Representative Cases

Illinois v. CH

CH was charged with being an Armed Habitual Criminal, a Class X Felony, for allegedly possessing a handgun after previously being convicted of two other felony offenses. When CH was arrested he was on probation in the state of Missouri, and if convicted in Illinois, not only did he face decades in prison here, but Missouri would violate his probation and he would serve an additional lengthy prison sentence there. CH hired Mr. Goldberg to represent him, knowing negotiating a plea bargain was not an option; CH had to go to trial and win. Mr. Goldberg thoroughly investigated CH's case, sending out numerous subpoenas, using professional investigators, and personally speaking to potential witnesses or others with information that could help CH's case. CH went to trial and Mr. Goldberg aggressively cross-examined the arresting police officer and presented a witness in CH's defense. CH was found NOT GUILTY and left the courthouse with a tremendous weight lifted off his shoulders.

Illinois v. GC

GC was charged with Possession with the Intent to Deliver Cannabis (Marijuana) after Cook County Sheriff's Police and Skokie Police Officers went to GC's apartment to arrest him on a misdemeanor arrest warrant. When the Officers arrested GC they searched his apartment and they found felony amounts of marijuana and drug-dealing paraphernalia including a scale. GC was unhappy with his first lawyer so he hired Mr. Goldberg to defend him. Mr. Goldberg felt the officer's violated GC's Constitutional rights so he filed a Motion to Suppress Evidence and Statements arguing that the law enforcement officers unlawfully searched GC's apartment, including illegally using a K9 (drug detection dog), as well as unlawfully questioning or interrogating GC when they failed to read him his Miranda warnings after he was arrested. Mr. Goldberg conducted an evidentiary hearing on the Motion to Suppress. The Judge agreed with Mr. Goldberg and granted the motion and excluded all of the evidence, including the marijuana, paraphernalia, and GC's statements to the police. GC's case was dismissed.

Illinois v. FC

FC was celebrating a Chicago Bear's victory and drinking beer with some friends. Unfortunately he made the decision to get behind the wheel and took the life of another man and seriously injured the man's wife and daughter. FC's blood alcohol level was over 3 times the legal limit and he was charged with a variety of Aggravated Driving Under the Influence Felony Offenses. FC hired Mr. Goldberg and his colleague to defend him. The evidence was overwhelming of FC's guilt and he entered a "blind" plea of guilty to a Class 2 DUI charge and faced 14 years in prison. However, Mr. Goldberg and his colleague called numerous witnesses at a sentencing hearing and gave the Judge a substantial "mitigation packet" highlighting FC's exemplary life, other than this tragic mistake. After an emotionally charged sentencing hearing, the Judge agreed with Mr. Goldberg that "extraordinary circumstances" existed and justice would be served if FC was sentenced to probation. If FC successfully completes his probation, he will not serve a night in jail.

Illinois v. JP

JP was charged with First Degree Murder in a so-called Shaken Baby Murder case. He was the uncle and care-giver to an infant who died as a result of what McHenry County Prosecutors claimed was a result of being violently shaken. JP potentially faced the death penalty (when it was authorized in Illinois), and upon conviction of the charges he would have faced decades in prison, a life sentence for him. After years of a thorough investigation and a review and report from an expert witness, Mr. Goldberg and his colleagues were able to convince the prosecutor to severely reduce the charges from First-Degree Murder to an Involuntary Manslaughter charge where JP could (and was) sentenced to probation, avoiding any time in prison, or even jail. At a sentencing hearing the prosecution fought for 5 years in prison, but Mr. Goldberg convinced the judge to sentence JP to a period of probation without any jail time.

Illinois v. RV

RV was charged in a highly publicized case with operating a large marijuana grow house in the middle of the Chicago Loop. Mr. Goldberg was hired to represent him and he filed a Motion to Quash the Search Warrant executed in the case by the Chicago Police Department in coordination with the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). Although he did not win the motion, he convinced the prosecutor that he might (and should) win on appeal and, as a result, the prosecutor drastically reduced the charges from a Class X possession with the intent to deliver over 5,000 grams of cannabis to a Class 2 simple possession charge with a period of non-reporting probation. Mr. Goldberg was able to negotiate this plea, despite RV's prior conviction for the same felony offense and other criminal convictions in his background. While on probation, RV was arrested for Criminal Damage to Property and Criminal Trespass for causing thousands of dollars of damages to a well-known restaurant. Mr. Goldberg kept him out of jail on the new charges and convinced the judge to simply terminate his probation unsatisfactorily on the marijuana charge, avoiding prison or even further probation.

Illinois v. SK

SK went to the Swedish House Mafia concert at the United Center in Chicago, with some friends. Ultimately, he was dragged by four security guards to a holding area and arrested for battery to one of the security guards that allegedly resulted in injury. Mr. Goldberg was hired to aggressively defend Mr. Kennedy at trial. After Mr. Goldberg cross-examined the security guard who was the "complaining witness," and "impeached" him by pointing out the inconsistencies in his version of events, and also presented his own witnesses, Mr. Kennedy was found NOT GUILTY.

Illinois v. NG

NG was a young professional who went the Lollapolloza festival in Grant Park, here in Chicago. Ultimately Chicago Police Officers charged her with Obstructing an Arrest. Facing potentially extreme professional consequences a result of her arrest, NG hired Mr. Goldberg to represent her at trial. Mr. Goldberg aggressively defended NG at trial, and after cross-examining one of the arresting officers, Mr. Goldberg convinced the Judge to enter a directed finding of NOT GUILTY at the end of the Prosecution's case. NG's case was dismissed.

United States v. LT

LT was charged in Federal Count in Cedar Rapids, Iowa with selling heroin and being involved in a conspiracy to possess and distribute heroin. Based upon the charges and his criminal history or background he was facing life in prison. Rather than face mandatory life in prison, Mr. Goldberg negotiated a plea deal where Mr. Turner would still technically face life in prison, but the Court would have the discretion to sentence him to a statutory mandatory minimum of 10 years. At sentencing the prosecutor sought a sentence of approximately 23-30 years. Mr. Goldberg resisted the Government's request and convinced the Court to sentence LT to the absolute minimum sentence under the circumstances of 10 years.

Illinois v. Mr. X

Mr. X was charged with Possession of thousands of images and videos of child pornography. Mr. Goldberg filed a lengthy and complex Motion to Quash the Search Warrant and Suppress Evidence, challenging the way law enforcement obtained the evidence in the case. After a review of Mr. Goldberg's motion and the legal issues he presented, prosecutors offered to place Mr. X on a period of probation, a far cry from the prison term he was facing and the decades in prison he would face if the matter was prosecuted by the federal government. Mr. X happily accepted that offer.

Illinois v. AS

AS was charged with Felony Offense involving the possession and thousands of Counterfeit, also known as "knock off," handbags. AS was arrested in a highly publicized case for operating a booth at a Kane County Flea Market. Cook County prosecutors accused her of maintaining a storage locker or warehouse containing over 5000 counterfeit purses. AS was charged with a non-probationable Class 1 Felony in Cook County and faced a minimum of 4 years in prison and deportation. Mr. Goldberg filed a Motion to Suppress the Evidence seized in the storage locker arguing that St. Charles officers who arrested her violated her constitutional rights. After a hard fought hearing, the Court granted the motion and the case was DISMISSED. After winning the case in Cook County, Mr. Goldberg convinced the Kane County prosecutors to reduce AS's charges to a misdemeanor which would avoid jail/prison time, a felony conviction, and deportation.

Illinois v. VG

VG was charged with assault and was facing deportation. VG previously pled guilty when he was represented by a different lawyer. His family hired Mr. Goldberg to vacate the conviction and sentence. Mr. Goldberg filed a motion attacking the validity of the guilty plea and the Court granted the Motion. After Mr. Goldberg won the motion, the prosecutor dismissed the charges.

Illinois v. MA

Mr. Goldberg represented MA who was charged with Felony possession of Cannabis, commonly known as marijuana. MA was arrested after members of the Chicago Police Department "Gang Unit" stopped the Cadillac Escalade he was driving on the NW side of Chicago and based upon an investigation, arrested MA and his passenger. Mr. Goldberg filed a Motion to Suppress Evidence claiming that the police officers violated MA's constitutional rights because they did not have a valid or lawful basis to stop the SUV, search it, and arrest MA. Mr. Goldberg proved that the police officer lied upon how and why they stopped MA and the Court granted the Motion to Suppress and the case is dismissed.

Illinois v. CC

Mr. Goldberg and a colleague represented CC who was charged with Possession with Intent to Deliver kilograms of Marijuana (a Class X Felony) in Cook County. Prosecutors also seized and attempted to forfeit a BMW he was driving and over $32,000. While on bond in the Cook County matter, CC was also arrested and charged with Possession with Intent to Deliver multiple kilograms of Marijuana (also a Class X Felony) in Central Illinois. In Central Illinois the prosecutor originally offered a plea deal of over 25 years! Mr. Goldberg filed a Motion to Suppress the Marijuana and money seized in the Cook County case. For months before the hearing on the motion began, Mr. Goldberg conducted a through investigation and aggressively challenged the Police Officer's claim that certain evidence was not obtained and/or unavailable. Mr. Goldberg and his colleague conducted a hearing and the Court found that the police had no legal basis to stop and search the BMW CC was driving which contained the marijuana and granted CC's motion. The case was DISMISSED. Mr. Goldberg also was able to convince the prosecutors in the forfeiture hearing to release the $32,000 and the BMW. Mr. Goldberg convinced the prosecutor on matter in Central Illinois to drastically reduce the charges to an attempted possession charge which would avoid certain immigration consequences for CC. CC avoid prison and was placed on a period of probation.

Asset Forfeiture Case: Approx. $10,000 in Silver Bars

Chicago Police Officers executed a search warrant on a house looking for drugs. When they raided the house they found drugs, money, and approximately $10,000 worth of silver bars. Mr. Goldberg was hired to get the silver bars returned because Cook County prosecutors were attempting to forfeit the silver to the State of Illinois. Mr. Goldberg conducted an investigation and proved to prosecutors that the silver should be returned to it's innocent owner. They agreed and Mr. Goldberg got his client's $10,000 worth of silver returned.

Illinois v. JW

Mr. Goldberg represented JW after JW was charged with resisting arrest and domestic battery resulting in bodily harm after a Chicago Police Officer claimed he witnessed JW hitting her boyfriend in the middle of Ashland Avenue. In a hard fought case, Mr. Goldberg convinced the Judge to suppress (or exclude) a videotape from evidence because the prosecution could not lay the appropriate evidentiary foundation and prove the tape was accurate and not altered. After Mr. Goldberg cross-examined the Chicago Police Officer and got him to admit that he perjured himself on a criminal complaint and exposed the inconsistencies in his police reports and his courtroom testimony, JW was found NOT GUILTY of all charges.

Illinois v. LN-C

LN-C was charged with Possession with Intent to Distribute Kilograms Quantities of Cocaine. Mr. Goldberg and his colleague filed a Motion to Suppress Evidence and Quash Arrest, asking the Court to keep all of the drugs out of evidence because the DEA agents illegally stopped, questioned, searched, and arrested LN-C and illegally searched his car and home. After a hearing where Mr. Goldberg and his colleague cross-examined various DEA agents, not only did the Judge grant our motion, but said he did not believe anything the DEA agents said in court and the kilograms of cocaine were suppressed from evidence and all charges were DISMISSED.

Illinois v. AH

Cook County prosecutors charged AH with attempted first-degree murder, aggravated discharge of a firearm, aggravated battery, and a variety of other charges for allegedly shooting someone 9 times on Thanksgiving 2008. Mr. Goldberg and his colleague represented AH at trial and after exposing the lies in the different witnesses testimony AH was found NOT GUILTY and avoided spending most of his life in prison.

Illinois v. RF

Winnebago County prosecutors charged RF with numerous counts of Official Misconduct, Class 3 felonies, alledging that RF unlawfully obtained and sold sensitive information while working at the Secretary of State's Office. RF ultimately hired Mr. Goldberg to defend him. Mr. Goldberg filed a motion to suppress statements based upon an alleged violation of the Illinois Eavesdropping Act and then convinced to the prosecutors to dismiss all of the felony charges. Due to Mr. Goldberg's efforts, RF pled guilty to a significantly reduced charge of computer tampering, a Class B misdemeanor, and Mr. Goldberg negotiated a total punishment of $500, including fines, fees, and court costs, without probation or conditional discharge of any kind.

Illinois v. LB

LB was arrested by Chicago Police Officers and charged with possession of heroin and cannabis. Mr. Goldberg represented LB at a preliminary hearing and after the hearing the judge found that there was no probable cause for the charge and the case was dismissed.

Illinois v. CS

CS was stopped by Chicago Police Officers for allegedly not wearing a seatbelt and traffic violations. The officers searched CS and his car and charged him with possession of cocaine. Mr. Goldberg represented CS at a preliminary hearing and after Mr. Goldberg's cross examination of a Chicago Police Officer, the judge found that there was no probable cause and the case was dismissed.

Illinois v. PB

PB was charged with Aggravated Possession of Manufacturer's Identification Number Plates, also referred to as Vehicle Identification Numbers (V.I.N), a class 1 Felony, after members of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (F.B.I), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (I.C.E.), Kane-Cook Auto Theft Task Force, the Secretary of State Police and the Secretary of State Audit Team raided an auto body shop on the Northwest side of Chicago. During the raid, the officers allegedly got consent to search PB's Lexus and found the V.I.N plates in his glove compartment. They arrested PB, seized his Lexus and attempted to forfeit it, and charged Mr. Bunko with a crime. Mr. Goldberg filed a motion to quash PB's arrest and suppress evidence challenging the officer's claim that they were conducting an administrative search of the body shop, and arguing that they were conducting an unrelated criminal investigation at the behest of the FBI. After Mr. Goldberg presented his evidence at a hard fought hearing, the prosecutor dismissed all charges and PB got his Lexus back.

Illinois v. CH

CH was charged with battery after allegedly pushing one of her coworkers, and slamming her arm in the door, while working at Chicago State University. At trial, Mr. Goldberg vigorously cross-examined the complaining witness, and in doing so, got her to repeatedly change her story. After a heavily contested trial, Mr. Goldberg prevailed and CH was found NOT GUILTY.

Asset Forfeiture Case: Illinois v. 2005 Mitsubishi SUV

AP was arrested and charged with possession of heroin after police alleged to have found the heroin in his car during a traffic stop. The Cook County State's Attorney's Office moved to have AP's SUV forfeited and have title to the SUV transferred to the State of Illinois. Mr. Goldberg was hired to attack the forfeiture complaint and prevent the SUV from being forfeited and get AP's SUV back as soon as possible. Mr. Goldberg convinced the prosecutor that AP would be successful at a hearing and that the State did not have a legal basis to forfeit the SUV. Overnight, the prosecutor released the SUV back to AP and withdrew it's complaint for a forfeiture.

USA v. Wallace Richard Smith

Essentially, Mr. Smith assumed his deceased father's identity. He was charged with mail fraud (in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1341) because he engaged in a scheme to defraud the Social Security Administration by continuing to collect disability payments while working under his father's identity, and earning approximately $150,000 during the relevant period. Mr. Smith was also charged with passport fraud, or specifically making a false statement in an application for a passport with the intent to secure the issuance of a passport under the authority of the United States (in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1542), because he obtained a passport using his deceased father's identity. Finally, Smith was charged with bankruptcy fraud, or knowingly and fraudulently making a false declaration, certification, verification, and statement under penalty of perjury in a petition for bankruptcy (in violation of 18 U.S.C. 152(3)), by representing that he was his deceased father in an attempt to discharge over $70,000 in debt. Smith had a history of criminal convictions including impersonating a police officer, forgery, and drug charges. The Government fought for a sentence of 57 months in federal prison. Mr. Goldberg represented Smith at his heavily contested sentencing hearing and convinced the federal judge to sentence Mr. Smith to a short period of home incarceration. Smith was spared further prison time and was sentenced to the fourteen months he already served in connection to an unrelated state conviction and six months of home incarceration.

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. This was the second time Mr. Wallenberg was accused of stabbing someone in the chest. 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.

  • More recently, Mr. Hamid was charged with Driving Under the Influence (DUI) of cannabis/marijuana or other intoxicating drugs. At trial, Mr. Goldberg cross-examined the two Chicago police officers that stopped Mr. Hamid and proved that they had no reason to believe Mr. Hamid was "high" or under the influence of cannabis. Specifically, Mr. Goldberg attacked every factor the officers relied upon in reached their opinion. After a trial, Mr. Hamid was found NOT guilty of DUI.

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.