Illinois v. TD
TD was charged with possession of a controlled substance (cocaine), a felony, after a Northlake Police Officer alleged to have seen TD using cocaine in his Mercedes in the parking lot of Allstar's Gentleman's Club. Mr. Goldberg filed a Motion to Suppress Evidence and Quash Arrest arguing that the police officer violated TD's Fourth Amendment rights because he stopped him and searched him without a legal basis. After a hearing on Mr. Goldberg's motion, the judge agreed and granted the motion. The evidence was "thrown out" and excluded from evidence, and the case was dismissed. In addition, the police officer seized thousands of dollars and attempted to forfeit the cash in an asset forfeiture action. Based on Mr. Goldberg's victory at the motion hearing, the money will be returned to TD.
Asset Forfeiture Case: Illinois v. 2005 Lexus
SK was arrested and charged with possession of crystal methamphetamine ("meth"), possession of crack cocaine, and possession of cannabis after police alleged to have found drugs in his pockets, as well as his Lexus. The Cook County States Attorney's Office moved to have Sk's Lexus forfeited and have title transferred to the State of Illinois. Mr. Goldberg was hired to vigorously defend the forfeiture action and prevent the state from keeping SK's Lexus. Mr. Goldberg convinced the forfeiture prosecutor that he did not have a legal basis to forfeit the car and it was ordered returned to SK.
USA v. Cardoso-Galvan
Mr. Cardoso-Galvan was charged with importation, distribution and conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute approximately 120 kilograms of cocaine in the New York, Long Island area. Mr. Goldberg represented Mr. Cardoso-Galvan and objected to the United States Probation Officer recommendation of a prison term in the range of 108-135 months. The judge agreed with Mr. Goldberg, granted his request, and sentenced Mr. Cardoso-Galvan to 63 months.
USA v. Szanto
Mr. Szanto was charged with importing 20,000 pills of ecstasy (MDMA) from Canada to the Chicago-land area. Facing an advisory sentence of roughly ten years in prison, Mr. Goldberg convinced the prosecutor that Mr. Szanto was less-involved than others and at his sentencing, Mr. Szanto was looking at a likely sentence of 57 months in prison. However, Mr. Goldberg persuaded the federal judge to drastically reduce his sentence and Mr. Szanto was released after serving less than 24 months in prison.
USA v. HC
HC was charged with conspiracy to commit fraud involving access devices, commonly referred to as "skimming" or credit card fraud. HC has previously went to prison for large scale marijuana distribution and cocaine possession. Facing a likely sentence of at least 30 months in prison, Mr. Goldberg convinced the federal judge to allow HC to serve his time in the comfort of his home and continue working full-time. HC was sentenced to "home confinement," which is a extreme departure from the federal sentencing guidelines and much better than prison.
Illinois v. Figueroa
At his first trial in 2004, Mr. Figueroa was charged and convicted of first degree murder. However, Mr. Goldberg and his colleagues continued to fight for their client. After a successful appeal, a new trial was ordered. This time, Mr. Figueroa was found NOT GUILTY. Due to the relentless efforts of Mr. Goldberg and his team, after spending almost eight years in prison, Mr. Figueroa left the courthouse a free man.
Illinois v. Romero
Mr. Romero was charged with possession of cocaine. Mr. Goldberg tried the case, and Mr. Romero was found Not Guilty.
Illinois v. Colon
Mr. Colon was charged with possession of cocaine with intent to deliver, a class 1 felony, and his tow truck was impounded and seized pursuant to the Drug Asset Forfeiture Act.
After cross-examining a police officer at a preliminary hearing, Mr. Goldberg got the officer to admit that he did not see Mr. Colon commit a crime, totally inconsistent with his police report. After Mr. Goldberg exposed the other inconsistencies in all of the police officer's stories, the case against Mr. Colon was dismissed. Moreover, after a lengthy and contested proceeding, the tow truck was returned.
Illinois v. Juarez
Mr. Goldberg won a Motion to Suppress Evidence in a case that involved over a kilogram of cocaine and guns. Officers executed a search warrant at the apartment allegedly belonging to Mr. Juarez. After a hearing challenging the legality of the Warrant, the judge ruled that the Officers violated Mr. Juarez’s 4th Amendment Rights. After Mr. Goldberg won the motion and the Judge suppresses all the evidence, the prosecutor dismissed the case.
USA v. Ramirez
After a hotly contested hearing on a Motion to Suppress Evidence litigated by Mr. Goldberg, the Federal District Court Judge held that the FBI violated Mr. Ramirez’s constitutional rights under the 4th Amendment and he suppressed the cellular phone and its records that the FBI illegally seized. Mr. Ramirez was charged with a drug conspiracy that involved Cocaine and Heroin. According to the Government, the telephone records linked Mr. Ramirez to a vast criminal drug conspiracy. The FBI informer and a co-defendant were going to testify against Mr. Ramirez at trial. However, Mr. Goldberg won the Motion to Suppress, and the Government concluded that it could not proceed to trial without the suppressed evidence and dismissed all charges against Mr. Ramirez.
Illinois v. Marchan
The prosecutor was forced to dismiss charges that included approximately a kilogram of cocaine, Fifty (50) pounds of cannabis and 3 guns. After Mr. Goldberg successfully presented a Motion to Quash the Search Warrant (Franks Hearing), the judge ordered the prosecutor to reveal the name of an informer. The prosecutor claimed that the informer was dead and the charges against Mr. Marchan were dismissed.
Illinois v. Sanchez
Mr. Sanchez was charged with Possession with Intent to Deliver 24 Kilos of Cocaine. A jury found Mr. Sanchez NOT GUILTY. Two other co-defendants pled guilty before trial and received 8 years. Mr. Sanchez proceeded to trial, and after a week long trial, a jury returned a verdict of NOT GUILTY.
The police alleged that Mr. Sanchez orchestrated a 24-kilo drug transaction. Three others were involved in the transaction and the police conducted surveillance while Mr. Sanchez and the others were allegedly transferring a car tire full of the cocaine from one car to another. At trial, however, Mr. Goldberg established that the police did not recover any fingerprints that will show that Mr. Sanchez was involved. Mr. Goldberg exposed the fact that the police did not find or recover the alleged car that Mr. Sanchez drove. Moreover, although the police were allegedly watching Mr. Sanchez very closely, the officers could not come up with one piece of evidence that will link Mr. Sanchez to the other 3 co-defendants - not even a picture was taken during the surveillance.
Missouri v. Delgadillo & Godoy
Mr. Delgadillo and Mr. Godoy were stopped for a traffic violation on a highway near Springfield, Missouri. They were later arrested for transporting about 70 pounds of cocaine inside the gas tank of the car. Mr. Goldberg represented Mr. Godoy and Mr. Delgadillo. After filing a Motion to Suppress the evidence and Quash the illegal arrest, the prosecutor dismissed all charges against both Mr. Delgadillo and Mr. Godoy.
Illinois v. Gilzene
In a state prosecution of a drug case for possession of cocaine, Mr. Goldberg, filed a Motion to Suppress the drugs. After a hearing on the motion, the judge suppressed the drugs and the State’s Attorney dropped the charges.
Illinois v. Wallenberg
In a state prosecution, Mr. Wallenberg was charged with aggravated battery and faced fifteen years in prison. While preparing for trial, Mr. Goldberg filed a motion to bar the use of other past crimes as evidence during the trial. After reviewing the Motion, the State’s Attorney offered Mr. Wallenberg an agreement where he would serve only forty-five days in jail and probation.
Illinois v. Hamid
In a state prosecution of a drug case, where Mr. Hamid was charged with possession with intent to distribute cocaine, Mr. Goldberg filed a Motion to Produce an Alleged Informer. The state did not produce the alleged informer and the case was dismissed.
Illinois v. Bautista
In a state prosecution for Unlawful use of a weapon and possession of a shotgun Mr. Goldberg filed a Motion to Suppress the shotgun. After reviewing the Motion, the State’s Attorney reduced the charges and Mr. Bautista received probation.
Illinois v. Desnoyers
Mr. Desnoyers was charged with possession of steroids. Mr. Goldberg demanded production of the evidence. After the State failed to produce the evidence, the charges were dropped.
For a free initial consultation with Darryl A. Goldberg, call (773) 793-3196 or send him an e-mail. Headquartered in Chicago, IL, Darryl A. Goldberg represents clients across the nation.
