Criminal Defense Law Case Results
***Please note that Mr. Acosta has handled hundreds of large narcotics cases involving as much as 500 kilograms of cocaine and 1000 lbs. of marijuana as well as large amounts of heroin. He also has handled many murder trials and cases that involve violent felonies such as armed robbery and attempted first degree murder. Any lawyer can say that they did this and they did that. Please have them back it up! We are more than glad to.***
People v. A. P. (March 2017)
Aggravated Unlawful Use of a Weapon. Cl. 4
The Defendant was driving his vehicle and after a traffic stop the officers found out he was carrying a gun. He was charged with this serious weapons charge.
The Defendant hired Mr. Acosta. Mr. Acosta sets the case for trial and after hearing the evidence the Judge finds the defendant NOT GUILTY OF ALL CHARGES!
People v. T.R. (March 2017)
Aggravated Assault (gun), Battery & Disorderly Conduct.
The Defendant was arrested after he stopped a suspicious person near his girlfriends home. The Defendant believed that there was something going on out of the usual and stopped the person at gunpoint and asked what their business was in the area. The Defendant also told the man to call 911. Police arrive and take control of the situation. It is discovered that the man has business in the area and the Defendant is charged with the above crimes.
He hires Mr. Acosta to defend him. Mr. Acosta argues at trial that the Defendant was simply trying to find out what was going on. That is not a crime and since there was no criminal intent there could not be a crime.
NOT GUILTY ON ALL COUNTS.
People v. K.F.
Aggravated Domestic Battery (February 2017)
The Defendant was charged with this very serious crime and was in danger of getting a felony conviction. Not to mention possibly going to prison.
He was accused of beating his wife and step daughter with his fists after a family event.
He was arrested that same night.
The Defendant hired Mr. Acosta to defend him against these very serious charges. Me. Acosta argued that whatever happened at the house that evening was the result of the defendant acting out in self-defense. At the end of the trial the Judge found the Defendant NOT GUILTY of all felony charges and only guilty of a misdemeanor battery charge. The Defendant walked away free from all felony charges.
People v. A. N. (January 2017)
Attempted First Degree Murder
The defendant was arrested after he was identified by witnesses as being the person who shot another man at a bar. The defendant’s vehicle was identified and a gun was recovered from the Defendant’s home after he was arrested. The Defendant hired Mr. Acosta to defend him in this very serious case that carried a minimum of 31 years in prison at 85% if he is convicted. Mr. Acosta set the case for trial and argued that the witnesses were unreliable for various reasons. After hearing all the evidence the Judge found the Defendant NOT GUILTY on all counts.
People v S. J. (January 2017)
The defendant was arrested for aggravated DUI after a Chicago police officer observed on camera the defendant driving the wrong direction and striking a parked vehicle. The defendant was charged with a class 3 felony punishable by 2 – 5 years in prison without the possibility of probation. At trial, the arresting officer testified that the defendant had slurred speech, red and bloodshot eyes and admitted to consuming alcohol. The defendant was unable to produce a drivers license and refused to exit the vehicle. When the officers eventually got the defendant out of the vehicle he was unable to stand and required officers assistance. The defendant refused field sobriety testing. At trial, Attorney Batovski argued that the defendant’s actions were consistent with being in a car accident and not impairment. Further, the defendant’s slurred speech was in minimal statements. NOT GUILTY!!
People v C.V. (November 2016)
The defendant was arrested for DUI by the North Riverside police department after he struck a vehicle in the Miller’s Ale House parking lot. When the police arrived, they spoke to the occupants of the car that the defendant hit. At trial, there was testimony by one occupant that the defendant appeared “drunk” and staggered. The defendant admitted to the police officer that he drank too much but denied driving. The defendant subsequently failed all field sobriety testing on video. At trial, defense attorney Batovski argued that the officer never observed the driving or crash. Furthermore, there was evidence introduced that the defendant has leg injuries from military service in Afghanistan thus failing the field sobriety testing. The judge believed the defendant was in fact driving but no under the influence of alcohol. NOT GUILTY!!
People v. G.V. (October 2016)
The defendant was stopped for speeding and arrested for aggravating speeding and DUI. Both offenses are misdemeanors punishable by jail. The defendant admitted to drinking beers and appeared intoxicated to the arresting officer. At trial, attorney Batovski argued that although the observations may have appeared as intoxication in the officers eyes, the defendant never performed and failed any DUI tests and didn’t have slurred speech which would be consistent with an impaired driver. NOT GUILTY!!
People v J.S. (August 2016)
The defendant was stopped and arrested for DUI by the Illinois State Police after the defendant was observed swerving from lane to lane and driving under the speed limit. The defendant admitted to consuming one beer and performed and failed field sobriety testing. At trial, the arresting trooper testified that the defendant had bloodshot and glassy eyes and slurred speech. The prosecution submitted video of the entire arrest including the field sobriety testing. On cross examination, attorney Ronald Batovski asked the trooper if he questioned the defendant’s observations and his response was “no”. The officer admitted on cross examination that the defendant was extremely cooperative and never had any balancing issues. At closing arguments, the defense argued that the evidence presented by the prosecution was not enough – NOT GUILTY!!
People v J.E. (August 2016)
The defendant is charged with striking a semi, driving on a suspended license and DUI. The defendant hires the Acosta Law Group and attorney Joe Venditti immediately sets the case for trial. At trial Mr. Venditti is able to show that the States’ expert witness is incorrect in his assumptions regarding fault and is able to show that the Defendant is not guilty of DUI, driving on a suspended license or striking a semi-truck. THE RESULT – NOT GUILTY ALL CHARGES!!
People v A.M. (August 2016)
The defendant was arrested for DUI and leaving the scene of an accident. Both offenses are class A misdemeanors punishable by up to 364 days in jail. Attorney Ronald Batovski placed the case for a bench trial. At trial, the prosecution called a civilian witness to testify that on January 31, at approximately 4 am she was with her baby when she heard a loud crash. She looked out her window and observed a white vehicle strike multiple parked cars and fled. She identified the defendant as the driver. The arresting officer then testified that he observed the defendant in a matching white vehicle with heavy front end damage fleeing from the scene. The officer testified that upon stopping the defendant, he observed the defendant to have blood shot and glassy eyes and the officer detected an odor of alcohol on the defendant. The defendant admitted to consuming 4 alcoholic beverages prior to driving. Field sobriety testing was conducted on scene and the defendant failed all the tests. On cross examination, Attorney Ronald Batovski challenged the officers observations as being consistent with a driver who was possibly in a crash rather than a driver who was impaired. The officer never detected slurred speech and the driver was very polite which is not consistent with an impaired driver. As to the field sobriety testing, Batovski challenged the officers opinion as to whether or not the defendant actually failed the test. On the walk and turn test the officer testified that the defendant began too soon and walked 10 steps instead of nine. However, Batovski argued that the defendant never missed heel to toe and never stepped off the line. On the one leg stand test, the officer testified that the defendant never raised his foot six inches and put his foot down. Batovski argued that despite this, on the second attempt the devendant never put his foot down and counted as required. At closing arguments Batovski argued that the evidence presented at trial did not satisfy proof beyond a reasonable doubt. NOT GUILTY!!
People v I.P. (August 2016)
The defendant was arrested for DUI by the Chicago Police Department after he allegedly was involved in an accident and stranded his illegally parked vehicle, ran the plates and after seeing it was registered to the defendant, went to the defendant’s residence. The defendant admitted to the accident and drinking alcohol before the accident. The defendant submitted to field sobriety testing and failed. After the DUI arrest, the defendant submitted a breath sample that registered above the legal alcohol limit. Attorney Ronald Batovski filed a motion to quash the arrest and suppress all evidence based on lack of probable cause to stop and arrest the defendant. At the hearing, Batovski pointed out that no one including the officer ever saw the defendant driving. Further, the officer did not have an adequate description of any accident. Batovski further argued that anyone could have been driving this car that was registered to the defendant. Motion to quash arrest and supress evidence granted. All evidence suppressed. CASE DISMISSED!
People v. K.J. (July 2016)
Obstructing a Police Officer
The Defendant was wanted on a assault complaint from earlier in the evening. While on patrol an officer spotted him and tried to effectuate an arrest. The Defendant allegedly ran and was arrested 3 months later.
The defendant hired Acosta Law Group to defend him. Mr. Acosta set the case for trial. At trial Mr. Acosta argued that the state did not prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. Judge agreed and found the defendant NOT GUILTY.
People of the State of Illinois v. Y.R. (June 2016)
The defendant was stopped and arrested for DUI by the DuPage County sheriff’s police. The Sheriff responded to a caller identifying the defendant as the individual pounding on the caller’s front door at 2 AM. The caller gave a description of the defendants vehicle as it drove off. The DuPage county sheriff located that vehicle and observed the defendant exit that vehicle and walk at a fast pace. The defendant was stopped as the sheriff interrogated her. She, the defendant, admitted to consuming several shots and appeared extremely distraught because she thought her boyfriend who lived at that house was being unfaithful. The defendant performed and failed all field sobriety testing. At the trial, the sheriff testified that when the defendant was placed in handcuffs she became very combative and kicked the squad vehicle. He further testified that the defendant used vulgar language toward the sheriff. On cross examination, Attorney Ronald Batovski asked the officer if he learned that she suffered from any disorders such as depression or bipolar disorder? The sheriff responded that he learned that she in fact suffers from these disorders and was on medication as well that day. The officer also testified on cross examination that at no time did he detect slurred speech from the defendant. Batovski also asked the sheriff if her red and bloodshot eyes could be attributed to her crying rather than impairment and the sheriff said “yes”. At closing arguments Attorney Batovski argued that her observations were not consistent with impairment, rather, and upset distraught individual who suffers from multiple disorders. The trial judge agreed – NOT GUILTY!!
People v. R. J. (May 2016)
Aggravated Unlawful Use of a Weapon Cl. 4
Mr. J. was arrested after the car that he was driving was stopped and searched by a police officer. A gun was subsequently recovered from the center console. He was charged with this very serious offense that could send him to prison.
Mr. Acosta files a motion to suppress. After that motion is litigated the case is set for trial. Mr. J. is found NOT GUILTY of this very serious felony charge.
Attorney Fred Acosta as seen in The Chicago Tribune – you can read the full article HERE!
People v. F.A. and C A. (May 2016)
Aggravated Battery to a Peace Officer Cl. 2
The A. brothers were coming home from a night out on the town and were within houses from their own residence when a police officer stops Mr. F.A. and tries to search and detain him. C. A. is just behind his brother on the street. The officer escalates the situation and alleges that the brothers attack him and try to take his utility knife from him. The brothers are arrested and charged with this very serious crime.
The A. brothers hire Fred Acosta to defend them from the Acosta Law Group. After reviewing the limited amount of reports and seeing the officer’s alleged injuries in the case, Mr. Acosta sets the case for a jury trial. After 4 days of litigation and 13 witnesses testify. The jury finally deliberate and acquit the brothers of these false accusations. THE A. BROTHERS WERE FOUND NOT GUILTY!
People v. J. S. (April 2016)
Unlawful Use of a Weapon
Mr. S. was arrested after he was stopped for a minor traffic violation. Police started to ask Mr. S. questions and asked him out of his vehicle. While out of the vehicle officers say that Mr. S. stated that he had a gun in his car and gave consent to have his vehicle searched. A loaded weapon is found and Mr. S. is charged with this very serious offense.
Mr. S. hires Mr. Acosta to defend him. Mr. Acosta files a Motion to Suppress Evidence. At the evidentiary hearing Mr. Acosta argues that Mr. Smith never consented to have his vehicle searched. Therefore the evidence should be suppressed. The judge agrees and grants Mr. Acosta’s motion. GUN IS SUPPRESSED.
State of IL v H. P. (April 2016)
The Defendant is charged with aggravated assault to a Police Officer after the Chicago Police execute a warrant at his home, ransack the home, and shoot the family dog six times! The Police assert that Mr. P. attempts to strike the officers with a brick and attempts to take the weapon of an Officer out of his hands. Mr. P. hires attorney Joseph Venditti of the Acosta Law Group and Mr. Venditti immediately sets the matter for a jury trial. During trial, Mr. Venditti is able to show the jurors that Mr. Perez was never the aggressor and that only the actions of the Chicago Police Department were aggressive. The result, NOT GUILTY!
People v. A.H. (April 2016)
DUI Cl. A
Ms. H. was stopped by police after she allegedly committed a traffic violation. She had her children in the vehicle with her. The officer smells alcohol and asks the Defendant to submit to sobriety tests. She submits and ends up doing the breathalyzer. She is way over .08. She is arrested and charged with DUI. It appears that her case appears to be a lost cause.
Ms. H. ends up getting her driving privileges back. Mr. Acosta then files a Motion to Suppress Evidence. Mr. Acosta challenges the original traffic stop. After a hearing the judge agrees with Mr. Acosta that the officer had no reason to stop Ms. H. The Judge GRANTS the motion to suppress. Mr. Acosta saves the defendant from serving time in Cook County jail!!
People v. A. A. (March 2016)
Aggravated Battery to a Police Officer Cl. 2
Ms. A. and a couple of her friends were stopped by a suburban police officer on traffic detail. Ms. A. and her occupants asked what was the reason for the stop. One of the passengers started to video tape the encounter with his cell phone which upset the officer who then proceeded to try to take the phone from him. The situation escalated and before you know it the passengers and Ms. A. were taken from the car and arrested. The officers then charged Ms. A. with battering the officer about the body with her hands. She is charged with this very serious offense which could send her to prison if convicted. A video surfaces after Ms. Ali’s arrest which contradicts the officers version of what happened that day.
Mr. Acosta and his co-counsel take this case to a jury trial. After viewing the video the jury deliberates for only 26 minutes and comes back with a NOT GUILTY! Ms Ali is acquitted of all charges.
People v. S. L. (February 2016)
Driving while Under the influence of Alcohol – DUI
The Defendant was stopped for minor traffic violations. The officer allegedly notices a strong odor of alcohol and the typical observations during a DUI stop.
The Defendant some field sobriety tests and refuses the breathalyzer test. He is arrested and charged with DUI.
He hires the Acosta Law Group. Mr. Acosta takes the case to trial and argues that the State cannot prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. The Judge agrees and finds the Defendant NOT GUILTY OF DUI!
People v. E. V. (February 2016)
Possession of a Controlled Substance with Intent to Deliver Cl. X
The defendant was arrested after her apartment was raided by police officers who were in possession of a search warrant. The apartment was searched and a large amount of cocaine was found. She was arrested and charged with this non probationable offense.
She hires Mr. Acosta to defend her. Mr. Acosta gets the discovery and notices that 3 other individuals were present at the time of the execution of the search warrant. Mr. Acosta sets the case for trial.
At trial Mr. Acosta alleges that the State cannot prove that my client KNEW there was cocaine in the residence although it was established that it was her apartment. The judge agreed and finds the defendant NOT GUILTY of all charges.
People v. N. A. (January 2016)
The defendant was charged with a battery and hired the Acosta Law Group. Attorney Joe Venditti went to trial on the case. Through cross examination of the alleged victim and testimony from the defendant, Mr. Venditti was able to show that the battery never occurred. The result, not guilty!
(January 2016)
The defendant was accused of having sexual intercourse with a 15 year old relative and charged with a domestic battery. The defendant hired the Acosta Law Group and attorney Joseph Venditti immediately set the matter for trial. Initial offers from the state included sex offender registration for life. After several tense motions prior to trial Mr. Venditti was able to show the State their inability to prove all the allegations made. The result, the defendant was given 2 years probation, 15 days of SWAP on a simple battery and NO SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION!
People v. M. (January 2016)
The defendant was charged with driving with a suspended license, no insurance, and having an open bottle of alcohol in her vehicle. The defendant hired the Acosta Law Group and the matter was taken to trial by attorney Joseph Venditti. At trial, although the defendant was found guilty of having an open bottle alcohol in her vehicle, Mr. Venditti was able to show that the defendant was indeed never driving the vehicle, therefore the defendant was found NOT GUILTY for driving with a suspended license and no insurance.
People v. J. S. (December 2015)
Aggravated Unlawful Use of a Weapon by a Felon Cl. 2 (non probationable)
The defendant was a passenger in a vehicle that was stopped by officers for traffic violations. The officers ask the defendant to exit the vehicle because of suspicious movements in the car. The officers state that the reason was for “officer safety”. The defendant is brought to the rear of the vehicle where he is searched and handcuffed. The vehicle is subsequently searched and a weapon is recovered under the seat where the defendant was seated. He is charged with this felony offense which carries a mandatory 3-7 years in prison. He hires Mr Acosta to represent him.
Mr. Acosta gets the discovery which includes video from the squad car. A motion to suppress evidence is filed and litigated. The judge agrees at the hearing that the officers did not have probable cause to search. MOTION GRANTED. The gun is suppressed.
People v. A.L. (December 2015)
Retail Theft
Ms. L. was accused of retail theft after she was seen on video secreting items into a plastic bag and leaving the retail store. As soon as she exited the main door she circled back around into the store. The value of the items taken was more than $150. She is charged with Retail Theft.
At trial the State alleges that the reason that she leaves and comes back into the store is because the police are already outside. Mr. Acosta argues that we don’t know what Ms. L. saw because we can’t see any indicia of police or police vehicles outside. The State simply wants the Judge to assume that she saw police. Mr. Acosta then argues that the State can’t prove the defendant’s intent to permanently deprive the store of the merchandise. The Judge agrees and finds the Defendant NOT GUILTY.
People v. Z.M. (November 2015)
The defendant was charged with speeding, open alcohol in a vehicle, and Driving Under the Influence. The defendant hired the Acosta Law Firm and was facing a year long suspension of her drivers license. Mr. Acosta was able to reverse the suspension of the defendant and immediately set the matter for trial. At trial, attorney Joe Venditti, was able to show that the defendant, although guilty of speeding and open alcohol, was indeed NOT GUILTY of Driving Under the Influence.
People v. A. G. (November 2015)
Possession of a Controlled Substance with Intent to Deliver over 900 grams cocaine
Cl. X (15-60 years IDOC at 75%)
The Defendant was charged with this very serious case after a vehicle that he was a passenger in was stopped for a traffic violation. The officers who stopped the vehicle approached and said that they had seen Mr. Garcia exit the vehicle and start to walk away. The officer then peers into the car and on the passenger side allegedly sees a plastic baggie with suspect cocaine in it. The vehicle is searched and a large amount of cocaine is found under the seat where Mr. Garcia is seated. He is arrested and charged.
Mr. Acosta is hired and after receiving the police reports files a motion to suppress evidence. After a hearing the judge agrees with Mr. Acosta that the evidence should be suppressed. MOTION GRANTED. There is NO more evidence that the State can use against the Defendant. Mr. Acosta saves this client from a long prison sentence!!!
People v. S. (November 2015)
The defendant was arrested for felony driving on a revoked drivers license. Class 4 felony punishable by a minimum of 180 straight days jail. The defendant parked briefly on a one lane street and then drove off. Attorney Ronald Batovski filed a motion to quash the arrest and evidence based on lack of probable cause to stop the defendant. At the hearing, the officer testified that he observed the defendant illegally stopped and parked for minute. On cross examination, the officer testified that the defendant was stopped in the middle of the road but next to the curb. Defense attorney argued that was not possible thus questioning the officers credibility. Motion to suppress evidence granted, case dismissed!!
People v. J.C. (October 2015)
Bribery Cl. 2
Possession of a Controlled Substance Cl. 4.
Defendant was the passenger of a vehicle that was stopped for a traffic violation. The officers asked the Defendant to exit the vehicle and then searched him. They allegedly find contraband (cocaine) on the defendant’s person. Soon after the defendant allegedly offers the officers a $1000 bribe to let him and his brother go. He is charged with these very serious offenses.
He hires Mr. Acosta to defend him and his brother. Mr. Acosta has the charges against the driver (brother) dismissed immediately. Mr. Acosta files a motion to suppress evidence found at the time of the defendant’s arrest because there was no reason to ask the defendant out of the vehicle and search him. Mr. Acosta proceeds to a hearing and the motion is GRANTED!! Case is still pending as to the scope of what will be suppressed but at the very least the drugs will NOT be used against him!!!
(September 2015)
The respondent was served with an order of protection by his ex wife with allegations of abuse and verbal threats. The respondent hired the Acosta Law Group and attorney Joseph Venditti took the matter to hearing on the first court date. Through questioning of the ex wife and argument alone, Mr. Venditti was able to terminate the order of protection without even having his client take the stand. RESULTS MATTER!
(September 2015)
Defendant was charged with a Felony Aggravated DUI along with a Felony Possession of a Controlled Substance. The defendant hired the Acosta Law Group and attorney Joseph Venditti took the matter to trial. At trial, Mr. Venditti was able to show that the Defendant was not guilty of an Aggravated DUI, which a finding of guilty would have required a minimum of jail time and the Defendant was found guilty of solely the Possession of a Controlled Substance, which is a probationable offense. RESULTS MATTER!
People v. M. M. (August 2015)
The defendant was accused of driving under the influence, along with improper lane usage and illegal transportation of alcohol. Attorney Joe Venditti sets the matter for trial – attorney Venditti argued that the evidence presented was not enough to sustain the charge of DUI. The result, the Defendant is found not guilty of driving under the influence, improper lane usage and of illegal transportation of alcohol.
People v S. (August 2015)
The defendant was accused of trespassing at a local bar, resisting arrest from a police officer and obstructing the acts of the police officer. Attorney Joe Venditti, of the Acosta Law Group, took the case to trial before a jury. Through cross examination and use of the states attorneys own complaining witness, Mr. Venditti was able to show that the defendant never trespassed at the local bar and that the police officer engaged in a non-police action when he attempted to arrest the Defendant, which ultimately left the defendant with a broken nose. The jury found the defendant NOT GUILTY on all charges!!
People v G. (August 2015)
The defendant was arrested for DUI after driving the wrong way down a one way street. The defendant admitted to being impaired and submitted to the breathalyzer and blew two and a half times the legal limit. At trial attorney Ronald Batovski asked the officer whether or not the defendant was offered field sobriety tests on scene of the stop. The officer responded “no” due to weather conditions. Batovski asked the officer if he offered any other tests that could have been done regardless of the weather conditions. The officer responded “no”. At closing, Batovski argued there was no probable cause to arrest the defendant for DUI due to field sobriety testing being conducted post arrest. Judge agreed all evidence suppressed.
People v F. G. (August 2015)
The defendant was stopped and arrested after leaving a bar fight. Multiple witnesses identified his car near the bar. When the arresting officers attempted to stop the defendant, the defendant committed multiple traffic infractions and would not obey the officers sirens. The defendant’s vehicle finally stopped 6 blocks later at the defendant’s residence. The arresting officer testified at trial that the defendant was combative, belligerent and uncooperative. The officer further testified that the defendant threatened the officer. The arresting officer observed the defendant to have slurred and mumbled speech, strong odor of alcohol and red bloodshot glassy eyes. The defendant admitted to the officer that he drank beers before the stop. On cross examination Attorney Batovski asked the officer “how many beers did the defendant tell you he drank” the officer replied, “I never asked him” Batovski followed up with “when did the defendant consume this unspecified amount?” The officer replied “I never asked”. Batovski argued that the evidence at trial was weak and circumstantial. NOT GUILTY!
People v. C. S. (July 2015)
Domestic Battery
The Defendant was alleged to have beat his girlfriend severely. Pictues are taken of the injuries.There are also pictures of blood allegedly from the incident in the victims car.
The Defendant hires The Acosta Law Group. Mr Joseph Venditti takes this case to trial. Mr. Venditti argues that the victim has reason to fabricate since she is a jilted girlfriend and that the victim’s testimony just doesn’t add up. The Judge agrees in spite of the photos and finds the Defendant NOT GUILTY.
People v. A. C. (July 2015)
Aggravated Domestic Battery Cl. 2
The Defendant is arrested after the police arrive on scene to see the Defendant push a woman to the ground. The police see that the woman is covered in blood. An ambulance is called and the woman is treated and released. The woman alleges that the Defendant struck her in the face with a beer bottle. She is intoxicated at the time of the offense. She gives a handwritten statement to the police and Assistant State’s Attorney. There are some terrible looking photographs that were taken of the woman’s injuries.
The Defendant’s family hires Mr. Acosta. Mr. Acosta interviews the victim and she tells Mr. Acosta that she fabricated the whole thing and that the Defendant never struck her in the face with a bottle. Mr. Acosta sets the case for trial. At trial the woman explains to the judge why she did what she did and why she fabricated the whole thing. The Judge rules that since she is the only real witness and she has no credibility he has to find the Defendant NOT GUILTY. Defendant is released from custody.
People v. R.S. (July 2015)
Predatory Criminal Sexual Assault Cl. X
The Defendant was accused by the daughter of his ex that she was being molested by the Defendant. He is arrested and charged with this extremely serious crime.
He hires Mr. Acosta. Mr. Acosta sets the case for trial and Mr. Acosta argues that the only evidence is the girls word and that there is nothing to corroborate her version of events. The Judge agrees and finds the Defendant NOT GUILTY of all charges.
People v. R. O. (June 2015)
Filing a False Police Report
The Defendant was accused of having filed a false police report. The police alleged that the Defendant staged a burglary to his residence in order to collect insurance money.
The Defendant hired Mr. Acosta to represent him in this very serious case. Mr. Acosta set the case for trial and the Defendant was found NOT GUILTY of all charges.
People v. J. A. (June 2015)
Possession of a Controlled Substance with Intent to Deliver Cl. X
The Defendant was arrested after a confidential informant told police that the Defendant sold drugs from his home. The police set up surveillance and approached the Defendant on foot. They search him and find an ounce of cocaine on his person. The police then get a consent to search from the Defendant and search his home where they find a large amount of cocaine. The Defendant then makes a statement to the police that he sells drugs and signs the statement. He is now facing mandatory prison time if he is convicted.
The Defendant hires Mr. Acosta to represent him. Mr. Acosta files a Motion to Suppress which is denied. Mr. Acosta then sets the matter for trial. At trial Mr. Acosta alleges that the statement is not what it appears to be. Mr. Acosta argues that the State cannot prove the Intent to Deliver. The Judge finds the Defendant NOT GUILTY of intent to deliver and guilty only of possession. He is sentenced to probation. Mr. Acosta saves the Defendant from the Illinois Department of Corrections.
People v. C.S. (June 2015)
Armed Robbery
The Defendant is alleged to have met a person on Facebook and set up a meeting with that person to buy some expensive jeans. They meet at a public place. At that time it is alleged that the Defendant pulls out a gun and strikes the person in the face with the gun. The incident is captured on video. The Defendant is located by the police and is picked out by the victim as the person who robbed him at gunpoint. He is charged with armed robbery which carries a minimum of 21 years in the Illinois Department of Corrections.
The Defendant’s family hires Mr. Acosta to defend him. Mr. Acosta sets the case for trial. At trial Mr. Acosta argues that the State cannot prove that a firearm was used and the video is unclear what the Defendant struck the victim with. The Judge agrees and finds the Defendant NOT GUILTY of Armed Robbery and guilty of a lesser included offense which carries the possibility of probation.
People v. A. M. (May 2015)
Possession of Cannabis with Intent to Deliver. (Over 5000 grams) Cl. X
The Defendant is a resident of Canada working as a truck driver in the USA. While transporting goods in the US in his truck he is stopped by agents from the Illinois State Police Department and his truck is searched. The agents find 300 lbs. of cannabis in the truck. Mr. Maizels is then charged with this very serious crime.
The defendants girlfriend hires Mr. Acosta from Canada. Soon after Mr. Acosta gets one the case it is dismissed. The defendant who was on a $250, 000 cash bond is immediately released from jail.
People v. J. C. (May 2015)
Unlawful Use of a Weapon by a Felon Cl. 2 non probationable.
The defendant is arrested after someone calls the police that a man with a gun is shooting on 4th of July. Police arrive and after receiving information from a witness on scene they arrest the defendant in his back yard. He is handcuffed. Police then start to question him and fail to read him his Miranda rights. A gun is subsequently recovered and the defendant is charged with this non probationable offense.
The family hires Mr. Acosta and after filing motions to suppress evidence there is a hearing and Mr. Acosta wins the motion to suppress because the officer failed to Mirandize his client. MOTION GRANTED.
People v. J.G. (April 2015)
Aggravated Kidnaping / Criminal Sexual Assault / Unlawful Restraint
The Defendant was charged with these very serious offenses after he was accused of raping his wife through use of force. His family hired Mr. Acosta to defend him in this very serious case that carried a range of 6-30 years in prison.
Mr. Acosta set the case for trial and asserted the affirmative defense of consent. Mr. Acosta argued that there was motive for the wife to fabricate this alleged rape. Mr. Acosta also alleged that she had already told law enforcement prior to the Defendant’s arrest that the sex was consensual. After the close of the trial the Judge found the Defendant NOT GUILTY on all counts except the less serious offense of Unlawful Restraint. The Defendant walked out of the courtroom free of the more serious charges!!!
People v A. B. (March 2015)
The defendant was arrested for DUI and reckless driving after a Berwyn police officer observed the defendant engaged in road rage backing his vehicle into another multiple times. The defendant fled and was caught minutes later. The defendant was standing next to offending vehicle when arrested by Berwyn police. The defendant admitted he was angry and consumed six beers prior to the road rage altercation. The defendant consented to and failed all field sobriety testing on video. At trial, Attorney Batovski cross examined the officer and challenged the officers observation of the driver as he fled. Further, Batovski argued that the arrest occurred minutes later when the defendant was on foot and the offending vehicle was registered to Mr. Banuelos Senior, not junior. Trial Judge agreed. NOT GUILTY!
People v. J. de la C. (March 2015)
The defendant was arrested by the Berwyn Police Department after multiple community complaints that the defendant was drunk, arguing with his girlfriend and parked in front of her house. The defendant pulled away as the arresting officer approached. The defendant admitted to alcohol impairment and failed all field sobriety testing. Defense Attorney Ronald Batovski filed and litigated a motion to quash the arrest and suppress all evidence based on a lack of reasonable articulable suspicion and lack of probable cause to even curb the defendants vehicle. At hearing the officer testified that the callers identified the defendant and he was “drunk and loud with slurred speech”. On cross examination Batovski asked the officer whether the defendant acted as such when stopped and the officer said “no”. The officer testified that he did not observe any traffic violations prior to curbing the defendant. Batovski argued that there wasn’t adequate corroboration to rise to probable cause for the traffic stop. The Judge agreed and motion to suppress all evidence GRANTED!
People v. M. H. (February 2015)
The defendant was arrested for DUI after losing control of his vehicle and driving onto a sidewalk and striking a pole. Because this was the defendant’s 4th DUI, he was charged with a class 2 felony DUI that’s non probational and punishable by a minimum of three to seven years in prison. Multiple officers arrived on scene to assist in the accident and all made observations that the defendant had red blood shot and glassy eyes. The officers also detected that the defendant had slurred speech and a strong odor of alcohol was emanating from his breath. The defendant was asked to perform all field sobriety testing and allegedly failed miserably. At trial, defense attorney Batovski argued that no one including any of the officers observed the defendant driving or cause the accident. Further, none of the officers asked the defendant whether or not he consumed alcohol. The arresting officer did not recover alcohol from the defendant or his vehicle. Lastly, the field sobriety testing was not captured on video and all police squads were armed with video therefore Batovski argued that the results should be given minimal weight. Batovski argued that the State failed to meet their burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. NOT GUILTY.
People v. K. H. (January 2015)
Armed Violence Cl. X
The Defendant was arrested after a unmarked police car allegedly sees the Defendant smoking a marijuana cigar commonly known as a “blunt” while driving his friends car. After smelling burnt cannabis they search the Defendants car and find a large amount of cocaine and a handgun on the Defendant. He is charged with Armed Violence. This charge carries a minimum of 6-30 years in the IDOC. No probation is possible. Either the Defendant wins the case or he is going to the IDOC.
He hires Mr. Acosta to defend him. After filing a Motion to Suppress Evidence, Mr. Acosta asks the State’s Attorney to produce the evidence. Specifically the blunt. After the evidence is produced at the motion it is determined that the cigar in fact was NOT burned. The Judge grants the motion and the case should be DISMISSED. Mr. Acosta saves the Defendant from going to prison!
People v J.A. (December 2014)
The defendant was arrested for endangering the life of a child. A class A misdemeanor punishable by up to a year in jail. The defendant’s 9 year old daughter was allegedly alone at home when she walked to the neighbors house while crying and complaining of breathing problems. The neighbor called 911 and the paramedics. The defendant was subsequently arrested for endangering the life of a child. At trial, Attorney Batovski cross examined the witness neighbor as to whether she ascertained if the child’s parents were home and she said no. The neighbor attempted to testify that the girl said her parents were at work but Batovski objected to these hearsay statements and they weren’t admitted. The police officer further testified that he responded to the hospital and never checked if the child’s parents were home. Batovski argued that proof beyond a reasonable doubt was never proven by the prosecution. NOT GUILTY !!
People v. E.N. (December 2014)
Armed Robbery Cl. X
Minimum 21 years IDOC
The Defendant was alleged to have robbed a young man at gun point with his fellow friends who were alleged gang members. The Defendant was arrested after he was mentioned by a fellow cohort as being involved in the robbery. He was arrested and identified in a line up and subsequently makes a statement to police admitting his involvement. He is charged with Armed Robbery. This charge carries a mandatory minimum of 21-45 years in the Illinois Department of Corrections.
Mr. Acosta sets the case for trial and after all the evidence is presented, Mr. Acosta argues that the State cannot prove the Armed Robbery beyond a reasonable doubt. The Judge agrees and finds the Defendant NOT GUILTY of this very serious offense and guilty of other less serious charges that carry the possibility of probation.
People v R. Q. (December 2014)
The defendant was arrested for DUI after being stopped for parking in traffic. The arresting officer observed the defendant to have red and bloodshot glassy eyes and slurred speech. The defendant attempted to perform field sobriety testing but was unable due to intoxication. The defendant apologized to the officer for drinking too much. The entire arrest was captured on video and played at trial. Attorney Ronald Batovski successfully argued there was no bad driving and the officer never asked the defendant whether he consumed alcohol. Batovski also argued that the officer never asked the defendant if he had any injuries that would prevent him from passing the tests. The trial judge agreed. NOT GUILTY
People v. M. N. (December 2014)
Attempted First Degree Murder Cl. X
The Defendant was charged after it was alleged that he was walking down a street in Cicero, Illinois when he came across a married couple. He allegedly stated that he was going to kill the man while he was walking by the couple. The man and the Defendant allegedly started to argue and all of a sudden the Defendant allegedly pulls out a gun from his waistband and points it at the mans head and fires a shot. The man testified that as the Defendant pulled the gun out and after the Defendant said again that he was going to kill him, the man started to wrestle with the Defendant and managed to have the Defendant drop the gun. The Defendant allegedly takes off running and is followed by the man. The man realizes that he was shot on the side of his head and is bleeding profusely. The defendant ran away but allegedly comes back to the scene. He is then chased by the man who now has the gun and this time fires at least 3 (three) shots at the Defendant. The Defendant is stopped by the police and placed in a line up and identified by the man and his wife. He is charged with this very serious crime. The minimum is 31 years at 85% if he is convicted.
Mr. Acosta sets the case for trial and argues that the Defendant lacked the required state of mind to commit attempted murder. The Judge agrees and finds the Defendant NOT GUILTY of Attempted Murder. The Defendant is found guilty of much less serious offenses that carry much less sentences than that prior of going to trial.
People v. J.M. (December 2014
Possession of a Controlled Substance with Intent to Deliver Cl. X
Mr. M. was the driver of a vehicle that was stopped for a traffic violation. Officers became suspicious when the passenger was behaving nervously. A canine unit arrives and the dog alerts to the rear of the car. The officers search the car and find a large amount of cocaine under the rear seat. Mr M. is charged with this very serious offense that carries mandatory prison time if he is convicted.
The family hires Mr. Acosta who gets the reports in the case. Mr. Acosta notices that the State will have a problem proving that Mr. M. had knowledge of the cocaine. Mr. Acosta sets the case for trial. The Judge agrees and find Mr. M. NOT GUILTY of all charges. He is released from custody!
People v. F. I. (December 2014)
Criminal Trespass to Land
Mr. I. is charged after he is seen by a Chicago Park District officer going into a locked building. He is arrested and charged.
Mr Acosta argues at trial that the State failed to establish that he knowingly entered with any criminal intent. The Judge agreed that although it was suspicious that the state failed to meet their burden. NOT GUILTY!!
People v. I. P. (October 2014)
The defendant was arrested for DUI and his license was suspended for one year. Attorney Batovski immediately filed a petition to rescind summary suspension. At the hearing, the officer testified that an anonymous caller indicated that the defendants vehicle was involved in accidents with multiple parked cars. The officer then proceeded to the defendants residence. The officer spoke to the defendants daughter who indicated that her father was driving the vehicle. The defendant then entered from the kitchen and admitted to driving moments earlier and striking a tree. The officer observed the defendant to have red and bloodshot glassy eyes and failed all field sobriety tests. At trial, attorney Ronald Batovski argued that the defendant was never observed driving by the officer. Batovski argued that the state never proved that the defendant was impaired while driving. The defendant could have been impaired after the accident while at home. Petition to rescind statutory summary suspension granted.
People v. B. J. (October 2014)
Arrested for DUI – found NOT GUILTY at trial!
The defendant was arrested for DUI after an Illinois State Police trooper observed the defendant swerving on camera. The defendant pulled his vehicle over halfway into traffic. The officer observed the defendant to have red and bloodshot glassy eyes and a strong odor of alcohol. The trooper instructed the defendant to step over the guardrail and perform field sobriety tests which the defendant failed. At trial, attorney Batovski argued that the defendant had no difficulty stepping over the guardrail and no difficulty in conducting the field sobriety tests on a gravel filled ground. The judge agreed. NOT GUILTY!!
People v. R. (September 2014)
Arrested for DUI after failing ALL field sobriety testing – found NOT GUILTY!!
The defendant was arrested for DUI after rolling over his vehicle and shutting down local traffic. Chicago police responded to a call of a vehicle on its side and an individual next to it who appeared intoxicated. When the police officer arrived, the individual informed the officer that he lost control of the vehicle but was not injured. The defendant informed the officer that he consumed 4 beers before driving and failed all field sobriety testing that was captured on video. At trial, Attorney Batovski argued that the conditions of the street on the day of arrest were icy and the weather was cold therefore attributing to the driving and speech. Cold weather may make shiverring or mumbled speech. Further, even though the defendant did not have injuries, he could have sustained shock from the accident attributable toward his poor performance on the field sobriety tests. Finding of NOT GUILTY!!!
People V. L.C. (August 2014)
DUI – NOT GUILTY!!
The defendant was stopped and arrested for DUI by the Chicago Police Department after the defendant was observed driving erratically and almost hitting another vehicle. The defendant attempted to exit the vehicle and stated “I wasn’t driving” but then stated he consumed 6 beers. The defendant consented to and failed all sobriety testing. The arresting officer found multiple empty beer cans within the vehicle. At trial, defense attorney Batovski challenged all points of the prosecutions contentions of the defendant’s impairment. First, erratic driving is not indicia of impairment as the arrest occurred in February of 2014 which was a winter that yielded thousands of pot holes including the street the defendant was on. Further, the defendants admission to consuming 6 beers was not corroborated by the officer as to time of consumption. Lastly, Batovski argued that the field sobriety testing was completely subjective and thus would rise to reasonable doubt. NOT GUILTY!!
People v. M. (July 2014)
The defendant was arrested for DUI after the arresting officer observed the defendant driving in excess of 25 miles per hour over the the speed limit. The arresting officer observed an odor of alcohol on the defendant and red and bloodshot glassy eyes. The defendant admitted to drinking two beers and sharing a pitched of beer with a friend. The defendant consented to and failed all field sobriety testing. At trial, attorney Ronald Batovski elicited end testimony from the officer that the odor of alcohol detected from the defendant was not strong and the defendant’s speech was not slurred as most DUI offenders. Further the defendant was cooperative and the failed sobriety testing is subjective and as such the state did not meet their burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Result ~ NOT GUILTY!!
People v. M.E. (June 2014)
Possession of a Controlled Substance with Intent to Deliver >900 grams Cocaine
The Defendant was arrested after he gave consent to search his vehicle and his residence. The officers found 1 kilo of cocaine in his alleged home along with a scale. He is arrested and makes a statement to the officers. He is charged with this very serious charge which carries a sentence of 15- 60 years in the Illinois Department of Corrections if convicted at 75%. No probation is possible if convicted of this charge.
Mr. Acosta realizes that there is a lot of evidence against his client. Mr. Acosta argues that in spite of the evidence the State cannot prove that the quantity alone is indicia of intent to deliver. Mr. Acosta argues that at best it is simple possession based on the evidence presented by the State. The Judge agrees and finds the Defendant guilty of straight possession ONLY. A Class 1 felony which carries the possibility of probation.
People v. A. C. (June 2014)
Aggravated DUI Cl. 4
The Defendant was arrested after he was seen by a officer and told by the officer to move his car. In spite of the fact that the officer had seen that he had been consuming alcohol in his garage. The Defendant moves the car at the officer’s behest and he is then cited for DUI!!
Mr. Acosta sets the case for trial and after the officer admits that he had instructed the Defendant to move the car or he would have the vehicle towed the Judge finds the Defendant NOT GUILTY!!!
People v. S. de L. (June 2014)
Possession of a Controlled Substance with Intent to Deliver Cl. X
The defendant was arrested after he was stopped for traffic violations. After the stop and running his information the police notice that he was on bond for another Class X felony drug case. They then ask him if he had anything at his house. The Defendant then allegedly consents to the officers going to his house and searching. They find a large amount of heroin and some articles that would indicate intent to deliver. He then allegedly makes a statement to officers about having drugs at his house.
At trial Mr. Acosta argues that the drugs the Defendant purportedly admitted to was cocaine and not heroin and that there was someone else who lived at that residence. Mr. Acosta also argues that amount is not necessarily indicia of intent to deliver. The Judge finds the Defendant guilty of Possession of a Controlled Substance Cl. 4 felony along with Driving on a Revoked license, also a Class 4 felony ONLY. NOT GUILTY as to the intent to deliver!!!
People v. D. D. (June 2014)
Resisting /Obstructing a Police Officer
The Defendant was arrested after calling the police to assist him in removing a person from his apartment. After the police assisted this person in leaving and gathering their belongings. Mr. D. noticed that several of his personal belongings had been taken. He relocated downstairs to let the officer know that this person had possibly taken those items. The officer then knocks Mr. D. off balance and places him under arrest. Mr. D. is a stroke survivor with his last stroke happening only 1 month prior to this incident. The officer alleges that Mr. D. would not allow himself to be arrested and struggled with him.
Mr. Acosta takes the case to a jury who finds the Defendant NOT GUILTY of resisting arrest.
People v. I. L.- A. (June 2014)
Sexual Exploitation of a Child
The Defendant was arrested for allegedly masturbating in front of a young girl in his truck. The Defendant had already been arrested in the past for the same conduct and picked this case up while the other one was still pending. The first trial wound up as a NOT GUILTY but now the Defendant had this case to contend with. If convicted he would have to possibly register as a sex offender. Mr. Acosta took the case to trial. NOT GUILTY OF SEXUAL EXPLOITATION OF A CHILD. Guilty of Disorderly Conduct only!!! A Class C misdemeanor.
People v. V.S. (May 2014)
Aggravated Driving while License Suspended or Revoked Cl. 4
The Defendant was stopped by an officer for not having a rear license plate light. After the stop the officer found that the defendant had a revoked license for DUI. He was arrested and charged. This case carried mandatory minimums of 180 days in the jail or 1-3 years in prison.
Mr. Acosta knew that the only way to beat this was to try to suppress the evidence. Mr. Acosta files a motion to suppress the evidence. The Defendant and a witness testify that the rear light was working and the judge granted the motion. CASE DISMISSED!!!!
People v. J.V. (2) (May 2014)
Aggravated Criminal Sexual Assault
The Defendant was charged initially with 2 cases involving 2 alleged victims. Both were sisters who were alleging that the Defendant abused them sexually while there mother was not around. The first case went to trial in late 2013. A jury acquitted the Defendant thanks to the Acosta Law Group. The second case was set for a bench trial. After a bench trial the Defendant was finally acquitted of all the remaining counts against HIM from the second sister.
FINDING OF NOT GUILTY!!!!!!
People v. O. – (May 2014)
The defendant was arrested by Illinois state police for aggravated speeding and DUI. The trooper observed the defendant traveling in excess of ninety miles per hour limit. The arrest was captured on video. When the trooper approached the driver, the driver appeared to be very confused. The trooper detected a strong odor of alcohol coming from the driver as well as slurred speech. The driver indicated he was unable to perform field sobriety tests. The trooper on video stated “you are either drunk or on drugs”. The driver then consented to the field sobriety testing and failed all tests on video. Defense Attorney Batovski argued that there was reasonable doubt because the trooper didn’t know if the drivers impairment was alcohol or drug related and there was no drug related DUI charge. The trial Judge agreed. NOT GUILTY!!
People v. G. – (May 2014)
The defendant was arrested for DUI after the officer observed erratic driving. The offense was a class 4 felony punishable by up to 3 years Illinois Department of Corrections. The officer observed the defendant to have mumbled speech and a strong odor of alcohol. The defendant refused testing. At trial, defense attorney Batovski argued that the observations made of the defendant were circumstantial and the refusal of testing could have been attributable to injuries that the officer never asked about.
NOT GUILTY!!
People v. J. M. (April 2014)
Attempted First Degree Murder Cl. X
The Defendant had an active order of protection out against him. His girlfriend obtained this order that kept the Defendant from contacting her or coming near her. While out driving the Defendant allegedly sees his ex girlfriend in a car with another man. He then allegedly crashes his car into their car causing it to go off the roadway on to railroad tracks. There is substantial damage to the other vehicle. He is later arrested and charged with Attempted First Degree Murder and Aggravated Battery.
At trial, Mr. Kougias argues to the Judge that although there was terrible damage to the vehicle it cannot be inferred that the Defendant had specific intent to kill his ex girlfriend and that this was an incident more akin to road rage if anything. The Judge agrees and finds the Defendant NOT GUILTY of the more serious charges.
People v. T. H. (April 2014)
Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol Cl. A Misdemeanor
The Defendant was driving in Riverside Illinois when he was stopped by an officer for failing to use his turn signal. After going about 1/2 mile with out stopping according to the officer. He finally stops his vehicle. The officer also noticed that he did not have his head lights on prior to the stop. The Defendant allegedly has an odor of alcohol coming from his breath as well as other indicators of alcohol impairment. The Defendant is a Spanish speaker with limited English understanding. The officer speaks very little Spanish. The Defendant is asked to do field sobriety tests which he starts but due to the language barrier eventually refuses all testing. He is arrested for DUI. Since he has a CDL it is imperative that he win the DUI.
Mr. Acosta sets the case for trial and argues that since the driving was not that bad and the officer exaggerated several things on the video that it was impossible to determine whether or not the Defendant was in fact under the influence of alcohol based on the limited observations of the officer. Coupled with the fact that the officer never called for a Spanish speaking officer to come and assist at the scene. The Judge agreed and found the Defendant NOT GUILTY!!!!!
People v. J. F. (April 2014)
Child Endangerment Cl. A
There Defendant was arrested after being found at a party in his apartment building. The police had arrived and discovered under age drinking, a loaded firearm, and people smoking cannabis while the Defendant’s child was sleeping in a room at the party. He was charged with this serious offense that not only could send him to jail for a year, but also endanger his ability to care for his child in the future.
Mr. Acosta sets the case for trial after receiving the police reports that were generated by the police. At trial, Mr. Acosta is successful at convincing the Judge that the State could not prove that the Defendant committed this offense knowingly. DEFENDANT FOUND NOT GUILTY!!!!
People v. A.G. (April 2014)
D.U.I. Cl. A
The Defendant was arrested after a Brookfield, Illinois police officer stopped him for speeding and allegedly straddling the center line of a 2 way street. The Defendant did the Standardized Field Sobriety tests and admitted to drinking. The officer also made observations that led him to believe that the Defendant was driving under the influence of alcohol. The Defendant is then taken to the police station where he submits to chemical testing and blows a .106 BAC. He is charged with DUI.
He hires Mr. Acosta to defend him. After reviewing the evidence which included a video and audio tape of the field tests and the statements, Mr. Acosta determines that the Defendant actually did well on the field tests. Mr. Acosta gets the summary suspension rescinded, but loses a motion to suppress evidence. Mr.Acosta has to got to trial with the damaging breathalyzer results. At trial Mr. Acosta argues that the State cannot prove that the Defendant was driving under the influence of alcohol at the time that he was stopped and that the BAC result was ONLY a rebuttable presumption of intoxication. Mr. Acosta also argued that the video introduced by the State rebutted the breathalyzer. He was NOT under the influence at the time he was stopped and the State could not prove it since he actually did well on the tests. This coupled with the fact that the officer was caught embellishing his testimony at trial. The Judge agrees with Mr. Acosta and finds the Defendant NOT GUILTY of DUI!!! Most lawyers would have plead this case out, but Mr. Acosta pulled threads until he unraveled the State’s case.
People v. S.P. (March 2014)
Armed Robbery Cl. X
6-30 years I.D.O.C. (15 year mandatory enhancement for firearm)
21 years minimum if convicted.
The Defendant was arrested after he was identified as the perpetrator of armed robbery 2 days earlier at a local food store in the Little Village neighborhood of Chicago. The officers that arrested him stated that the Defendant was seen earlier on video at the store and identified by the cashier as the same person who came in with another individual and robbed her. The Defendant has been in the store earlier to purchase items and the cashier was convinced that he was the robber. The Defendant is charged and his family hired Mr. Acosta to defend their loved one.
The store video is tendered to Mr. Acosta and after viewing the video Mr. Acosta is convinced that there is no way that anyone can really tell that the robber in the video was in fact the Defendant. Mr. Acosta believes that the victim is so upset that she has convinced herself for whatever reason that the Defendant did this to her. After a lengthy cross examination at trial, the victim finally admits that the only way that she really had identified the Defendant was because of his voice and only based on a very brief conversation that they had while the Defendant was in the store earlier in the day that she was robbed. The victim also admits that the only reason that she identified the Defendant in the line up was because he was the person that she saw in the store earlier and not because he was the robber. The only identifier was the voice and the Defendant was never asked to speak during the line up. The Judge agrees with Mr. Acosta that the identification is not enough and finds the Defendant NOT GUILTY of all charges.
People v. I.G. (March 2014)
Possession of Cannabis with Intent to Deliver Cl. 3
The Defendant was driving a vehicle with a couple of passengers. He is stopped by police for minor traffic violations. After approaching the vehicle the officer detects a strong odor of cannabis coming from the car. He orders the driver and passengers from the vehicle and subsequently finds a baggie full of cannabis. The client is charged with felony possession of cannabis.
Mr. G. hires Mr. Acosta who files a motion to suppress evidence. At the motion Mr. Acosta argues that the odor emanating from the vehicle is fresh versus burnt cannabis. Therefore there is no probable cause. The Judge agrees and grants the Defendant’s motion. CASE DISMISSED!!!
People v. J. R. (March 2014)
Residential Burglary Cl. 1 (non probationable)
The Defendant was arrested after he was identified by a witness as being seen going through a neighbor’s window and burglarizing the residence.
Mr. Acosta sets the case for trial after realizing that this is the only evidence that the state really has against Mr. R.. At trial the witness retracts her earlier statement to the police and now says that she only saw the Defendant in the neighbor’s yard and never told the police that she saw him entering the residence through the window. Had Mr. Acosta not set this for trial and only relied on the reports the Defendant would be looking at years in the Illinois Department of Corrections. FINDING OF NOT GUILTY!!!!!
People v. H. and A. T. (March 2014)
Attempted First Degree Murder Cl. X
Aggravated Battery (pregnant woman) Cl. 2
The Defendants were charged after the victim and her gang banging boyfriend alleged that one of the Defendant’s approached them and flashed gang signs towards them. The victim’s gang banging boyfriend then exits the vehicle and escalates the situation. It is alleged that Hugo passes a metal pipe to Angel who then attacks the guy and the girlfriend who is pregnant gets struck in the head during the struggle. An ambulance arrives and the woman is treated and taken to the hospital.
At trial the case turns into a “He said, She said”. The Judge finds the Defendants NOT GUILTY of all felony charges and guilty of Simple Battery only, a Class A misdemeanor.
People v. D.C. (February 2014)
Aggravated Battery Great Bodily Harm Child Cl. 2
The Defendant was arrested after his baby’s mother called the police after seeing several red marks on the back of her daughter’s legs. The Defendant had hit the 5 year old girl with a belt to discipline her for fighting with her brother. The Defendant is arrested and makes a statement admitting to hitting his daughter with the belt. He is charged with this very serious felony.
After reviewing the evidence, Mr. Acosta realizes that the Defendant only struck his child in an effort to discipline her and what he did WAS reasonable. At trial Mr. Acosta argues the reasonableness of the discipline to the Judge and the Judge agrees that the use of the belt and the limited amount of times that the little girl was struck indeed was reasonable. The Judge finds the Defendant NOT GUILTY of all counts.
People v. J.C. (February 2014)
Possession of Cannabis
The Defendant is stopped for a minor traffic violation. The officer notices a small amount of cannabis sitting in the ashtray and asks the Defendant out of the car. After a search of the vehicle the officer finds more cannabis sitting on the front seat under some papers. She is charged with Possession of Cannabis.
At trial Mr. Acosta argues that the car did not belong to the Defendant and that the officer never saw her place the items where he found them, nor did she try to hide them as the officer was approaching the vehicle. NOT GUILTY!!!!
People v. G.G.A. (February 2014)
The defendant was arrested for DUI after the officer observed the defendant speeding. When the officer approached the driver, the officer observed the defendant to have red and bloodshot eyes, slurred speech and a strong odor of alcohol. The defendant admitted to consuming beer and the officer observed an open beer as well as multiple other empty beer cans within the vehicle. The Defendant agreed to and performed and failed all standardized field sobriety tests. At trial, defense attorney Batovski argued that speeding alone is not indicia of impairment. Furthermore, the observations of the defendant were purely circumstantial as this was the first time the officer observed the defendant. Batovski argued that the field sobriety testing should be weighed in favor of the defendant as the video displaying the tests did not show the defendant’s complete performance. The trial judge agreed. NOT GUILTY!!
People v. K. B. (February 2014)
Attempted First Degree Murder Cl. X
The Defendant was arrested after she allegedly started to honk incessantly at a car that was blocking an alleyway. The driver of the other vehicle stated that he got out of his vehicle after the Defendant struck the rear of his vehicle. The car then reversed at a high rate of speed and the driver of the vehicle gave chase to get her license plate number. He then catches up with the car at the mouth of the alley way when the car the Defendant was driving came to a sudden stop and moved forward at a high rate of speed towards the man. The man then allegedly “jumps” out of the way and the Defendant’s car strikes a garage in the alley and destroys it. She then exits her vehicle and maces the man and a female friend of his. Some of the incident is caught on video from a neighbor’s phone. Police arrive and arrest the Defendant after the officer allegedly sees the Defendant mace the female on scene. She is charged with Attempted Murder, Aggravated Battery to both the man and the woman, Criminal Damage to Property, and Aggravated Assault. She is now facing a minimum of 6 years and a max of 30 years in prison.
Mr. Acosta is retained and after reviewing the discovery determines that the case should go to trial since the state will have a hard time proving the more serious charges. At trial Mr. Acosta argues that the incident started out small but escalated due to the fact that the driver of the other vehicle made things worse and scared this woman who was all alone. After 3 civilian witnesses testified and 1 police officer the Judge agrees that the state failed to prove their case of Attempted Murder beyond a reasonable doubt. NOT GUILTY on all counts except 1 Aggravated Battery to the female civilian which was caught on video.
People v. G. G. (February 2014)
DUI (Cl. A)
Defendant was stopped by an Oak Park police officer after committing a traffic infraction. The officer’s car was armed with audio/video capabilities. The officer asked the Defendant to exit the vehicle after he smelled alcohol on the Defendant’s breath. The Defendant also admitted to the officer that he had been drinking. Mr. G. was asked to perform field sobriety tests which he did. The officer had Mr. G. do the tests off camera! The tests were not recorded! At trial, Mr. Acosta argued that the tests should have been performed on camera and that the officer should’ve known that he was having Mr. G. perform these very important test off camera. The Judge agreed and found the Defendant NOT GUILTY!!!!
People v. F.P. (January 2014)
The defendant was charged with battery, a class A misdemeanor punishable by up to a year in county jail. The defendant is a security guard and was on duty on he night of the alleged offense. At trial, the prosecution presented three witnesses to testify that the alleged victim entered the bar and the victim was told that he was banned. When the victim questioned it, the defendant shoved and slammed the defendant into a bar stool breaking four ribs. Defense Attorney Batovski cross examined each witness and illicited testimony that the victim didn’t acknowledge the security’s authority and persisted on entering. Furthermore, the security guard was justified in escorting the victim out. As to physical altercation, Batovski argued the pushing between the victim and defendant was mutual an not intentional resulting in unexpected injuries. Trial Judge agreed with the defense. FOUND NOT GUILTY!
People v. I.A. (January 2014)
The defendant was charged with public indecency, a misdemeanor – punishable up to a year in jail. At trial the prosecution presented three witnesses. The first witness testified that she was 18 years old and walking to the train when she observed a parked pick up truck with a man masturbating. She made these observations from eight feet away and the window was rolled down. It was nine am. The victim took pictures of the pick up as it drove away from her phone. The second witness was the detective who ran the plates of the vehicle that came back to the defendant. The third witness was the officer who interviewed the defendant and admitted the pick up was his and no one other than himself drove it on the date in question. On cross examination, Batovski challenged the proximity of the victim and the parked truck and argued the impossibility of seeing an erect penis, as the passenger door would obstruct the view. Batovski challenged the two officers as they never illicited a statement from the defendant that he was in the pick up or drove the pick up that day. FOUND NOT GUILTY!
People v. D.A. (January 2014)
Resisting / Obstructing a Police Officer
Defendant was arrested after he allegedly continued to approach police officer’s orders to leave the area where he was performing field sobriety tests on a friend of the Defendant’s. He allegedly was screaming at the officers and disrupting the investigation being conducted. Mr. Acosta simply argued that there was no disruption to the officers duties and that it was more of an annoyance than a crime. NOT GUILTY!!!
People v. C.W. (December 2013)
First Degree Murder
The Defendant was charged with First Degree Murder after it was alleged that he discharged a firearm in the proximity of the time and location where a very young boy was shot in the head. He was charged under “accountably theory”. It was alleged that there had been a fight earlier in the day and that the Defendant fought with several rival gang members. After the fight it was alleged that the Defendant left and along with several cohorts got a gun and some short time later a co-defendant discharged his weapon into a crowd across the street into a very crowded intersection several times into a group of people. A young man caught a bullet in the head coming home from school. The evidence was that the Defendant was accountable for the actions of the co defendants (who were convicted) because he was seen with them minutes earlier and spoke to the shooter minutes before the actual shooting. The Defendant was arrested and made a exculpatory statement to the police about knowing about the murder, but admitted that he did discharge a weapon up in the air right after the initial shooting which did result in the murder of the young boy. His intention was not to kill or injure but simply to disperse the crowd.
After a 6 day bench trial, Mr. Acosta and his associate argued that the Defendant could not be held accountable because his alleged action was a separate act than that of the real person responsible. They also could not show beyond a reasonable doubt that he was accountable for that other co defendant’s actions. The only evidence the State had to show that the Defendant had anything to do with the shooting came from a man convicted of the actual murder who admitted that he did not like the Defendant. This person testified at the Defendant’s trial. Mr. Acosta argued that this witnesses’ testimony was self serving and unreliable. The trial judge found the Defendant guilty of First Degree Murder and sentenced him to 43 years IDOC to be served at 100%. As disappointing as the verdict was, Mr. Acosta filed a notice of appeal.
After several years, the Illinois Appellate Court in late December 2013, reversed the trial courts decision and remanded for sentencing on a lesser charge of Aggravated Discharge of a Firearm. This is only a class 1 felony which can carry the possibility of probation. This is exactly what Mr. Acosta alleged and argued all along. Mr. W. will soon be out with his family instead of spending the majority of his life in prison!!! NOT GUILTY OF FIRST DEGREE MURDER!!!!!
People v. O. (December 2013)
The defendant was arrested for drunk driving – DUI by the riverside police department. The arresting officer observed the defendant blocking traffic asleep while behind the wheel. When the officer arrived, the defendant had his foot on the brake with the ignition in drive. The officer knocked on the window repeatedly before the defendant woke up. The officer observed an open can of beer in the vehicle. The defendant had bloodshot eyes and extremely slurred speech. At trial the officer testified that the defendant admitted consuming beer and was argumentative and combative. The prosecution presented video tape evidence of the arrest. On cross examination, Attorney Batovski argued that there was no indicia of bad driving consistent with impairment. Further, there was no evidence of quantity of consumption of time of consumption. Batovski argued that the defendant’s eyes and demeanor were consistent with fatigue and not impairment. The trial Judge agreed, and the defendant was FOUND NOT GUILTY!
People v. J.P. (December 2013)
Domestic Battery and Assault.
Defendant was arrested after the daughter of a woman he was seeing called the police on him. The daughter alleged that the defendant was in a physical altercation with her mother. As she approached the defendant he all of a sudden walked towards her and punched her in the jaw with a closed fist. She stated that the punch was so hard that it knocked her back a couple of meters. She then got up and called 911. The defendant was arrested and allegedly threatened the women in the presence of the officers.
He hires Mr. Acosta to defend him. Mr. Acosta sets the case for trial after receiving all of the relevant police reports. At trial, Mr. Acosta examines the alleged victim and has her admit that she had no visible injuries and that she did not like or get along with the defendant at the time of the incident. Mr. Acosta argues that if what she said happened really happened then she would have had serious injuries and at the very least visible marks. That combined with the fact that she had a motive to testify falsely because she did not like the defendant gave ample room for reasonable doubt. The judge agrees and finds the defendant NOT GUILTY on all charges.
People v. A.O. (December 2013)
Possession of a Controlled Substance with Intent to Deliver Cl. X
>900 grams of cocaine
The Defendant was under surveillance by a Chicago team of narcotics investigators for approximately 1 week. The investigators see the Defendant meet with another individual at a hotel on the south side of Chicago. They follow the Defendant to his home and see a vehicle leave the garage of the home. About 1 hour later the vehicle is stopped by a team of police officers and searched. It is found to contain 270, 000.00 in a secrete compartment. The officers then knock on the door of the home of the Defendant. He answers the door and allegedly gives consent to the officers to enter. The Defendants fiancee then signs a consent to search the residence. The officers then find 8 kilos of cocaine in the house. The Defendant is arrested and gives a handwritten statement to the officers admitting his involvement.
His family hires Mr. Acosta. Mr. Acosta litigates numerous motions to suppress which are denied. The case is set for trial. The Defendant is facing up to 60 years in the Illinois Department of Corrections if he is convicted at 75%. Mr. Acosta argues that the State cannot show intent simply because of the sheer amount. The Judge agrees and finds the Defendant guilty of possession ONLY!!!!
People v. S. V-G. (December 2013)
Retail Theft Cl. A
The Defendant was arrested from a Menards hardware store. The security cameras caught the Defendant changing items from one box to another box. The Defendant then allegedly proceeded to the checkout counter and paid for the box that cost less. He is arrested and charged. He is in the process of fixing his immigration status in the U.S.A. and cannot plead guilty to anything. Otherwise that could preclude him becoming a U.S. resident. He must go to trial.
He hires Mr. Acosta. After reviewing the evidence and seeing the damning video, Mr. Acosta advises the client that he has only 2 options. Plead guilty or go to trial. The client takes his chances and Mr. Acosta sets the case for trial. The State calls the security guard and he testifies. The State also introduces the video of the alleged crime. Mr. Acosta takes advantage of the situation when the State fails to introduce evidence that the business is licensed to do business in the State of Illinois. This is a vital element to the offense of retail theft. The Judge agrees with Mr. Acosta and finds the Defendant NOT GUILTY.
People v. V. (November 2013)
The defendant was stopped and arrested for DUI after severely crashing his motorcycle. The defendants blood alcohol content was nearly four times the legal limit. At trial the prosecution presented 4 witness to prove the defendants impairment. The first two civilian witnesses testified that they observed the erratic driving and motorcycle flip. They further testified that upon speaking with the driver he had slurred speech and smelled of alcohol. The arresting officer who arrived on scene testified that the defendant had a strong odor of alcohol, slurred speech and very combatative. The defendant then pushed the officer and punched the officer in the chest. The next witness by the state was the EMT. He testified that when he arrived and placed the defendant in the ambulance the defendant shoved him. Defense attorney Batovski challenged the civilian witnesses as it proximity and lighting conditions along with whether conditions. Batovski cross examined the officer as to his observations. The officer testified as to the odor of alcohol but could not recollect whether he made any inquiries as to consumption. Furthermore he never detected red or bloodshot eyes and his combatative behavior could be attributed to shock from the injuries sustained. The last witness by the state, the EMT, Batovksi cross examined his opinion of the defendants eye condition and came back as normal. In closing arguments, defense counsel argued that the evidence by the state did not meet the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Trial judge agreed. NOT GUILTY!!
People v. A. G. (November 2013)
Domestic Battery Cl. A
The Defendant was accused by his former girlfriend of battering her at their daughters baptism party. The former GF stated to police that the Defendant had spit in her face and then threw her to the ground several times. The Defendant was arrested shortly after the former GF called the police. He is charged with this serious offense that carries up to a year in jail if convicted. Not to mention possible immigration consequences if you are not a U.S. citizen.
Mr. G. hires Mr. Acosta to defend him. Mr. Acosta obtains a videotape from the banquet hall where the event occurred. The videotape showed that the Defendant did nothing to the alleged victim. The State proceeds and after a very laser cross examination the Judge agrees with Mr. Acosta and ACQUITS the defendant. NOT GUILTY!!!!
People v. F. R. (November 2013)
Theft and Possession of Stolen Property
The Defendant was arrested after Detectives found that he had sold a video gaming system to a well known store. He provided his ID and the Detectives called him in for questioning. The gaming system turned out to be part of the proceeds from a residential burglary that occurred a month prior. The Detectives also ascertained that the Defendant was friends with the victim of the burglary. He is charged and faces potential jail time.
His family hires Mr. Acosta to defend him. After reading the reports Mr. Acosta learns that the State will have a hard time proving that the Defendant had knowledge that the goods were in fact “stolen”. At trial Mr. Acosta argued that the State was falling short of meeting their burden. The Judge agreed and finds the Defendant NOT GUILTY of all charges.
People vs. R.G. (November 2013)
Residential Burglary Cl. 1 non-probationable
The Defendant is a maintenance worker for several apartments located on the north side of Chicago. While at one of the apartment buildings he notices that the back door to the second floor apartments are open. He becomes concerned for the tenant who he knows from previous encounters since she is an older woman. He knocks and enters the apartment. He enters the bedroom thinking that there is someone in the bedroom closet and opens the closet door. The door falls off its hinges and creates a big noise. The Defendant then hears footsteps and a woman’s voice asking who is there. The Defendant announces his presence, but the woman becomes irate and demands that he leave immediately. The Defendant tries to explain himself, but the woman is furious. He leaves and the Defendant is arrested by the police shortly after.
He is charged with this non-probationable offense of residential burglary. He is facing 4-15 years in he Illinois Department of Corrections. He hires The Acosta Law Group. Mr. Acosta sets the case for trial and after arguing that the Defendant was there only to check on the well being of the woman and not in the house with any insidious purpose there should be a finding of not guilty. The Judge agrees with Mr. Acosta and Mr. Kougias and finds the Defendant NOT GUILTY.
People vs. A.J. II (October 2013)
Delivery of a Controlled Substance to a Police Officer Cl. X
The Defendant was arrested after he and his brother allegedly delivered a large amount of cocaine to an undercover female officer. The transaction was caught on video. The video showed a man (defendant’s brother) on a bicycle delivering to the undercover. A different surveillance officer allegedly sees the Defendant just prior to the delivery tender a small object to the man on the bike. The delivery then happens and the man on the bike goes back to where the Defendant is standing and tenders money to the Defendant. He is arrested days later.
The Defendant already being a previous client of The Acosta Law Group hires Mr. Acosta again. Mr. Acosta sets the case for trial and argues that it impossible to ascertain what the man on the bike received from the Defendant and what he actually received from the man on the bike shortly thereafter. Also the police funds were never recovered since he was arrested days later. The Judge agrees with Mr. Acosta and finds the Defendant NOT GUILTY of all charges. Mr. Acosta comes through again for the client.
People v. J.V. (October 2013)
Criminal Sexual Assault Cl. X
The Defendant was charged with forcing his girlfriends 13 year old daughter to perform oral sex on him. After he was arrested for this initial allegation the victim’s sister all of a sudden also alleged that the Defendant also molested her. The youngest sister of these two young women age 4 also stated to police that she saw the Defendant with his pants down on the date the Defendant was arrested. He was charged with this very serious allegation. He hired Mr. Acosta to defend him.
Mr. Acosta reviewed the discovery and set the case for a jury trial. Mr. Acosta and Mr. Kougias argued that the girls had fabricated the whole incident to get the man out of his mothers life. That they put the youngest girl up to lie about what she had seen. After arguing this to the jury over several days of testimony, the jury found the Defendant NOT GUILTY of all charges.
People v. R. M. (September 2013)
Battery Cl. A
Aggravated Assault Cl. A
The Defendant confronted a former neighbor for allegedly striking his son the week before. At the time he confronted his ex-neighbor he was armed with a baseball bat. This was because he knew that the neighbor was an aggressive guy and the Defendant had been in surgery on his arm some time earlier in the year. The neighbor alleged that the Defendant struck him with the baseball bat in his left rib cage. The Defendant then allegedly chased the man around cars with the bat for about 10 minutes. The neighbor gets away and calls police. The police arrive and see the large bruise on the neighbors left side. Pictures are taken and the Defendant is arrested.
Mr. M. hires Mr. Acosta to defend him. After interviewing the Defendant and reviewing the evidence in clouding some nasty looking photos of the injury. Mr. Acosta decides to go with self-defense. At trial Mr. Acosta argues that it was the neighbor who was the initial aggressor and on cross examination Mr. Acosta gets under the witnesses skin and shows his true colors. The Judge finds that the witness is not credible based on his demeanor. FINDING OF NOT GUILTY!!!!
People v. M. (February 2013)
The Defendant was arrested for driving on a revoked license after receiving a DUI. The minimum sentence under the law is ten days jail or 30 days community service. At trial the police officer testified that the defendant was in the far lane of traffic with hazard lights on. Upon approaching the defendant, the defendant ran. On cross examination, defense Attorney Batovski challenged physical control or driving an successfully argued flawed identification as the defendant was stopped and arrested five minutes after the stop. Defendant was found not guilty.
People v. J.B. (February 2013)
Defendant arrested for DUI after being stopped for screeching tires. The defendant failed all test and submitted a blood alcohol test one and a half times the legal limit. As a result of this arrest his license was suspended for six months. Defense Attorney Batovski immediately filed a petition challenging the stop and the arrest. At hearing, Batovski challenged the police officer on cross examination as to speed and proximity and reinstated.
People v. M.M. (February 2013)
Predatory Criminal Sexual Assault Cl. X
The Defedant was charged with allegedly having inappropriate contact with his step daughter. He is arrested by the police officers after the minor is interviewed extensively. The Defendant is charged with this very serious crime that can put him away for many years.
Some sex crime sentences can run consecutively in Illinois even if it is the same victim and the alleged contact only took place once. For example, a person who is convicted of multiple counts of PCSA can be sentenced consecutively even if the act only took place once, but different types of sexual contact such as oral, anal, vaginal, contact with the breasts of the victim, etc.
The family hires The Acosta Law Group to defend their loved one against this extremely serious charge. After Mr. Acosta conducts a thorough investigation it becomes clear that the victim had a clear motive to fabricate this story against the Defendant. Mr. Acosta speaks to the Assistant State’s Attorney and gets the State to dismiss the charges against the Defendant!
People v. L.G. (February 2013)
Armed Robbery Cl. X (6 – 30 years IDOC + 15 year gun enhancement)
Defendant was charged with Armed Robbery after a couple of his friends were arrested at the scene of an armed robbery. The police recovered proceeds from the robbery on the co defendants. The 2 friends stated at their interrogation that the Defendant was with them at the time of the robbery and had the gun on him. The Defendant is arrested after the victim picks the Defendant out of a photo array and a line up. At the time of the arrest the Defendant was armed with a bb gun. The Defendant has an extensive background.
The family hires Mr. Acosta. After reviewing the discovery, Mr. Acosta sets the matter for bench trial. The Defendant is facing a minimum of 21 years in the IDOC. At trial Mr. Acosta successfully cross examines the victim and gets him to admit the he could have been mistaken when he ID’d the Defendant. Mr. Acosta also argues that this should not be an armed robbery because the State failed to establish that the weapon that was allegedly used in fact was a “firearm”. The Judge finds the Defendant NOT GUILTY of Armed Robbery and guilty only of Aggravated Robbery, a Class 1 felony. The Defendant now faces only a minimum of 4 years and the charge is probationable.
People v. F.G. (January 2013)
Battery Cl. A
The Defendant was accused by a friend of his family of touching her inappropiately at a party. The complaining witness was mad at the alleged advance the Defendant had made towards her. A week later she confronts the Defendant in a north side park who is with his wife and several family acquaintances. The complaining witness then alleged that the Defendant got mad after she told the Defendant’s wife of the incident and said that the Defendant struck her several times in the face. The complaining witness called the police and the complaining witness took photographs of a large bruise on her right cheek. The Defendant was arrested and charged with Battery.
The Defendant hired Mr. Acosta to defend him against these charges. He professed his innocence to Mr. Acosta. Mr. Acosta filed his appearance in Court and then interviewed several witnesses to the event. After the interviews Mr. Acosta ascertained that the Defendant was indeed the one who was attacked by the complaining witness. Mr. Acosta set the case for a bench trial.
At trial Mr. Acosta called several witnesses to testify on the Defendant’s behalf. Mr. Acosta also got the complaining witness to admit that she was struck with the Defendant’s right hand on her left cheek. Several other witnesses for the State’s Attorneys Office testified in a similar manner. During the closing arguments Mr. Acosta argued that if the Defendant struck the complaining witness with his right hand on her left cheek, then why did the photo show a bruise to her right cheek? The Judge did agree that there were too many questions at the end of the trial and that the State did not prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt and finds the Defendant NOT GUILTY of all charges.
People v. M.I. (January 2013)
Battery Cl. A
Defendant was charged with Battery, a Class A misdemeanor. She was facing up to 1 year in jail and up to $2, 500.00 in fine. She hired the Acosta Law Group to represent her and Ron Batovski after reviewing the case set the matter for a bench trial. The defendant was accused of having battered an individual with a broken bottle while at a bar. The person she allegedly battered went to the emergency room and required 25 stitches to her eye brow but was later released from the hospital that day.
Mr. Batovski interviewed both the client and a witness and determined that the alleged victim was the instigator and that the Defendant was acting merely in self defense. After prosecutors questioned the alleged victim, a witness for the victim, and police offer, the Judge found the alleged victim to lack credibility. Without having to examine the Defendant of her witness during trial, the Judge granted Mr. Batovski’s motion for a directed finding. FINDING OF NOT GUILTY.
People v. J.P. (January 2013)
Criminal Damage to Governmenty Property Cl. 4
The Defendant was charged with Criminal Damage to Government Property, a Class 4 felon, after he was arrested by police for allegedly stealing his friend’s phone. Mr. P. did not feel that his arrest was legal and began to resist the official duties of the police. In Illinois, a person cannot resist even an illegal arrest. While he was being arrested it was alleged that Mr. P. caused damage to the officer’s Tahoe in excess of $500.00. He was charged with a felony offense.
Not wanting to start his life as a convicted felon, the Defendant hired The Acosta Law Group. After receiving discovery, Mr. Acosta realized that the best way to handle this case was to try to convince the State’s Attorneys Office to exercise their prosecutorial discretion. A good lawyer knows a good case and immediately recognizes a bad case. After speaking to the SAO office, Mr. Acosta convinces them to reduce the charge to a misdemeanor. The Defendant avoids a felony conviction!
People v. H.R. (December 2012)
Armed Robbery Cl. X
Mr. R. was charged with Armed Robbery, a Class X felony. It was alleged that the Defendant along with 2 other co-defendants exited a vehicle and approached 3 young men screaming gang epithets, they then take the baseball hats of the three young men. It was alleged that these Defendants were armed with a bludgeon while robbing these young men. The Defendant was arrested and made a statement to police.
The family hired Mr. Acosta and the lawyers at the Acosta Law Group to defend their loved one. After interviewing the witnesses and reviewing the police reports Mr. Acosta sets the matter for a bench trial. The defense is that the State cannot prove that the Defendant should be held accountable for his co-defendants and that the State will not be able to prove that the Defendant was armed. On the date of trial, the State reviews their case and offers probation on a non-probationable case. Given the Defendant’s background he accepts the plea deal and walks out the county jail!
U.S.A. vs A.O. (December 2012)
Possession of a Controlled Substance with Intent to Deliver
Southern District of Texas
The Defendant was driving a vehicle outside of Laredo, TX., when she was stopped at a secondary immigration checkpoint. At that point a canine unit hits on her vehicle. The vehicle is searched and 13 kilograms of heroin are recovered from the vehicle. She is arrested and charged with this very serious crime.
Mr. Acosta files his appearance on the case as lead counsel. After extensive negotiation and very good sentencing memorandum is filed by Mr. Acosta on the Defendant’s behalf, the Judge sentences the Defendant to 63 months in the Federal Bureau of Prisons. She initially was at a level 36 on the Federal Sentencing Guidelines (MAX Level 38), but after some very good legal work, the Defense negotiates a very good outcome for the Defendant and has her sentence reduced significantly.
People v. D.G. (November 2012)
Aggravated Battery to a Police Officer Cl. 2
The Defendant was at a bar drinking when an officer arrived to the scene on a non related event. The officer noticed the Defendant and asked him if he was OK because the Defendant seemed very intoxicated. The Defendant allegedly became irate with the officer and screamed out obscenities to the officer and then reentered the bar. The officer went after the Defendant to arrest him for being drunk and disorderly. The Defendant then allegedly pulls away from the officer and pushes him back with one of his hands on to the officer’s shoulder. The Defendant is then escorted outside where he refuses to be handcuffed. Eventually the Defendant is subdued and handcuffed. He is charged with a Class 2 felony for pushing the officer. He is now facing 3-7 years in prison.
He hires the lawyers at The Acosta Law Group to defend him. Mr. Acosta argues at trial that the State did not prove that the Defendant struck the officer knowingly, but rather the contact was incidental, if any contact did occur. Mr. Acosta also argued that the officer failed to produce a video of the incident knowing there to be video of the incident. The Judge agreed and found the Defendant NOT GUILTY of Aggravated Battery.
People v. R.D. (November 2012)
Aggravated Battery to a Police Officer Cl. 2
The Defendant’s vehicle was stopped for speeding. After the stop the Defendant was unable to produce a valid driver’s license and was arrested for that offense. Officers conducted a search incident to arrest of the Defendant and found bags of cocaine on his person. According to the officers the Defendant then took off running while handcuff and struck an officer in the shoulder in order to effectuate his escape. He was caught after a short distance after being tasered. He was charged with cocaine and Aggravated Battery to a Police Officer.
At Preliminary hearing Mr. Acosta was able to have the Judge find no probable cause on the cocaine. Mr. Acosta then set the case for trial after reviewing the discovery provided from the State. Mr. Acosta argued that the Defendant never really intented to strike the officer, but rather was trying to get away because he did not want to get arrested. Mr. Acosta argued that his intent was to get away and that the State could not prove what his intent was when the Defendant pushed the officer with his shoulder. The Judge agreed and found the Defendant NOT GUILTY of Aggravated Battery to a Police Officer. Given the Defendant’s background, he was looking at penitentiary time if he was convicted of this serious felony!
People v J.Z. (November 2012)
The defendant was stopped by the Berkley Police department at 2:45 am for swerving, failure to use signal and following to closely. Upon numerous observations of the defendant by the police officer, the defendant was arrested for driving under the influence. At trial, the State’s Attorney presented videotaped evidence that the defendant was driving erratically. The state further introduced video evidence that the defendant failed all field sobriety testing. The police officer testified that the defendant appeared to have vomit and urine on himself and the officer recovered an open bottle of vodka from within the vehicle. Defense attorney Batovski argued that swerving isn’t indicia of impairment as many people swerve while texting. Batovski further cross examined and argued that the defendant completed all tests as instructed and spoke coherently. Batovski attributed the open alcohol found in the vehicle to the passenger. The defendant was found NOT GUILTY of DUI
People v. O. (November 2012)
The defendant was stopped by the Illinois State Police for failure to wear a seatbelt and arrested for dui. The trooper observed that the defendant had blood shot and glassy eyes and a strong odor of alcohol. The trooper further observed an open case of beer in the defendant’s vehicle with half the cans empty. The defendant agreed to perform and failed all field sobriety testing. At trial, the states attorney presented video taped evidence of the defendants performance and argued that the defendant was clearly intoxicated and should be found guilty. Defense attorney Ronald Batovski argued lack of indicia of impairment as there was no bad driving. Further, all observations of the defendant were circumstantial and not consistent with impairment. As to the field sobriety testing, Attorney Batovski argued that poor performance could be attributed to injury rather than intoxication thus not rising to proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant was found NOT GUILTY!
People v. J.and P.R. (November 2012)
Possession of Cannabis with Intent to Deliver Cl. 3
The Defendants are arrested by police after neighbors call the police stating that the brothers are selling cannabis from their house. Police relocate to the area and observe 4 individuals sitting on the rear porch area. The officer calls them down, but one of the subjects stay on the porch because she has her baby up there. The Defendants come down with another individual and are interviewed by the officer. They are searched and nothing is found on them at that time. The officer relocates to the area where they were on the porch and sees in plain view a large bag of cannabis with many smaller bags inside. The two brothers are arrested and charged with a Class 3 felony.
Mr. Acosta appears at the preliminary hearing and argues to the Judge that the State cannot show intent based purely on the amount. The Judge agrees and finds no probable cause, but transfers the matter to another room on a lesser charge of possession of Cannabis. Mr. Acosta sets the case for trial. At trial, Mr. Acosta and Mr. Joseph Venditti, a new attorney at Acosta Law Group, argue that the State cannot prove possession of the cannabis even though it is their apartment and they came from that general area. Especially since there was a fourth person left up on the porch unattended by police. The Judge agrees and finds the Defendants NOT GUILTY.
People v J. G. (November 2012)
Attempted Residential Burglary Cl. 2
The Defendant was arrested after he was seen breaking out the window of a home. After the police arrive, they arrested him and took a statement from him that he was going into the home to steal several items from inside.
Since the Defendant was still very young, the family hires the Acosta Law Group to defend their son. Mr. Acosta sets the case for trial. Since the statement was oral, there was a chance of an acquittal. On the day of trial the State offers to reduce the charge to a misdemeanor offense. The Defendant agrees and pleads guilty to a much reduced charge. The Acosta Law Group saves the Defendant from having a felony background!
People v. E.R.J. (October 2012)
Possession of a Controlled Substance with Intend to Deliver Cl. X (>900 grams)
The Defendant and co-Defendant were stopped by several Cook County Sheriff’s police officers in Maywood, Illinois for traffic violations including driving the wrong way down a street. After placing the driver under arrest for traffic violations the vehicle was searched incident to the arrest allegedly for “inventory” purposes. During the search of the trunk of the vehicle the officers found two crates and two rectangular objects wrapped in duct tape and cellophane. The officers based on their experience determine that the 2 objects are contraband and arrest the passenger (defendant) as well. The vehicle is subsequently transported to the Sheriff’s police department and a canine unit is called. The dog alerts to the crates and the rectangular objects. The officers then open the crates and discover 48 more rectangular objects similar to the other 2 objects found. They open the packages and discover 50 kilos of cocaine. One of the largest seizures in the area. The Defendant and the co Defendant make statements at the police station.
Mr. Acosta is hired to handle the case. After extensive motions to suppress evidence which are denied, Mr. Acosta then sets the case for trial. Mr. Acosta continues to fight the case vigorously, but the Defendants are found guilty of all counts against them. The matter is set for post trial motions and sentencing. Things seem bleak, but Mr. Acosta obtains new evidence prior to the sentencing phase. Based on this new evidence the State agrees to reduce the charge and the Defendants are sentenced to time considered served. Mr. Acosta saves them from being sentenced to 15-60 years in prison. They are free of these extremely serious charges!!!
People v. L.S. (October 2012)
Burglary Cl. 2
Mandatory Class X sentencing due to background.
Defendant was allegedly found inside an abandoned warehouse removing copper cable with his co Defendant. Police officers saw the Defendant in the building at night with flashlights and burglary tools. He was caught red handed according to the police officers. The Defendant was facing a mandatory 6-30 years in the Illinois Department of Corrections due to his criminal background.
He hires Mr. Acosta who then reviews the discovery and ascertains that the State will have a tough time proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant was not given authority to be on the premises. This is an essential element of the offense of Burglary. Mr. Acosta sets the matter for trial and after the State’s case in chief makes a motion for acquittal alleging that the State did not prove that the Defendant did not have authority to be on the property. The Judge agrees and finds the Defendant NOT GUILTY of all charges.
People v. E.G. (October 2012)
In February of 2012 Mr. Acosta won this Defendant’s Statutory Summary Suspension. Her DUI case was pending because Mr. Acosta had filed a Motion to Suppress Evidence. Mr. Acosta finally litigated the Motion to Suppress and it was granted by a Judge. Mr. Acosta had alleged that the police officer that detained the Defendant did not have a legal reason to stop her even though the officer testified that she was driving without her headlights at night. MOTION GRANTED. The State will be unable to proceed against the Defendant!
People v. L.S. (October 2012)
Theft Cl. 1 (over $100, 000.00)
The Defendant worked for a company and was in charge of inventory and book keeping. He allegedly would usurp items from the company’s inventory and sell those items at local pawn shops. The company noticed that a large amount of inventory was missing and started to investigate the loss. Local police were called and discovered that items from the company were being pawned by the Defendant. The police obtain pawn receipts and arrest the Defendant. At the police station he purportedly makes a statement admitting his involvement after he is confronted with the evidence. He is charged with Class 1 felony Theft. This carries a possibility of a minimum of 4 years and a maximum of 15 years in prison. The loss is allegedly over $400, 000.00.
The Defendant hires Mr. Acosta after inquiring around the courthouse about good attorneys. Mr. Acosta receives the discovery and notices that the amount that was allegedly lost by the company seemed very inflated. Mr. Acosta soon realizes that the State’s Attorneys office may have a problem proving up the amount that was alleged. After long negotiations, Mr. Acosta gets his client probation for this very serious offense. He saves his client many years in prison!
People V. C.G. (October 2012)
Delivery of Cannabis Cl. X
Possession of Cannabis with Intend to Deliver Cl. X
C.G. was arrested by members of the Chicago Police Department special drug unit. He was approached and arrested. Members of a surveillance team saw him deliver a black bag to another male that was subsequently pulled over and searched. This other male was found to have a large duffel bag full of cannabis exceeding 20, 000 grams. Subsequent to this male being arrested they enforcement team arrests the Defendant and searches his home where they allegedly find another large amount of cannabis after the Defendant signed a consent to search his home. He also makes a statement to law enforcement regarding his involvement. He is charged with 2 cases. One for Delivering the duffel bag full of cannabis and the second case for the large amount of cannabis in his purported home. The Defendant faces a minimum of 6 years and a maximum of 30 in the Illinois Department of Corrections.
He is recommended to Mr. Acosta and hires him immediately. As soon as discovery is received in this case, Mr. Acosta files Motions to Suppress Evidence. Specifically seeking to suppress the statement and consent to search. Mr. Acosta litigates the motion. The Judge takes a date to consider the facts at the hearing and GRANTS the motion.
People v. B.D. (October 2012)
WRONG WAY DRIVER WITHOUT HEADLIGHTS FOUND NOT GUILTY OF DUI.
The Defendant was stopped by the chicago police department at 2:30 am for driving without he headlights on a one way street. The defendant had a suspended driver’s license and no insurance. The police officer observed that the defendant had a strong odor of alcohol emanating from her breath and could not stand without the police officers assistance. The officer further noted that the defendant was lost, dazed and confused. At trial, the police officer testified to all of these observations as being consistent with that of an impaired or intoxicated driver. Attorney Ronald Batovski however successfully cross examined these observations as being consistent with that of a fatigued driver who may have just finished a long work shift. He further argued the states inability to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt as there was no evidence of alcohol related questioning coupled with a very big translational problem as the defendant did not speak english very well. The trial judge agreed with Batovski that the state did not meet the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt and the defendant was found NOT GUILTY.
People v. M.G. (September 2012)
Armed Violence Cl. X, Possession of Cannabis Cl, 4, and Aggravated Unlawful Use of a Weapon Cl. 4
The Defendant was allegedly seen by chicago police officers on aggressive tactical patrol in front of his house holding what they believed to be a handgun. The officers get out of the vehicle and chased the Defendant into his home. They allegedly catch up to him as he is entering the living room. He is then tackled and drops the handgun which is then recovered and found to contain 2 live rounds. While inside the home these officers allegedly see a large amount of cannabis in plain view on the living room table along with a scale and currency. On the table is also the defendant’s drivers license according to police. He is then arrested and a statement is taken from the Defendant.
The Defendant was charged with Armed Violence, a Class X felony. All the State has to prove is that the Defendant was armed with a handgun and was in the commission of a qualifying felony offense. The predicate offense in this case being the felony amount of cannabis found on the dining room table. If convicted the Defendant was facing a minimum 10 years in the Illinois Department of Corrections. This is not a probationable offense.
After litigating a Motion to Suppress Evidence which was denied, Mr. Acosta set the case for trial. At trial Mr. Acosta argued to the Court that the State could not prove that the Defendant had knowledge of the cannabis in the house since all the officers saw was the Defendant running in the house and did not know when he last left the house or when he was even last in the house. Since the State could not prove the predicate offense, Mr. Acosta argued that the Armed Violence charge could not stand. the Judge agreed and found the Defendant guilty only of Aggravated Unlawful Use of a Weapon, a Class 4 felony, and NOT GUILTY of Armed Violence and Possession of Cannabis.
People v. J.G. (September 2012)
Possession of a Controlled Substance with Intent to Deliver Class X
Madison County, Illinois 10CF-2743
The defendant was stopped by an Illinois state trooper on I-55. He was the front seat passenger with 2 other individuals in the vehicle. The vehicle was owned by the defendant. After stopping the vehicle and issuing traffic citations, the trooper asks for permission to search the vehicle. The driver allegedly consents. A drug sniffing canine is brought to the scene and alerts. The vehicle is searched and 1 kilo of cocaine is found in a hidden after market compartment located in the front seat passenger area. Exactly where the defendant is seated. He is arrested and charged with a Class X felony. He is taken back to the police station where he makes a videotaped statement. He now faces a minimum mandatory 15 years in the Illinois prison system.
Mr. Acosta is hired and receives the discovery including a video tape of the stop. Mr. Acosta views the video and notices that while there was initially consent given to search the vehicle, the officer engaged in certain conduct which changed the nature of the contact between the officer and the defendant. Mr. Acosta files a Motion to suppress evidence. It is initially litigated and the judge takes a long time before he rules on the motion. Finally he denies the motion and Mr. Acosta has to set the case for trial. After extensive negotiations the State’s Attorneys Office agrees to reduce the charge to a probationable offense. The defendant pleas guilty and receives time served. He is released from the county jail a free man of the charges!
People v. S.L. (September 2012)
The Defendant was stopped by the Chicago Police Department for driving without headlights and arrested for DUI. The arresting police officer observed that the defendant had red and blood shot glassy eyes and a strong odor of alcohol. The defendant had difficulties standing and trouble walking. The arresting police officer administered field sobriety tests which the defendant failed on video. At trial the officer testified that she responded to dispatch of a DUI stop. She never observed the defendant driving but did observe keys in the ignition. On cross examination, defense attorney Ron Batovski argued that there wasn’t sufficient testimonial evidence that the defendant was in actual physical control of the vehicle while under the influence Batovski successfully argued against the admission of hearsay statements from other officers that the defendant was driving. Further, the court could not just assume that because the defendant was the only person standing next to a car suspected of dui, that the defendant was in actual physical control of a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. The trial judge agreed with Batovski’s arguments and found the defendant NOT GUILTY of DUI.
People v. B.A. (August 2012)
False Impersonation of a Police Officer Cl. 4
Possession of a Fraudulent Identification Card Cl. 4
The Defendant allegedly gets into a fight with his girlfriend at a local college. Her friend gets involved and the Defendant gets angry. He states to the friend that he is a police officer and displays a phony badge. The girlfriend calls 911 and reports this incident. Officers arrive shortly and allegedly ask the Defendant if he is a police officers to which he allegedly nods his head in affirmation. They search the Defendant and find a phony badge in his pocket. They also search his vehicle and find police uniforms and various other types of law enforcement articles. He is arrested and charged with False Impersonation of a Police Officer and possession of a Fraudulent ID card. Both are Class 4 felonies which could send the Defendant to prison, but could limit his opportunities in the future.
The family immediately hires Mr. Acosta and at preliminary hearing, Mr. Acosta gets a a finding of no probable cause. The State’s Attorneys Office takes the case to the Grand Jury and there get a finding of probable cause. Mr. Acosta sets the case for trial. After the State presents their case in chief, Mr. Acosta makes a motion for acquittal and beats the False Impersonation charge. There still is on count left of Possession of a Fraudulent ID. The Judge takes a date to rule on the case. Mr. Acosta in the interim challenges the Constitutionality of the statute. The Judge gives the case much thought and after much deliberation finds the Defendant NOT GUILTY of the Class 4 felony, but rather only of a Class A misdemeanor. The Defendant is sentenced to supervision and his record remains clean since supervision is not a conviction!!
People v. A.J. (August 2012)
Possession of a Controlled Substance
The Defendant’s home was the target of a search warrant executed by the Chicago Police Department. During the search the police found a sizable amount of cocaine. The Defendant was arrested and charged. He hired Mr. Acosta to defend him.
After reviewing the case reports, Mr. Acosta realized that there was no real proof that the Defendant resided at that location on the date of the search warrant. The police did obtain very old proof of residency but nothing within the last couple of years. Mr. Acosta set the matter for bench trial and argued that the State did not prove possession of knowledge. The Judge agreed and found the Defendant NOT GUILTY!!!
People v. D.M. (August 2012)
Possession of a Stolen Firearm Cl. 2
Aggravated Unlawful Use of a Weapon Cl. 4
Defendant was allegedly walking down the street flashing gang epithets at passing vehicles. An undercover vehicle observes this behavior and approaches the Defendant for a field interview. For safety reasons the police officers pat the defendant down and find a gun on his person that turns out to be stolen. The Defendant is charged with Possession of a Stolen Firearm, a Class 2 felony that carries a minimum mandatory term in prison of 3 years.
Mr. Acosta sets the case for trial after losing a Motion to Suppress Evidence. At trial, Mr. Acosta argues that the State can not prove that the Defendant had knowledge that the gun on his person was in fact a stolen firearm. The Judge finds the Defendant NOT GUILTY of possession of a Stolen Firearm, and guilty of Aggravated Unlawful Use of a Weapon, a Class 4 felony only!. Mr. Acosta saves the Defendant 3 years in the I.D.O.C.
People v. B.J. (August 2012)
Possession of Cammabis with Intent to Deliver. Cl 2
The Defendant was arrested after Chicago Police Officers received information that a large Hispanic male was selling cannabis from a Barber shop on the south side of Chicago. The officers then set up surveillance and observe a SUV approach the barber shop and and a large male Hispanic come out with a large box and place it into the SUV. Officers observe the Defendant in the vehicle. The vehicle is followed to a nearby suburb where the Defendant is observed to retrieve the box and walk towards a private residence. Officers announce their office and seize the Defendant and review the contents of the box and find 4 pounds of cannabis.
The Defendant hires Mr. Acosta. Mr. Acosta immediately files a Motion to Quash Arrest and Suppress Evidence and sets the matter for a hearing. On the date of hearing, Mr. Acosta agrees to proceed to trial as well as the motion. After hearing the evidence at the hearing/trial, the Judge agrees with Mr. Acosta that the State could not prove that the Defendant had knowledge of the contents of the box, in spite of the fact that the officers testify that they could smell the strong odor of cannabis emitting from the box.. The State fails to prove an essential element of the offense and the Judge finds the Defendant NOT GUILTY!!!
People v. E.V. (August 2012)
Armed Robbery Cl. X
The Defendant along with 2 co Defendants are charged with Armed Robbery and Aggravated Battery (Great Bodily Injury) after they allegedly see a rival gang member in their neighborhood and decide to approach him to confront him. Mr. V. allegedly gets out of the vehicle along with the co Defendants and start to beat the co-Defendant with fists and a bat like object. Amidst the beating the blows relieve the victim of his baseball hat and his cell phone which are picked up by the Defendant and the co-Defendants. The victim has his arm broken and his head required stitches. The Defendant is arrested and makes a handwritten confession and brings the proceeds of the alleged robbery to the police station. He is charged with a Class X felony that carries mandatory prison time of 6-30 years in the I.D.O.C.
The family hires Mr. Acosta and after reviewing the discovery sets the matter for a bench trial. Mr. Acosta argues that the Defendant never had the intent to commit an Armed Robbery, but only took the proceeds as an after thought. The Judge agrees with Mr. Acosta and finds the Defendant NOT GUILTY of Armed Robbery, but guilty of Robbery only. Now the Defendant qualifies for probation versus mandatory prison time.
People v. S. (July 2012)
The Defendant was arrested for an aggravated DUI after a Chicago Police Officer observed the defendant’s vehicle weaving and almost striking a bicyclist. Under Illinois Law, the defendant could be sentenced from one to three years in prison. At trial the police officer testified that the defendant had a strong odor of alcohol and red and watery eyes. The officer further testified that the defendant failed all sobriety testing. Defense Attorney Ronald Batovski successfully cross-examined all the officer’s testimony and argued that weaving didn’t constitute bad driving. He further challenged the officer’s observations of the defendant attributing his presence to that of a non-impaired driver. Batovski argued that the defendant’s performance on the field sobriety testing was satisfactory as the defendant never fell and walked heel-to-toe and there was no admission as to alcohol consumption. The defendant was found NOT GUILTY.
People v. J.H. (July 2012)
Defendant was charged with Filing a False Report. He went to a hospital for treatment of a large flesh wound on his arm. Hospital personnel called the Berwyn Police Department and officers arrived at the hospital to interview the victim. The defendant told the officers that he was robbed by 2 males and they cut his arm. After being treated he was taken to the Berwyn police department and interviewed by Detectives who suspected that he was not being entirely candid with them about the incident. After learning that the detectives had already spoken to the defendant’s wife he did tell the detectives what really happened. That his wife cut his arm with a knife for allegedly coming home intoxicated and late. He was charged with filing a false police report. He made the police department expend a lot of man power and money.
He hires Mr. Acosta immediately Mr. Acosta after reading the reports and reading the statute realizes that the defendant never caused the report to be filed but rather that he only lied to police and never signed complaints. This was not enough. Mr. Acosta set the matter for trial. At trial, Mr. Acosta argued that the defendant never asked that the reports be generated and all the investigation was initiated by the Berwyn police. The defendant was just protecting his wife. The judge agreed and found the Defendant NOT GUILTY!!!
People v. C. (July 2012)
Battery Cl. A
Defendant is a manager at a large restaurant chain in Chicago. An employee was behaving aggressively towards a client of the restaurant so the Defendant asked him to leave and also instructed him that he was fired. The employee became upset and accused the manager of dragging him out of the restaurant and throwing him to the ground in the kitchen area. The Defendant was charged with Battery.
The Defendant hired Mr. Acosta to defend him in the above case. Mr. Acosta soon became aware of a video that existed in this case showing several areas of the restaurant. Mr. Acosta soon got these videos and tendered them to the ASA’s in the case. The video clearly showed that none of what the complaining witness was alleging was actually showed in the video. After the complaining witness testified at trial, Mr. Acosta made a motion for acquittal and that was granted!!! D was found NOT GUILTY of all charges.
People v. M.A. (July 2012)
Counterfeiting Trademarks
The Defendant was arrested after the Department of Homeland Security intercepted a package at O’hare airport containing what was suspected to be counterfeited goods including purses and hats. After verifying that the items indeed were counterfeit the DHS along with the Cicero Police Department set up a controlled delivery to the address on the package. The Defendant was seen to receive the package from Postal inspector and was shortly thereafter arrested. She was taken to the Cicero P.D.. She allegedly made a statement to the police.
Mr. Acosta knowing that this was a difficult case for the State to prove set the matter for trial. Mr. Acosta argued that the State could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant had knowledge that the items were counterfeit. Mr. Acosta also argued that the Detective never put in the statement that he controlled that the Defendant knew that the items were counterfeit and that the statement meant nothing. The Judge agreed and found the Defendant NOT GUILTY!!!
People v. S. (July 2012)
The Defendant was arrested by the Chicago Police Department for Felony DUI after a civilian witness reported a drunk driver. At trial the civilian witness testified that she was a passenger in a vehicle with her family when the defendant’s vehicle almost struck her multiple times. A Chicago Police sargent testified at trial that he followed the defendant’s vehicle and observed erratic driving for two blocks. A second Officer testified at trial that the defendant had multiple open beer cans in his vehicle and a strong odor of alcohol emanating from his breath and red and bloodshot eyes. A third officer testified that the defendant admitted to being under the influence of alcohol. The Officer further testified that the defendant admitted drinking 4 beers and failed all field sobriety testing. On cross examination of these witnesses, Attorney Ron Batovski argued proximity of the driving as well as observations. Attorney Batovski challenged every element of the field sobriety testing and successfully argued its inconsistencies. He also argued that his clients inability to understand english coupled with officer inconsistencies was reasonable doubt. The trial Judge agreed and found the defendant NOT GUILTY!!
People v. E.J. and R. H. (July 2012)
Both Defendant were charged with assault after a neighbor called the police stating that the defendants verbally attacked him and threatened him. He also alleged that Ms. J. tried to run over the complaining witness with her car. This was a situation were neighbors could not get along for a long time.
Ms. J. and Mr. H. hired Mr. Acosta to defend them. Mr. Acosta obtained a videotape that showed that the complaining witness was at best exaggerating, or at worst flat out lying. The Judge found both Defendants not guilty after reviewing the videotape.
People v. N.M. (July 2012)
Defendant was stopped by an officer for various traffic violations. Once stopped the officer asked for license and at that time made observations that led the officer to suspect that she was under the influence of cannabis. He asked the Defendant to exit her vehicle. Once outside the officer performs field sobriety tests on the Defendant and searches her car and finds cannabis and the Defendant allegedly makes statements admitting to the consumption of cannabis earlier in the day. She also gives a breath sample at the police station above the permitted limit of 0.080. She is charged with DUI alcohol and DUI combination alcohol and drugs.
She hires Mr. Acosta to defend her in this difficult case. Mr. Acosta having a lot of experience in 4th Amendment issues soon realizes after reviewing the discovery and the video that the officer acted prematurely in asking the Defendant to exit her vehicle. Mr. Acosta files a Motion to Quash Arrest and Suppress Evidence. At the hearing the Judge agreed with the defense that there was no basis for the premature seizure and grants the Defendant’s motion!!! The State dismisses the DUI!!
People v. D.Y. (July 2012)
Reckless Conduct Cl. A
The Defendant was arrested for allegedly pointing a gun at a young girl did not move her vehicle fast enough. The police then stopped the Defendant and searched his vehicle and did not find a weapon. He was charged with Reckless Conduct in that he pointed a gun at the girl.
The Defendant always professed his innocence. He hired Mr. Acosta to represent him in this case which could hurt his standing in the community. Mr. Acosta set the matter for trial. At the trial the girl testified that the Defendant was behind her in traffic and that he stated to honk the horn irately when she did not move fast enough. The Defendant then allegedly follows behind her and displays a handgun at her. She stops an officer then soon after the Defendant is arrested. Mr. Acosta makes an a motion for acquittal and argued that even if you believed the girl’s testimony it was not reckless conduct, but rather a totally different charge. The Judge agreed and granted the Defendant’s motion for acquittal!!!
People v. Z. (June 2012)
Driving Under the Influence
The Defendant was arrested for DUI after a police officer observed his vehicle swerve on multiple occasions and followed another vehicle too closely. As a result of this DUI arrest, the defendants driving privileges were suspended for one year. Attorney Ronald Batovski immediately filed a petition to remove statutory summary suspension. At the hearing, States Attorney presented videotape evidence of the defendant driving eradictly. The video further showed that the defendant had an open bottle of vodka and an open bottle of wine. The defendant also failed all field sobriety tests. Defense attorney Batovski challenged the defendant’s swerving of his vehicle and cited case law that touching or crossing the double yellow line is not indicia of alcohol impairment. Furthermore, the open bottles of alcohol could have been attributed to consumption of someone other than the actual driver. The defense attorney Batovski argued that the cold weather coupled with poor lighting could have resulted in a poor performance of field sobriety testing. The trial Judge agreed with Batovski’s arguments and rescinded the statutory summary suspension of the defendants’ drivers license.
People v. A.Z. (June 2012)
Burglary to Auto Cl. 2
The Defendant and his friend were walking down an alley in Cicero, Illinois when his friend decides to go into an opened vehicle. The Defendant had no idea that his friend was going to go into the vehicle and was shocked to see what his friend was doing. A neighbor and the owner of the vehicle allegedly see both people go into vehicle. They yell at the 2 guys and chase after them. A couple blocks later the guys are stopped by officers from the Cicero P.D.. They search the boys and see the friend of the Defendant is the one who is in possession of a screwdriver and other items. The Defendant has nothing in his hands or pockets. He is charged with Burglary.
The Defendant’s father immediately hires the Acosta Law Group. Mr. Batovski and Mr. Acosta immediately realize that the State has a weak accountability case against the Defendant. The presence at the scene of a crime is not enough to convict someone of the crime. Mr. Batovski and Mr. Acosta set the matter for a bench trial. After the State calls the owner and the neighbor to testify that they saw the Defendant in the vehicle, but they could not identify the Defendant in open court. The State then calls the officer to testify that he arrested the Defendant, but that he had nothing on him. Mr. Batovski then calls the Defendant to testify that he had no idea what his friend was up to and only ran because the people yelled at him and he got scared. The Judge agrees with the defense and finds the Defendant NOT GUILTY of all counts!!
People v. P.M. (June 2012)
Criminal Sexual Assault Cl. 1 (Non Probationable)
The Defendant was accused of Sexually molesting his son more than several years ago. The alleged victim in this case makes the accusation recently and the State’s Attorneys office charges the Defendant based on the victim’s word and a statement that was extracted from the Defendant.
He hires Mr. Acosta to defend him immediately. Theses types of charges are the ones that run consecutive to each other. What that means is that for every count that the Defendant is found guilty of they would run one on top of another. Depending on how many counts the Defendant could be facing many years in prison at 85%.
Mr. Acosta realizing that the state’s Attorney had a statute of limitations problem immediately brought the issue up in court. After reviewing the case the State’s Attorneys office dismisses all the charges!!
People v. A. G. (June 2012)
Possession of a Controlled Substance with Intent to Deliver Cl. X
D was arrested and charged with possessing a large amount of cocaine after a DEA/Task force investigation. A large amount of cocaine was seized from the Defendant and he was charged with a super Class X felony. If convicted he was facing a mandatory prison sentence of 12-50 years in the I.D.O.C.
He immediately hired Mr. Acosta to defend him in this case. Mr. Acosta reviewed the police reports and quickly realized that the Defendant was illegally seized and searched. Mr. Acosta filed a Motion to Quash Arrest and Suppress Evidence. After setting the case for a hearing on the motion many times and the State never being ready to proceed, Mr. Acosta got the State to reduce the charge to a simple Class 4 possession and the Defendant was sentenced to probation and walked out of the court room a free man!!!
People v. O.H. (May 2012)
The Defendant was charged with Driving while his License was suspended/revoked. This charge can carry mandatory jail time if you have prior tickets for the same thing. Mr. Acosta filed his appearance and immediately saw that there was a good Motion to Quash Arrest and Suppress Evidence. He files his motion and elicits testimony from the officer that the officer stopped the Defendant for crossing the center line once and for a very brief amount of time. The Judge agreed that this was insufficient probable cause to stop the Defendant’s vehicle and granted the Motion. Mr. Acosta being very well aware of the current law in Illinois took advantage of the facts and suppressed the evidence. CASE DISMISSED.
People v. S.G. (May 2012)
The Defendant was charged with bond on bond consecutive cases of driving on a revoked/suspended license. Both cases were Cl A Misdemeanors. The Defendant had to be sentenced, if convicted of each offense to a term of up to 1 year in the Cook County Department of Corrections. This Defendant is a minor league player with a local Chicago Professional Baseball Team. He could not go to the County Jail.
He had several incumberances on his license that were impeding him from being able to obtain a valid driver’s license. Mr. Acosta viewed his driving abstract and saw that he would be eligible to clear, but that Mr. Acosta would have to advance several matters on his driving record and vacate several convictions. One by one, each of the convictions were vacated and the Defendant was able to get his license back. He was also spared having to go to jail and possibly losing the opportunity to play professional baseball.
People v. L.A. & M. L. (May 2012)
These two Defendants were arrested in a vehicle that was not registered to either Defendant for traffic violations. After approaching the vehicle the Officer from Chicago arrested the Defendants for a blunt cannabis cigar that was still smoking in the ash tray. While the Defendants were in police custody the officers conducted a more thorough search of the vehicle and found a secreted compartment in the vehicle which contained a large amount of cocaine and U. S. currency. Both Defendants were charged with Possession with intent to deliver. This is a charge that carries mandatory prison if the Defendants were convicted at 75% of the sentence.
They immediately hired Mr. Acosta to represent and defend them against this very serious charge. Mr. Acosta having extensive experience defending against cases like this immediately recognized that the case was going to have a problem proving that either Defendant had knowledge of what was in the vehicle. There was no nexus between the cocaine and the Defendants. Mr. Acosta set the matter for a bench trial.
At trial Mr. Acosta argued to the Judge that the State could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the cocaine was possessed knowingly by either Defendant and that they definitely could not prove that they had knowledge of the contents of the vehicle. The Judge agreed that the State had not met their burden and found BOTH Defendants NOT GUILTY!!! They both walk out the court room free men and maintain a clean record thanks to Mr. Acosta.
People v. B.D.D. (May 2012)
Driving Under the Influence
The defendant was arrested by Chicago Police Department Officer for DUI after he observed her driving without headlights and wrong way down a one way street at 2:30am. The officer observed the defendant to have blood shot glassy eyes, strong odor of alcohol, difficulty in balancing, and swayed while walking. Under Illinois Law the defendants drivers license was suspended for 1 year due to the DUI arrest. Attorney Ronald Batovksi immediately filed a petition to rescind statutory summary suspension of her Drivers License. At the hearing, the officer testified that her bad driving was consistent with that of a drunk driver. He further testified that he believed she was under the influence, because she had a strong odor of alcohol emenating from her breath, blood shot glassy eyes, mumbled and confused speech, and she had difficulty walking. The defendants attorney Batovski, successfully crossed examined the police officer and argued that her driving was consistent with that of a sleepy driver and not a drunk driver and that driving in itself is not indicia of intoxication.Attorney Batovski further argued that blood shot glassy eyes could be the result of factors other than impairment, such as fatigue or eye wear. The Judge agreed with Batovski’s arguments and rescinded the statutory summary suspension of her license.
People v. S.D. (May 2012)
Attempted First Degree Murder
Defendant was charged in an 8 count Indictment with Attempted First Degree Murder. It is alleged that the Defendant fired a gun at several individuals with the intent to commit first degree murder. As charged the Defendant was facing 6-30 years in the Illinois Department of Corrections plus a 20 year enhancement because a weapon was discharged. He was facing a minimum of 26 years and a maximum of 50 years in the I.D.O.C. if convicted of this offense.
The Defendant’s family immediately sought out legal representation and finally hired the Acosta Law Group to represent their son. Mr. Acosta received the evidence against the Defendant which included spent shell casings, witness statements, as well as statements from people who actually knew the Defendant from prior encounters. There was a substantial amount of circumstantial evidence against the Defendant as well. After reviewing all the evidence against the Defendant, Mr. Acosta determined that the State would have a difficult time proving that the Defendant had the specific intent to kill in spite of the fact that witnesses had him firing his weapon 4x’s at a very close distance of 10-12 feet from the vehicle. Mr. Acosta had the case set for trial.
At trial Mr. Acosta argued that the State did not prove the requisite specific intent to kill and failed to meet their burden in spite of what the witnesses were saying. The Judge agreed and found the Defendant NOT GUILTY of Attempted First Degree Murder, and only guilty of Aggravated Discharge of a Firearm. This offense only carries a range of 4-15 years in the I.D.O.C., The Defendant was spared spending most of his life in prison.
People v. H.G. (April 2012)
Mr. G. was charged with a felony Driving While License Suspended/Revoked. This is Class 4 felony which carries mandatory jail time if convicted.
He hired the Acosta Law Group to help him in this difficult case. These cases are difficult because it is very easy for the State to prove. All the State has to show is that he was driving and that at the time his license was suspended/revoked. Mr. Acosta was going to have to find another way to beat this charge.
After receiving discovery in this matter, Mr. Acosta realized that the basis of the stop was a cracked/defective windshield. Mr. Acosta then looks at the statute and sees that the crack has to “materially impair the driver’s view…”. Mr Acosta then takes pictures of the vehicle and realizes that the crack, although very long and visible did not materially impair the driver’s view. Mr. Acosta files a Motion to Quash Arrest and Suppress Evidence.
At the hearing the Judge agrees with Mr. Acosta that the crack did not impair the driver after testimony and seeing the pictures. She grants the motion and the Defendant is spared mandatory minimum jail time as well as avoiding a felony conviction!!!
People v. R.D. (April 2012)
Driving Under the Influence (DUI to a CDL) Class A Misdemeanor
The defendant was arrested for DUI after speeding and swerving. The police officer detected a strong odor of alcohol beverage on the defendant and admitted to drinking alcohol and allegedly made statements. The police officer asked the defendant to comply with standardized field sobriety tests at which time the defendant agreed to all tests and failed all tests The defendant was employed as a truck driver and lost his driving privileges a result of this arrest. Under Illinois Law, the defendants CDL was disqualified for one year. The defendants attorney Ronald Batovski successfully argued towards the rescission of the Statutory Summary Suspension and the defendant’s License and CDL was reinstated. Furthermore, the defendant was looking at being punished for up to a year in the county jail for this DUI. Attorney Ronald Batovski successfully had the DUI reduced simply to a reckless driving and the defendant was only ordered to pay fines. The defendant was able to keep his job and stay out of jail!
People v. D.B. (April 2012)
Revoked Drivers License and Illegal Transportation of Alcohol
The defendant was charged and arrested for driving on a revoked drivers license and open alcohol after previously being arrested for a DUI. The chicago police officer observed the defendants van speeding at which time the police curbed the vehicle. Upon speaking to the defendant, the police officer ascertained the driver of this vehicle was D. B.. The defendant hired attorney Ronald Batovski to represent him on this case which is punishable by up to 1 year in jail.
At trial, the police officer testified in open court that he was certain the driver of this vehicle was D.B.. Mr. Batovski successfully cross examined this police officer by challenging the lighting condition, the time of arrest, and physical evidence as to accurate identification of D.B.. Mr Batovski further provided testimony of occupants of the vehicle who corroborated Mr. Batovski’s defense. The trial Judge agreed that the police officer was not as credible as the evidence that Mr. Batovksi presented at trial and found David Brown not guilty of all charges!
People v. R.S. F. (March 2012)
Burglary Cl. 2 and Theft Cl. 3
The Defendant was charged with entering the home of a man who allegedly owed him money. He allegedly took several computers from his home without the permission of that man. He enlisted the help of his friend who also lived at that apartment building to assist him. They were observed by the complaining witness leaving the house with his computers and the police arrived shortly and detained the two defendants. They were charged with Burglary and Theft.
The Defendant hired Mr. Acosta to defend him against these charges. Mr. Acosta argued that the Defendant had permission to enter the residence since his friend lived there and that was supported by live testimony of the co-Defendant’s sister who stated that the Defendant and his brother had permission to be at that location anytime they wanted. The Judge found the Defendant NOT GUILTY of Burglary!
People v. R. C. (March 2012)
First Degree Murder
The Defendant was charged with First Degree Murder after he allegedly beat a homeless woman to death. This allegedly happened in the parking lot of a popular Chicago restaurant. The beating was allegedly caught on a video camera that was located at the business parking lot. After a lengthy investigation the Chicago Police Department through video still analysis allegedly were able to identify the Defendant. He was then arrested and charged along with a Co Defendant. A video taped statement was also taken from Defendant. He was now facing 20-60 years in the Illinois Department of Corrections. First Degree Murder is a crime that is in a class all it’s own. If convicted the Defendant would have to serve 100% of his sentenced.
The Defendant hired the Law Office of Alfredo Acosta to represent him in this difficult case. After viewing the video Mr. Acosta determined that it was not immediately apparent that the person in the video was in fact the Defendant. The alleged videotaped statement was not necessarily incriminating and Mr. Acosta also realized after reviewing the evidence against the Defendant that no one ever had made a positive ID of the Defendant as the person in the video. After a long bench trial the judge agreed with the defense and found the Defendant NOT GUILTY. He was spared spending the rest of his life in prison because of the aggressive defense provided by Mr. Acosta.
People v. M. C. (March 2012)
Defendant was a student at a local Chicago public school. He is being constantly bullied by a fellow classmate. One day there is a confrontation and the Defendant allegedly punches his classmate several times in the face after a pocket knife is brandished by the complaining witness. the Defendant is charged with Battery, a Class A misdemeanor. He is now in danger of having a criminal record and going to the Cook County Department of Corrections.
He hires Mr. Acosta at the Acosta Law Group to defend him. Mr. Acosta sets the matter for trial. On the day of trial the complaining witness shows up to court with his mother and witnesses. After speaking to the ASA on the case. Mr. Acosta convinces him that these simple High School shenanigans. The ASA then dismisses the cases against the Defendant. He is now spared having a criminal record and going to jail.
People v. C.G. (March 2012)
The Defendant was charged with Delivery of Cannabis, a Class 3 felony. It was alleged that the Defendant was selling cannabis to people in front of a Chicago hospital. After officers allegedly see hand to hand transactions, they approach the Defendant for a field interview. They then recover from his person a bag containing 1 OZ of cannabis. He is arrested and charged with the felony offense that could possibly put him in the Illinois Department of Corrections.
Mr. G. immediately hires the Acosta Law Group to defend him against these serious charges. Mr. Acosta then reviews the Defendants case and realizes that none of the purported buyers were stopped by the officers. After lengthy negotiations, Mr. Acosta convinces the Assistant State’s Attorney that at best they have his client with straight possession. The ASA agrees to reduce to a misdemeanor and Mr. Acosta saves the Defendant from a felony conviction and prison.
People v. J.C. P. (February 2012)
Defendant was charged with Battery, a Class A misdemeanor. He was facing up to 1 year in jail and a $2, 500.00 fine. He hired The Acosta Law Group to represent him and Mr. Acosta after reviewing the case set the matter for a bench trial.
The Defendant was accused of having battered his tenant in a bar after being extremely intoxicated. The person he allegedly battered went to the emergency room with some serious injuries and after a day and a half he was released from the hospital.
Mr. Acosta quickly learned that there were witnesses to this event since it was a public place. After interviewing the witness including a waitress and the manager of the bar, Mr. Acosta determined that it was in fact the alleged victim who was the instigator and in fact struck the Defendant first. Mr. Acosta called them as witnesses at the trial and the Judge found them credible. FINDING OF NOT GUILTY!!
People v. E.G. (February 2012)
Ms. G. is a teacher at a local college. She was stopped by Berwyn Police Department for Driving under the influence of Alcohol, a Class A misdemeanor. She allegedly almost struck a tow truck driver and a Berwyn PO’s vehicle. After she was stopped by the officer she made statements that she had been drinking at a banquet earlier and allegedly failed some standardized field sobriety tests. She then refused a breathalyzer test. She was arrested for DUI.
Ms. G. at first hired a couple of lawyers but eventually after seeing that her case was going no where, she hired Mr. Acosta at the Acosta Law Group. Mr. Acosta immediately proceeded on a hearing to try to rescind the Statutory Summary Suspension. After vigorously cross examining the PO, Mr. Acosta was able to show that the officer did not have enough reason or probable cause to stop the Defendant’s vehicle in the first place. The Judge agreed and granted the Petitioner’s request to have the suspension on her license rescinded. Mr. Acosta then set the matter for hearing to suppress evidence which is still pending, but will more than likely be suppressed because of the Judge’s previous ruling.
People v. J.G. (February 2012)
The Defendant was charged with Burglary after he was observed outside a residential home that was for sale. Neighbors called 911 after haring loud noises emerging from the interior of the home. As police officers arrived they stated that they heard loud noises coming from inside the house. They relate to the rear of the home and see the defendant coming out of the back door. The Defendant runs and is apprehended after a brief foot chase. He makes a statement that he was in the house removing radiators and metal parts. He also said that he thought he had authority to be in the house. He is charged and faced 3-7 years in the Illinois Department of Corrections!
He then hires Mr . Acosta to defend him. Mr. Acosta realizes that the State may fall short on the intent of the client with regard to him being in the home and that the State cannot prove that he did not have permission to be in the home. Mr. Acosta proceeds to a bench trial and the Judge agrees that the State has failed to meet their burden of beyond a reasonable doubt. NOT GUILTY!!! All counts. The client was spared any prison time and his record is clear from any conviction!
People v. D. T. (February 2012)
Ms. T. was charged with Possession of a Controlled Substance with Intent to Deliver, a Class X felony. ( based on weight )
The Defendant was the passenger of a vehicle that was stopped for a traffic violation. She was questioned by Cicero police officers because they suspected that she had narcotics on her because of some alleged intelligence they had. She is detained illegally and eventually after using coercive tactics the officer allegedly retrieves 10 bags of cocaine from the Defendant’s sleeve. She and her boyfriend then allegedly give verbal consent to search the apartment where the officer’s retrieve additional bags of cocaine, baggies, scales, and razor blades. She also makes a statement to police that she was on her way to deliver the cocaine. Of course non of this is memorialized in writing even though she is cooperative.
Ms. T. hires the Acosta Law Group to defend against these charges that could put her in prison for up to 30 years! Mr. Acosta immediately files a Motion to Suppress Evidence based on a bad stop and based on the lack of probable cause to detain then search as well as the fact that the officers never consent to enter the residence. A Cook County judge denies the Motion to Suppress after extensive litigation. Mr. Acosta then sets the matter for a bench trial. Mr. Acosta argues at trial that the State cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the cocaine found was for delivery or for intended sale. After a long bench trial the Judge agrees with Mr. Acosta and finds the Defendant NOT GUILTY of Possession of a Controlled Substance with Intent to Deliver. The client walks out of the courtroom!
People v. D.O. (February 2012)
Ms. O. is stopped for traffic violations and is charged with Driving under the Influence of alcohol/drugs. The officer finds no cannabis in the vehicle, but the Defendant submits to field sobriety tests and allegedly fails. She also gives a urine sample to the officer that is submitted to the Illinois State Police Crime Lab. The officer also alleges that he believed her to be under the influence of Cannabis because of his observations of the Defendant and based on his experience.
Ms. O. hires Mr. Acosta and Mr. Batovski to defend her against this DUI. Immediately, Mr. Acosta files a demand for trial because the State had not yet received the lab results of Ms. Ortiz. Eventually Mr. Acosta gets the State to withdraw the charges against Ms. O. and she also regains her driving privileges!
