Top Rated Criminal Defense Attorney in Tinley Park, IL

Honors and Awards:

• Top 100 Trials Lawyers, National Trial Lawyers Association, 2014
• Top 40 Under 40, National Trial Lawyers, 2014
• Illinois Super Lawyers® Rising Stars℠

Verdicts and Settlements:

• (People of Illinois v. K.D.) K.D. was charged with felony possession of cannabis. The State was not able to show they had probable cause to charge at the preliminary hearing. The officer could not testify truthfully about from where he recovered the cannabis and that point the Judge made a finding of no probable cause., 2011
• (PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS V. S.C. )  S.C. was charged with Arson which is a Class 2 felony in Illinois. At trial the eye witness was impeached many times. Initially my client was found guilty. Immediately afterwards I filled a motion to reconsidered and the court over turned the guilty finding and found my client not guilty., 2010
• (PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS V. D.S.) D.S. was wrongfully accused of driving under the influence of alcohol. My client did not submit to a breathalyzer but performed a field a sobriety test that was rushed by the police officer. In addition the officer was impeached at trial. The court found my client D.S. not guilty of the offense of D.U.I., 2010
• (PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS V. J.M.) J.M. was charged with battery. In this case J.M. was involved in a fight, during this fight J.M. stabbed the complaining witness in the chest. J.M. was arrested and charged with battery. At trial I was able to assert a self defense argument and my client was found not guilty., 2010
• M.G. was pulled over for tinted windows and subsequently arrested for driving while license suspended. At which point Chicago Police searched the vehicle of M.G. and found a loaded fire arm. M.G. was charged with unlawful possession of a firearm by felon. M.G. was looking at 2-14 years in prison. Our office advocated for him at the evidence suppressed because arresting officer performed a illegal inventory search.
• (People v. S.U) S.U was charged with attempted murder, aggravated battery, aggravated discharged of a firearm, and armed violence. S.U. made a statement to authorities implicating himself in the crimes. After careful review of discovery and diligent research our office was able to put together a very strong motion to suppress statements. At which point the State offered four years instead of the minimum twenty one years.
• (People v H.I.) H.I. was charged with DUI. H.I. was not asked to complete a field soberity test by the arresting officer. Furthermore the arresting officer did not view my client swerving or driving erratically. At the end of the day all the officer could testify to is that my client's breath smelled like alcohol and he found a bottle of open alcohol in the vehicle. My client was happy with the result at trial which was a not guilty.
• (People v A.G.) A.G. was charged with DUI. A.G.did admit to having a beer before he drove but stated he was not drunk. A.G. grasp of the English language is weak at best. After viewing the insquad video it was clear that A.G. did not perform as well as he should have on the field soberity test, because of the language barrier. At trial I was able to demonstrate this language barrier was the reason for A.G.'s poor performance on the field soberity test and not because he was under the influence and my client was happy with the Not Guilty.
• (People v F.M.) F.M. was charged with receiving stolen property. He was alleged to have bought stolen I. Phones. At the preliminary hearing the State was unable to introduce the value of the phones over my objection. Since they were not able to demonstrate the value of the goods which is an essential element of the crime there was a finding of no probable cause and my client was not charged with any crime.
• (People v. J.O.)J.O. was charged with felony pcs of cannabis in that he possessed over two pounds of cannabis. The cannabis was not found on J.O.'s person but rather in a vehicle that he was in at the time of the arrest. After the State was confronted with the obvious weakness in their case in that they will not be able to prove constructive possession beyond a reasonable doubt the case was dismissed.

Educational Background:

• Depaul University, B.A., Political Science, 2005