Our Client, Ed, was charged with aggravated domestic battery charging great bodily harm after he was allegedly involved in an incident with his brother in Will County.
At trial, Ed’s brother testified that Ed punched him in the face, which resulted in multiple cheek and nose fractures. The State introduced pictures of these injuries.
On cross-examination of Ed’s brother, we introduced a certified copy of a criminal disposition where Ed’s brother was previously convicted of an aggravated domestic battery.
Ed testified that his brother was the aggressor and punched Ed in the face. Ed testified that although he tried to defend himself he still ended up with a black eye and marks on his face.
During closing argument, we argued that Ed’s brother’s testimony was not believable. We further argued that whatever contact Ed made with his brother was in self-defense. Moreover, we argued that under the law, Ed’s self-defense claim was bolstered because his brother had a prior conviction for aggravated domestic battery. We argued that the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Ed committed any battery.
Ed was found not guilty of aggravated domestic battery as well as all misdemeanor battery counts.
Our Client, Brian, was involved in a car accident when he hit a parked car on a street in Burbank.
After the officer arrived to the scene of the accident, he made several observations and talked to multiple witnesses. Brian was then arrested for Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol.
At trial, the officer testified that he detected a strong odor of an alcoholic beverage on Brian’s breath. The officer testified that Brian needed the vehicle for support and swayed. The officer further testified that Brian’s clothes were disarranged, his eyes were glassy, and his speech was thick tongued. The officer testified that in his opinion, the effect of alcohol on Brian was extreme and that Brian was unfit to operate a vehicle.
During closing argument, we argued that the State did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Brian was under the influence of alcohol.
Brian was found not guilty of DUI.
Our client, Nathan, was stopped by the Cook County Sheriff’s Police after he was allegedly involved in a hit and run accident.
After submitting to field sobriety tests, Nathan was arrested for Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol.
At trial, the officer testified that he smelled a strong odor of an alcoholic beverage emitting from Nathan’s breath and observed him to have blood shot eyes. The officer further testified that Nathan admitted to having a few beers. Further, the officer noted that he observed Nathan to have slurred speech and appeared unfocused and sleepy.
The officer testified that Nathan failed two out of the three standard field sobriety tests offered. More specifically, the officer testified that Nathan failed the HGN and the walk and turn but passed the one leg stand.
At the end of the trial, we argued that the State failed to meet their burden of proof that Nathan was driving under the influence of alcohol. Nathan was found not guilty of DUI.
Our client, Daniel, was stopped for failing to use his turn signal and making a wide turn. The officer indicated that he observed an odor of burnt cannabis emanating from Daniel’s breath. The officer found a jar of cannabis in the back seat of his car. Daniel refused to submit to any blood or urine test.
Daniel was arrested for Driving Under the Influence of Cannabis and received a one-year suspension of his driver's license for refusing to submit to the blood or urine test. We filed a Petition to Rescind the Suspension, and at the hearing, the officer testified that Daniel had bloodshot eyes, dilated pupils, and had fast speech. The officer further testified that Daniel had body tremors. At the conclusion of the hearing, Daniel’s suspension was rescinded based on our argument that the officer did not have reasonable grounds to ask Daniel to take the blood or urine test.
At trial, the evidence was heard and Daniel was found not guilty of Driving Under the Influence of Cannabis.
Our client, Anthony, was stopped by the Oak Lawn Police Department for speeding, swerving over a median lane, and bumping into a raised median. Prior to making the stop, the officer observed Anthony put his car in reverse while stopped at a red light.
Anthony was arrested and charged with Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol.
At trial, the officer testified that he smelled a strong odor of an alcoholic beverage emitting from Anthony’s breath. The officer further testified that Anthony admitted to having a few drinks. Anthony agreed to submit to field sobriety tests and the officer explained that he failed the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus Test, the Walk and Turn Test, and the One Leg Stand Test. The officer testified that, in his opinion, Anthony was under the influence of alcohol.
At the conclusion of the trial, Anthony was found not guilty of Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol.
Our client, Jay, hired us to expunge two cases, a Domestic Battery and an Assault. We represented him on both cases and all charges were dismissed. Even though both cases were dismissed, the arrests would appear on his record until they were expunged.
With our assistance, both cases were successfully expunged.
If you want to learn more about expungements, click here.
Our Client, Rich, was stopped by the Des Plains Police Department for improper lane usage. Prior to making the stop, the officer also observed Rich stop at a stop sign for 22 seconds before proceeding. Rich was arrested and charged with DUI, Open Alcohol, and Improper Lane Usage.
At trial, the officer testified that when she approached Rich, she smelled a strong odor of an alcoholic beverage emitting from his breath. She further testified that Rich’s face was flush, his eyes were watery, and he used his car door to assist him in exiting the vehicle.
An assisting officer testified that he asked Rich whether he drank any alcohol prior to driving. That officer testified that Rich avoided the question. That officer further testified that Rich failed the walk and turn, the one leg stand, and the finger to nose tests.
Both officers testified that in their opinion, Rich was under the influence of alcohol.
We argued that the State failed to meet their burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. After arguments, the judge found Rich not guilty on all counts.
Tim, was convicted of a DUI more than 15 years ago while using an attorney other than us. Upon conviction, Tim’s driver’s license was revoked. As such, he has been without any driving privileges for over 15 years.
Tim hired us to conduct a formal hearing before the Secretary of State to regain his driving privileges. After Tim’s first hearing, the Secretary of State stated that we met the heavy burden of clear and convincing evidence and granted him a Restricted Driving Permit as a probationary device.
Our Client, Danny, was stopped by the Oak Lawn Police Department for improper lane usage. The officer testified at trial that Danny swerved over the lane marker. The officer further testified that he smelled a strong odor of an alcoholic beverage coming from Danny’s breath and that Danny had glassy/bloodshot eyes. The officer testified that after Danny exited his vehicle, he stumbled backwards into his car. The officer further testified that in his opinion, Danny was under the influence of alcohol.
At trial, we argued that the State could not meet its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Danny was driving under the influence of alcohol. The judge agreed and Danny was found not guilty of DUI.
Many people do not realize that when they are arrested for a DUI, there are almost always 2 cases they must deal with: (1) the Summary Statutory Suspension and (2) the DUI.
The Summary Suspension is actually civil in nature, unlike the DUI which is a criminal case. Accordingly, the burden of proof is different.
Basic Rules for Summary Suspension
Unless your Suspension is rescinded, your license is generally suspended for 12 months if you refuse to take the breathalyzer and 6 months if you take the breathalyzer. However, if you are determined not to be a first offender, the suspension is longer.
How the DUI case can affect your license:
If you are convicted of a DUI, the Secretary of State will revoke your license. A revocation is drastically different than a suspension. After a suspension is over, you merely pay a reinstatement fee in order to reacquire your license. However, if your license is revoked, you cannot merely pay a reinstatement fee. Instead, you must undergo a hearing with the Secretary of State to attempt to get your license back. In short, if your license is revoked, you are generally without a license for a much longer period of time.
If you are interested in more detailed information, contact us or feel free to read our DUI guide. We have an entire section about the difference between Statutory Summary Suspensions and the DUI charge.
If you or someone you know is charged with a DUI, be sure to talk to an experienced DUI attorney. The lawyers at Pechter & Pechter LLP exclusively practice Criminal, DUI, and Traffic Defense as well as Secretary of State Hearings. Call our Palos Hill’s Office at 708-599-4300 for a Free Consultation. We are located just four blocks west of the Bridgeview Courthouse.