Recent Cases
Reality T.V. Star found Not Guilty of Battery
In the case of People of the State of Illinois v. A……., (2012), in Branch 29, Belmont & Western, Sheppard Law Firm, P.C., won an acquittal on behalf of its client, a reality T.V. star who was accused of battering a traffic enforcement agent in the River West area. The dispute allegedly arose after the defendant observed the traffic enforcement agent issuing him a ticket for parking in a space which the defendant had previously been authorized to park in. The traffic enforcement agent alleged that the defendant chest-bumped him as he was writing the ticket. On cross-examination, Barry Sheppard painted a picture of inadvertent chest-bump akin to an irate baseball manager who comes face-t0-face with an umpire. The trial court ultimately ruled that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the charge of battery and the defendant was found not guilty.
Leave a comment | 
no responses
Not Guilty of Aggravated Domestic Assault During High-Speed Chase
In the case of People of the State of Illinois v. D.H., in the Maywood courthouse, Fourth Municipal District, Sheppard Law Firm, P.C. won an acquittal on behalf of his client who was accused of attempting to ram his ex-gilfriend’s car with his own car while both parties were driving. The defendant was charged with Aggravated (Domestic) Assault. At trial, the defendant’s ex-girlfriend and her sister testified that the defendant observed their vehicle and attempted to “ram” them several times, including chasing them at a speeds of 65 mph or more on a street with a 25 mph speed limit. On cross-examination of the complainant, Adam Sheppard adduced the fact that she was still sour about the defendant terminating the relationship. There was also substantial cross-examination as to the ability of the complainant and her sister to observe the driver of defendant’s vehicle. The defendant’s current girlfriend testified that she was driving the defendant’s vehicle at the time in question. The trial court ultimately found that there was reasonable doubt as to whether the defendant was driving the vehicle and as to whether the driver knowingly attempted to make contact with the complainant’s vehicle. Accordingly, the defendant was found not-guilty.
Leave a comment | no responses
Adam Sheppard sits as Moot Court Judge for Northwestern Law School
Adam Sheppard was recently honored to be tapped by faculty of Northwestern Law School to sit as a judge for a Moot Court proceeding at the law school. Adam was part of a three judge panel which acted as a would-be U.S. Court of Appeals in a moot court case involving the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act as well as a breach of contract claim. The students who participated in the moot court proceeding were extremely well prepared and responded to Judge Sheppard’s questions thoroughly and articulately.
Leave a comment | no responses
Adam Sheppard argues before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit regarding Federal Sentencing Issues
In the case of United States. v. J.R. (7th Cir. 2012), Sheppard Law Firm, P.C. represents the defendant on appeal before the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. The issue on appeal is whether the defendant, who pled guilty to two counts of using a communication device – i.e, a telephone – to attempt to facilite a five kilogram drug transaction in violation of 21 U.S.C. 843(b) should have received a concurrent sentence as oppossed to a consecutive sentence. Another issue on appeal is whether the district court properly considered all of the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. 3553(a).
Adam Sheppard gave oral argument before the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals on April 12, 2012. The matter has now been taken under advisement by the Court of Appeals.
Leave a comment | no responses
Adam Sheppard Lectures at Chicago Bar Association / Young Lawyers Section Criminal Law Committee on Strip Searches and the Recent Florence Decision
On April 13, 2012, at the Chicago Bar Association, Adam Sheppard was honored to speak to the Young Lawyer’s Criminal Law Committee on the issue of strip searches, the recent Florence decision from the U.S. Supreme Court, and the state law in Illinois regarding strip searches. Below is a link to the recent Florence case where the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, authored by Justice Kennedy, held that jail officials did not violate the Fourth or Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution by carrying out a policy that every person arrested and held at a jail or other detention facility (where there would be the potential for interaction with other inmates), would be required to strip naked and manipulate parts of their body to allow for a visual inspection. The Court specifically rejected a proposal that would have banned jail officials from conducting strip searches of individuals arrested for minor offenses unless jail officials had a reasonable suspicion that the arrestee was concealing a weapon or other contraband. See the Florence decision at http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-945.pdf
In Illinois, arrestees are afforded greater protection against strip searches. The Illinois statute which governs strip searches is 725 ILCS 5/103-1 (c)-(j). It provides as follows:
"(c) No person arrested for a traffic, regulatory or misdemeanor offense, except in cases involving weapons or a controlled substance, shall be strip searched unless there is reasonable belief that the individual is concealing a weapon or controlled substance.
(d) "Strip search" means having an arrested person remove or arrange some or all of his or her clothing so as to permit a visual inspection of the genitals, buttocks, anus, female breasts or undergarments of such person.
(e) All strip searches conducted under this Section shall be performed by persons of the same sex as the arrested person and on premises where the search cannot be observed by persons not physically conducting the search.
(f) Every peace officer or employee of a police department conducting a strip search shall:
(1) Obtain the written permission of the police commander or an agent thereof designated for the purposes of authorizing a strip search in accordance with this Section.
(2) Prepare a report of the strip search. The report shall include the written authorization required by paragraph (1) of this subsection (f), the name of the person subjected to the search, the names of the persons conducting the search, and the time, date and place of the search. A copy of the report shall be provided to the person subject to the search.
(g) No search of any body cavity other than the mouth shall be conducted without a duly executed search warrant; any warrant authorizing a body cavity search shall specify that the search must be performed under sanitary conditions and conducted either by or under the supervision of a physician licensed to practice medicine in all of its branches in this State.
(h) Any peace officer or employee who knowingly or intentionally fails to comply with any provision of this Section is guilty of official misconduct as provided in Section 103-8; provided however, that nothing contained in this Section shall preclude prosecution of a peace officer or employee under another section of this Code.
(i) Nothing in this Section shall be construed as limiting any statutory or common law rights of any person for purposes of any civil action or injunctive relief.
(j) The provisions of subsections (c) through (h) of this Section shall not apply when the person is taken into custody by or remanded to the sheriff or correctional institution pursuant to a court order." (Source: P.A. 81-1509.)
Leave a comment | no responses
Adam Sheppard Lectures at John Marshall Law School on Search and Seizures in the School Setting
On February 23, 2012 Adam Sheppard was honored to be a guest lecturer at John Marshall Law School on the issue of searches and seizures in the school setting. Mr. Sheppard discussed searches of students’ cars, lockers, desks, and cell phones as well as standards governing interrogations of students. Adam has published articles on this matter. Please see “published articles” page of this website.
Leave a comment | no responses
DuPage County: Gun Charges Dropped and Domestic Battery Dismissed
Dupage County, February 14, 2012: In the case of People of the State of Illinois v. K—-, following a meeting with prosecutors, the State agreed to drop charges of Unlawful Possession of a Firearm, Aggravated Assault and Domestic Battery. The defendant’s immigration status was thus unaffected.
Leave a comment | no responses
DuPage County: Defendant Not-Guilty of Violation of Order of Protection based on Screaming to Ex-Wife that she should be on the T.V. Show, “Cheaters.”
On February 14, 2012, Valentines Day, in the case of People of the State of Illinois v. J____(2012), in DuPage County, no love was lost between the defendant and his ex-wife who was the complaining witness. The defendant was charged with a Violation of an Order of Protection. The defendant’s ex-wife had alleged that when the defendant had picked the kids up at her house for a scheduled visitation he leaned inside her house and screamed to her that she should be on the T.V. show, “Cheaters.” She further alleged that he repeatedly called her a cheater. The State’s theory was that the defendant’s conduct constituted harassment, and, therefore he violated the order of protection.
Following cross-examination, Adam Sheppard presented a plethora of case-law regarding what consitutes “harassment” under the Domestic Violence Act. Adam argued, and the trial court agreed, that the defendant’s conduct would not have caused a ”reasonable” person “emotional distress,” as is required to prove harassment under the Domestic Violence Act. Accordingly, the defendant was found not-guitly.
This case marked the second time that Adam Sheppard obtained an acquittal on behalf of this client in a case involving his ex-wife. In the prior case, the same ex-wife had alleged that the defendant violated an order of protection when he called her house, collect, from the police station after she had him arrested for domestic battery. Sheppard won that case by arguing that a single call to the house without precise evidence as to what, if anything, was said between the parties, did not constitute unlawful “contact” within the meaning of the Domestic Violence Act.
Watch Our Video:
Google Reviews:
Copyright 2011/2012, All Rights Reserved, Sheppard Law Firm, P.C.
