suspension was also rescinded in this case.

  • Lawyer's Failure To Complete Breathalyzer Test Excused By Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

    The People of the State of Illinois v. --, Skokie courthouse (March, 2013), involved the DUI arrest of a 62-year old lawyer. The lawyer had attempted to submit to the breathalyzer following her arrest but asserted that she could not render a sufficient air sample because she had a history of smoking which affected lungs. The arresting considered the lawyer to have "refused" the breathalyzer. Accordingly, the lawyers was facing a 12-month suspension of her driving privileges. Sheppard Law Firm petitioned to rescind the suspension, arguing that the defendant did not "refuse" the breathalyzer. Rather, the defendant attempted the breathalyzer but was unable to furnish a sufficient breath sample because she had COPD (Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease).

    Sheppard Law Firm called a breathalyzer expert to testify that an individual with COPD is often unable to furnish a sufficient breath sample for the EC/IR breathalyzer machine. The defendant also testified about her COPD and demonstrated her attempt at blowing into the breathalyzer. On cross-examination, the police officer conceded that she gave the defendant two attempts at taking the breathalyzer because she thought the defendant had genuinely tried blow into the machine the first time.

    Following the conclusion of the testimony, the judge sustained the Petition to Rescind Statutory Summary Suspension and the defendant did not suffer the 12-month suspension of her driving privileges.

  • Interpretation Of "Material Obstruction" Statute Leads To Dismissal Of Case For Defendant Facing Substantial Jail Time

    In the case of People of the State of Illinois v. M.P., (March, 2013), at the Daley Center, 50 W. Washington, Sheppard Law Firm obtained a dismissal of all charges for a man charged with multiple instances of driving while license revoked. A conviction for the charges would have resulted in substantial jail time based on the defendant's driving record. Sheppard Law Firm had filed a Motion to Quash the Arrest and Suppress Evidence, arguing that the officer was not justified in stopping the defendant for an obstructed rear windshield. A statute prohibits driving with an object in the vehicle which "materially obstructs" the rear windshield. The motion argued that any object which the defendant had in his vehicle did not constitute a "material obstruction" under case-law. Just before the motion was to proceed to hearing, the State dismissed all charges.

  • No "Constructive Possession" For Passenger In Vehicle: Not Guilty Of Possession Of Cannabis

    In the case of People of the State of Illinois v. A.D. (Jan. 2013) in DuPage County, 18th Judicial District, Sheppards' client was found not guilty of possession of cannabis and drug paraphernalia following a bench trial. The defendant was the backseat passenger in a vehicle that was stopped by a police officer after it left Zero Gravity (a teenage night club). The officer alleged that he smelled the odor of cannabis and searched the vehicle. The officer recovered cannabis from under the passenger seat towards the rear portion of the seat. The officer arrested the defendant - the backseat passenger - believing that he had discarded the cannabis under the seat as the officer was approaching.

    At trial, Adam Sheppard presented several appellate court cases - i.e. precedent - which established that the passenger did not have "constructive possession" over what was recovered in the vehicle. The trial judge found the defendant not guilty of all charges.

  • Dismissal Of Debit/Credit Card Fraud Cases

    In one debit card fraud case in the Markham courthouse (December, 2012), People of the State of Illinois v. D.C., the charges against Sheppard Law Firm's client were dismissed by the State following Adam Sheppard's cross-examination of the arresting officer at preliminary hearing. The defendant had been charged with use of a counterfeit, revoked, or forged credit card. Adam Sheppard adduced the meaning of the terms "counterfeit," "revoked," and "forged" through the testimony of the arresting officer. After cross-examination of the officer, the State dismissed the charges.

    In another complex credit card fraud case earlier in the week, People of the State of Illinois v. T.N. (December, 2012), Circuit Court of Cook County, Sheppard Law Firm succeeded in obtaining a dismissal of charges of credit card fraud which involved the cutting edge technology of a credit card writer. In this case, customs agents in Canada observed a credit card writer in the defendant's belongings as he was boarding a plane for Chicago. Customs agents notified Ohare about the credit card writer and officers met the defendant on the tarmac, seized the credit card writer, and arrested him. Credit card fraud scams involving a credit card writer are described in the following USA Today article: http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/news/computersecurity/infotheft/2007-07-31-gift-cards_N.htm

    Leave a comment | no responses

  • Not Guilty Of DUI: Cross-Examination Leads To Directed Finding For Defendant

    In the case of People of the State of Illinois v. M.M. (December, 2012), in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Daley Center, 50 W. Washington, Sheppard Law Firm's client was found not guilty of DUI at the close of the State's case. Adam Sheppard impeached the officer regarding his ability to recall which aspects of the field sobriety tests that defendant allegedly failed. Sheppard also discredited the officer's testimony regarding the defendant's alleged poor driving. The defendant's one-year statutory summary suspension in this matter was also rescinded.

  • Not Guilty Of Battery Of Front Desk Officer: Defendant Was Acting In Self-Defense

    In the case of People of the State of Illinois v. V.J., in Branch 29 (2452 W. Belmont)(2012), Sheppard Law Firm's client was found not guilty of battery following a bench trial. The allegations were that the front desk officer at an apartment building broke up a roof-deck party that was occurring on the roof of an apartment building after the roof was supposed to be closed. The front desk officer testified that the defendant was angry at him for breaking up the party and hit him in the face, knocking out his tooth. The defendant testified that she was gathering her personal property after the front desk officer announced that the party had to end; that she was apparently not moving fast enough for the front desk officer and he reached towards her grabbing her arm. The defendant then acted in defense of self by throwing her arm up with a closed fist striking the front desk employee in the face. Adam Sheppard argued that the state had not disproved the proposition that his client was acting in self-defense. The trial court agreed and found the defendant not guilty.