Robert J. Callahan -Chicago Drug Lawyer

Home / Uncategorized / Robert J. Callahan -Chicago Drug Lawyer

Robert J. Callahan – Chicago Drug Lawyer

Mr. Moore was accused of Property of a Controlled Substance (Class 1 Felony) (cocaine). The arresting policeman indicated that he had actually gotten problems of a dope dealer matching Mr. Moore’s description in the location. The officer indicated that he came close to Mr. Moore for an area interview at which point Mr. Moore threw to the ground a plastic bag consisting of 3 grams of drug. The arresting policeman’s story was a total construction.

During cross-examination, the officer admitted that he did not see Mr. Moore doing anything unlawful. His tale also made no feeling, and had many accurate inconsistencies.The court found there was no possible source as well as disregarded the case outright.
Medication Fees– (Manufacture/Delivery of a Controlled Substance) (Lesson X).

This is a situation where examination made the difference between a guilty decision and a finding of Blameless. The Chicago authorities had actually charged Mr. Johns with participating in countless drug sales. They indicated that they had actually established a monitoring of a medicine spot which Mr. Johns had provided drugs to various people during their monitoring. The officers indicated during the initial hearing that Mr. Johns had obtained narcotics from an exterior structure light at a particular address. The police records also stated that he had obtained narcotics from that light.

Chicago criminal defense law firms that shine light on the structure had no location where narcotics might have been hidden. At test, Attorney Callahan challenged the law enforcement agent with the photos of the scene, and also challenged the common sense of their tale. Also, via examination a witness was located which had observed the authorities activity on that particular day. The witness offered a declaration as well as later affirmed that the cops had actually produced a good deal of just what they said happened on that particular day. At trial the Judge discovered that there was an Affordable Uncertainty and also discovered Mr. Johns BLAMELESS.

KN was jailed for offering split drug to an undercover agent (hereafter described as “the purchase). He was charged with manufacture as well as shipping of a controlled substance, a lesson 2 felony. A class 2 felony is culpable by a sentence of as much as 7 years behind bars.

Upon being hired by the family members, our first examination discovered that KH was jailed 90 mins after the transaction was completed. A more evaluation of the apprehension records showed that monitoring on the suspect was totally lost for over 90 mins after the alleged transaction. No one could describe where the transgressor went throughout that period.

In addition, we found a significant inconsistency pertaining to the summary of KH in the arrest record. Throughout the purchase, KN was referred to as using a red shirt with lengthy pants. Nonetheless, at the time of arrest, he was described as wearing a red tee shirt with shorts. This could not appear like a significant difference to some yet it is very crucial to the defense of the case. It bears upon the feasible misidentification of a suspect.

The difference of clothing combined with the home window of time where surveillance was lost, produced ample uncertainty as to whether KH was the same suspect which marketed split drug to the undercover agent. As a result, KH declined all appeal supplies and we proceeded to test.

Our protection focused primarily on the period of time where monitoring was lost as well as the disparity in garments. Throughout the trial, 2 separate policemans underwent an energetic cross-examination. The officers confessed to the loss of surveillance and also distinction in clothing yet both insisted the right guy was arrested. The State argued that KH should have altered from trousers to shorts throughout the 90 min home window. In ruling, the Judge stated that the State had actually failed to fulfill their problem and that there was reasonable as to whether KH was the same individual which offered crack cocaine to the undercover agent. DISCOVERING OF NOT GUILTY.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *