United States v. IK
IK was a general contractor charged as a lead defendant in a bank fraud scheme involving the diversion of over $3.2 million of funds from various construction lenders. IK hired Mr. Goldberg to represent him. According to the government, IK was facing 70-87 months under the federal sentencing guidelines. In federal court, the United States Probation Office calculates sentencing guideline ranges for inclusion in a presentence investigation report prepared for the Court. Mr. Goldberg first convinced the probation officer that various sentencing guideline enhancements did not apply and IK’s exposure under the guidelines should be substantially less, and Mr. Goldberg also convinced that Court to agree. He also effectively argued that despite the significant amount of the bank fraud, IK should not be sentenced to prison. Mr. Goldberg was successful in convincing the Court who sentenced IK to the one day “time served” IK spent being processed by law enforcement when he surrendered and was processed and fingerprinted.
United States v. JM
JM was the owner and president of a company specializing in the distribution of industrial materials and equipment. JM hired Mr. Goldberg to represent him when he was investigated by federal agents and charged with wire fraud, for what is commonly referred to as procurement fraud where JM entered into separate procurement contracts with the City of Chicago for approximately $11.7 million and $1.45 million. Given the significant evidence presented, JM pled guilty. Federal prosecutors wanted to hold JM responsible for the full value of the contracts; however, Mr. Goldberg successfully convinced the government that under the nuances of the federal sentencing guidelines, JM is not legally responsible for anywhere near the face value of the contracts, which drastically reduced JM’s advisory sentence under the guidelines. Next, at sentencing, Mr. Goldberg convinced the federal judge that even the government’s revised approached to the so-called loss was overstated, but most importantly and thanks to Mr. Goldberg’s advocacy, he convinced the federal judge to sentence JM to a period of probation instead of prison.
United States v. GC
GC was the owner and operator of a Chicago-based home health agency. GC was charged as the lead defendant in a health care fraud conspiracy involving approximately 2.2 million dollars of fraud, as well as the payment of kickbacks in exchange for patient referrals. Mr. Goldberg represented GC who pled guilty and was facing an advisory sentencing guideline range of 78 to 97 months in prison. Mr. Goldberg successfully argued that a non-prison sentence was appropriate and convinced the judge to sentence GC to one-day time-served, which consisted of the afternoon GC spent getting fingerprinted and processed when he arrested and before being released on bond.
United States v. RD
Federal prosecutors in Hammond, Indiana in the Northern District of Indiana charged RD and his co-defendant with possession of marijuana and cocaine with intent to deliver after agents searched a home and found approximately 300 lbs. of marijuana, ounces of cocaine, large amounts of cash and a loaded shotgun with a pistol-grip. RD, an alleged gang member was facing years in prison in a case that was publicized in various NW Indiana news outlets and Mr. Goldberg was hired to defend him. After conducting his own investigation, Mr. Goldberg and RD’s co-defendant’s lawyer filed a joint Motion to Suppress Evidence arguing various reasons why the search of RD’s home was unlawful and all the evidence should be suppressed or thrown out for violating RD’s Fourth Amendment constitutional rights. After a heavily contested evidentiary hearing where Mr. Goldberg cross-examined law enforcement witnesses, it was followed up by extensive written arguments. As a result, the federal judge presiding over the case ruled that the agents violated RD’s constitutional rights, suppressing all evidence from the search of his home. Shortly after, RD was released from custody and his case was dismissed when the government could no longer prosecute the case. Not only was RD released from jail and his case dismissed, but the FBI returned all of the money seized from his home.
CM was originally charged in State court with aggravated unlawful use of a weapon (UUW) for being a felon in possession of a firearm but given the federal government’s new prosecutorial priorities targeting alleged violent gang members with multiple firearm convictions in their background, federal prosecutors at the United States Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Illinois in Chicago took over the case and charged CM with a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). Once CM was charged in federal court, Mr. Goldberg represented CM and immediately took an aggressive approach fighting the case where CM was literally caught on videotape in possession of a loaded handgun and marijuana. Mr. Goldberg scrutinized the videotape of the stop, watching the video dozens of times, slowing down the search, focusing on the nuances and intricacies that may make a seeming lawful search unlawful. Once Mr. Goldberg was convinced that Chicago Police Officers violated CM’s constitutional rights, Mr. Goldberg filed a Motion to Suppress Evidence and Quash Arrest arguing that the officer’s violated CM’s Fourth Amendment rights when the officer conducted an illegal search. After the motion was filed, Mr. Goldberg continued to investigate and found information that would effect the credibility of the arresting officers who searched Mr. M. Prosecutors attempted to challenge what information Mr. Goldberg could ultimately use to “impeach” or attack the credibility of the officers and call into question certain information/observations they claimed to have and observed prior to stopping and while approaching CM on the street. While in the middle of quarreling over the admission and availability of police records, Mr. Goldberg kept pushing prosecutors to dismiss the case and not pursue this prosecution. Facing an advisory sentence under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines of 10 years in prison, Mr. M was thrilled to learn that thanks to Mr. Goldberg’s relentless efforts the Government moved the court to dismiss the case. All charges were dismissed and CM walked out of jail that night a free man.
United States v. JD
While on parole after serving a seven year sentence on a firearms conviction, JD joined in a drug conspiracy in the Humboldt Park neighborhood of Chicago, selling heroin, fentanyl, and fentanyl laced heroin. He was charged in federal court with various charges including conspiracy to distribute controlled substances. Mr. Goldberg agreed to represent JD and his first success came when he was able to secure a bond for JD who was presumed to be held without bond pending trial. Considering the overwhelming evidence, JD pled guilty and faced an advisory sentence of 77-96 months in prison given his significant criminal history placed him in Category VI, the highest under the federal sentencing guidelines. Despite these significant sentencing guidelines and the government’s push for a significant prison sentence, Mr. Goldberg convinced the federal judge to sentence JD to a period of probation. At the sentencing hearing, when sentencing JD to probation, the judge commented, “Among the other things that you should be very thankful for, Mr. [D], is the exemplary advocacy of Mr. Goldberg on your behalf here. This is not where I started out in my evaluation of where the sentence in this case should be. But through Mr. Goldberg’s submissions and his arguments here today, I am swayed. I may wake up tomorrow saying what did – what was I thinking. But I want to make sure you understand that I’m way out on a the limb here and if you come by and saw that limb off by committing further criminal acts, again, there’s not going to be a lot of suspense about what’s going to happen.”
United States v. MM
Mr. Goldberg represented MM after she was charged in a wire fraud scheme with what is commonly referred to as benefits fraud. In this case it involved SNAP, Link Card, and Food Stamp benefits. MM and her co-defendant were charged with defrauding the United States Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) and the State of Illinois by fraudulently obtaining money in relation to the benefit programs. In this case MM was the owner, manager, or employee of various convenience stores that in some instances were ineligible to participate in benefit programs and in all stores, per the rules of the program, could not exchange SNAP benefits with Link card holders by fraudulently exchanging customers benefits for cash. In this long-running scheme, MM was responsible for almost $2,000,000 of fraud. Federal prosecutors sought a sentence of between 33 to 41 months in prison, but Mr. Goldberg convinced the federal judge to sentence her to a period of probation.
United States vs. JG
JG was recorded on multiple occasions setting up the sale and transfer of an untraceable semi-automatic AR-15 assault rifle and so-called “ghost gun” to a man who turned out to be a confidential source for the F.B.I. In recorded conversations prior to and after the sale, the confidential source informed JG that he had been to prison twice, was connected to a Mexican drug cartel and was interested in purchasing large orders including crates of grenades, untraceable automatic handguns (with “switches”) and other automatic weapons that were all to be transported to Mexico in exchange for cash and/or drugs. JG was charged with the unlawful transfer of a firearm to a prohibited person (a felon) and he hired Mr. Goldberg to defend him. Upon JG’s arrest, Mr. Goldberg negotiated a bond and JG was released from custody. Despite multiple and repeated bond violations, Mr. Goldberg was able to keep the Court from revoking JG’s bond. Despite the overwhelming evidence, given the various recordings, photographs, and surveillance, JG opted for trial and what some might call a “technical” defense in what turned out to be a hotly contested trial. Despite JG’s conviction after a jury trial, Mr. Goldberg convinced the judge that JG should not be sentenced to prison, even though the government fought for a 30-month prison sentence. JG was sentenced to one day “time served” (the day he spent being processed during his arrest and before he was released on bond) followed by a sentence of supervised release with the first year to be served on conditions akin to home detention where he is able to go to work, school, medical and other approved activities outside his home.
United States v. RK
RK hired Mr. Goldberg after he was charged with a wire fraud scheme that involved using stolen credit card information to purchase Amtrak travel vouchers and reselling them on ebay. First, Mr. Goldberg convinced prosecutors not to charge RK with aggravated identity theft which would require a mandatory two-year prison term in addition to any sentence for the underlying fraud scheme. Federal prosecutors then attempted to hold RK responsible for approximately $500,000 in loss and asked that he faced a sentence of 37-46 months in prison under the sentencing guidelines. Mr. Goldberg successfully convinced the judge to keep RK out of prison, sentencing him to one day “time served,” and also convinced the judge to apportion the restitution amount so RK will only have to pay back a fraction of what the government argued for.
United States v. HW
HW was charged by federal prosecutors for his role in a drug conspiracy involving the distribution of fentanyl, heroin and cocaine. Mr. Goldberg represented HW who was facing an advisory sentencing guideline range of 57-71 months in prison. Mr. Goldberg convinced the judge to sentence HW to 4 days time-served, the days he served in detention before being released on bond.
United States v. BP
BP was arrested by DEA agents after being setup by a confidential informant and delivering 1,000 pills of MDMA or ecstasy. DEA agents also raided a music studio, his home, and storage unit and found another 2,000 pills of MDMA, pill presses, tableting machines, dozens of pill punch die stamps, and a variety of other materials used in the manufacturing of pills and tablets. DEA agents also had information that BP allegedly sold boats (1,000 pills) and yachts (10,000 pills) of MDMA and Xanax on a regular basis going back years and used the dark web (also referred to as the deep web) to purchase drugs and drug supplies using bitcoin and cryptocurrency. BP hired Mr. Goldberg to defend him. BP was indicted for distribution of MDMA, possession with intent to distribute MDMA, and what is commonly referred to as maintaining a drug house or stash house. Even though the evidence was overwhelming of BP’s guilt, Mr. Goldberg persuaded the government to allow BP to plead guilty to a certain quantity of MDMA and not hold him responsible for other transactions that BP had confessed to. After limiting BP’s exposure, Mr. Goldberg then convinced the probation officer that a particular enhancement under the sentencing guidelines did not apply, and at sentencing persuaded the judge of the same. The government argued for a sentence of 46 months in prison, but Mr. Goldberg convinced the judge to spare BP any prison time. BP was sentenced to 1 day time-served, the day he was arrested and processed before being released on bond.
This was not BP’s only arrest. Mr. Goldberg also previously represented BP on a MDMA case in Cook County where a package of one-quarter kilogram of MDMA powder was seized by the United States Customs and Border Patrol at JFK Airport in New York. That package originated in Belgium but was being sent to Chicago. A controlled delivery was conducted, and an anticipatory search warrant was obtained; Mr. Goldberg convinced prosecutors to dismiss that case prior to indictment.
United States v. MN & Third Party Forfeiture Claim
MN was charged as part of a highly publicized gambling conspiracy prosecuted in Chicago by the United States Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Illinois. This case was touted as the largest gambling case ever prosecuted in this district, which is significant given the long history of organized crime or so-called “Outfit” or Mob/Mafia prosecutions in Chicago. Mr. Goldberg was hired to defend MN. After a hotly contested sentencing hearing where the government pushed to send MN to prison, Mr. Goldberg convinced the federal judge to sentence MN to a period of probation. After that successful sentencing, the lead-defendant’s wife, LD, hired Mr. Goldberg to contest the forfeiture of several hundred thousand dollars of jewelry by filing what is referred to as an ancillary claim that allows a third-party to contest a criminal forfeiture. After the filing of the claim, Mr. Goldberg convinced the government that he would be successful at a hearing and to return virtually all of the jewelry seized. Several hundred thousand dollars in jewelry, including diamonds and gold, were returned to LD, in exchange for agreeing to forfeit two watches out of the extensive lot.
United States v. MS
MS was a burgeoning international musician and actor, but also a drug dealer. He was arrested and charge as part of a large-scale drug conspiracy. Mr. Goldberg was hired to represent MS and succeeded across the board. Mr. Goldberg’s first success in the case came after a hotly contested detention hearing, after which he convinced the magistrate judge to release MS on bond, despite an immigration hold or detainer. Mr. Goldberg connected MS to an immigration attorney who was able to obtain an immigration bond and MS was released and able to defend the case out of custody. Next, Mr. Goldberg successfully challenged the attempted seizure and forfeiture of MS’s Range Rover and the FBI returned it to him. Then Mr. Goldberg convinced the prosecutors that although MS was a drug dealer, he was not part of the charged conspiracy which allowed MS to pled guilty to a charge that did not carry a lengthy mandatory minimum punishment. Finally, despite prosecutors arguing for a 4–5-year sentence, Mr. Goldberg convinced the Court to sentence MS to only 18 months in custody which was a fraction of what similar situated defendants in that case were sentenced to.
Illinois v. SM
Ogle County Sheriff’s deputies and other task force officers were investigating SM for distributing and possessing images and videos of alleged child pornography using a BitTorrent computer program. When they executed a search warrant on SM’s home, SM attempted to destroy an apple macbook computer and SM was charged with obstruction of justice along with non-probationable Class X felonies of distributing child pornography where each count carries a sentence of 6-30 years in prison and can be run consecutively or back-to-back. SM was represented by another attorney before he hired Mr. Goldberg to represent him. Mr. Goldberg requested additional discovery from the prosecutor and found many areas to attack the prosecutions case (none of which his prior lawyer even considered) and evidence to support the attack that his prior lawyer did not even request. After Mr. Goldberg investigated the case, he advised the prosecutor of what he uncovered and convinced the prosecutor to dismiss all of the child pornography charges. In addition, rather than settle for a permanent felony conviction on the obstruction of justice charge, Mr. Goldberg also convinced the prosecutor to allow SM to receive “second chance probation” which means that judgment on the felony does not enter and that charge will also be dismissed at the end of SM’s probationary period. Not only did SM not go to prison, but he is not a permanently convicted felon, is not a registered sex offender and does not have to complete any sex offender treatment programs. Essentially, thanks to Mr. Goldberg, SM’s case will be completely dismissed and expunged (erased) from his record as if it never happened.
Illinois v. BO
BO was charged by Lake County prosecutors in a highly publicized case with various offenses including aggravated domestic battery and aggravated battery with a deadly weapon. BO was charged related to an alleged attack where she was accused of striking her then boyfriend in the head with a machete, splitting it open, and sending him to the hospital where his head was stapled back together. BO hired Mr. Goldberg to defend her against these serious allegations that had the potential to send her to prison and ruin her career. Mr. Goldberg conducted an extensive investigation with the aid of a private investigator and presented the prosecutor with what he found. Mr. Goldberg convinced the prosecutor that they would not be able to disprove BO’s claims of self-defense and that the prosecutor would not prevail at trial. The prosecutor agreed and dismissed all charges. Following the dismissal there was a hotly contested expungement hearing, where over the State’s objection, and after evidence and argument at a hearing, Mr. Goldberg convinced the Court to expunge BO’s case as if it never happened.
United States v. RM (Compassionate Release)
RM had a significant criminal history and was prosecuted and sentenced for his involvement in a methamphetamine drug conspiracy in federal court in Rapid City, South Dakota when represented by a series of other lawyers. While serving his lengthy sentence, RM petitioned the federal district court for compassionate release under what is referred to as the First Step Act, which means he asked to reduce his sentence. He was represented by an attorney and his request was denied. His family then hired Mr. Goldberg to prepare and present another motion for compassionate release. Within ten days of Mr. Goldberg filing his motion for compassionate release it was granted; RM’s sentence was reduced to time-served and he was released from prison a number of years earlier than he was scheduled for release.
Illinois v. DM
DM was a previously convicted felon who was caught carrying a loaded firearm after a traffic stop. DM was charged with various firearm offenses including which is commonly referred to as Aggravated Unlawful Use of a Weapon (or AGG UUW), which is a Class 2 felony that carries potential penalties of 3-7 years in prison, before considering extended term eligibility which increases the penalty range to 7-14 years. Mr. Goldberg was hired to represent DM. After scrutinized the evidence including the police body worn cameras, Mr. Goldberg aggressively negotiated with prosecutors and convinced them to amend and drastically reduce the charges all the way from a Class 2 to a misdemeanor charge and sentence DM to a period of 18 months conditional discharge which means that he did not have to spend a day in jail or prison and was not even monitored or supervised by a probation officer.
Illinois v. SC
SC was a multiple time convicted felon who has been to prison many times. SC also made the mistake of trafficking over 15 pounds of cannabis (marijuana) from Sacramento, California to Chicago O’hare International Airport. SC was arrested at the airport and charged with trafficking over 5,000 grams of cannabis which carries a minimum penalty of 12 years in prison to be served at 75% and is non-probationable. Mr. Goldberg was hired to represent SC. Mr. Goldberg immediately sent notice to various departments of the airport to preserve certain evidence he believed relevant to prove DEA officers potentially violated SC’s constitutional rights when they searched his luggage at the baggage claim. After mounting a challenge to the admission of the evidence, Mr. Goldberg convinced prosecutors to radically reduce the Super X felony charges of cannabis trafficking to a Class 3 simple possession of marijuana charge and place SC on a period of probation, despite SC’s extensive criminal history.
Illinois v. DC
DC is a successful musician and entrepreneur who was spending time in downtown Chicago when he was arrested for possessing a loaded firearm and charged with Unlawful Use of a Weapon (UUW). Mr. Goldberg was hired to represent him. After Mr. Goldberg aggressively cross examined the arresting police officer at a preliminary hearing, the judge found that there was no probable cause and the case was dismissed.
Illinois v. AM
AM was driving in the Magnificent Mile area of Chicago. Aggressive Chicago police officers from the tactical unit pulled AM over and arrested AM after they found a loaded firearm and a significant amount of cash. AM hired Mr. Goldberg to represent him and after an investigation, Mr. Goldberg filed a motion to quash arrest and suppress evidence in an attempt to have the judge throw out the evidence based on what Mr. Goldberg believed to be illegal conduct by the police and an unconstitutional search, seizure, and arrest. During the course of the case as it was being worked up for a hearing on Mr. Goldberg’s motion, the prosecution offered to reduce the charges to an expungable misdemeanor after Mr. Goldberg educated prosecutors on the strength of his position and the consequences of a felony conviction for AM. Ultimately, after lengthy discussions, AM preferred to pursue a hearing given his confidence in Mr. Goldberg and his motion and despite the incredibly lenient plea offer. On the day of the hearing, after Mr. Goldberg challenged the additional information the prosecutor intended to rely on at the hearing, they made an offer AM simply couldn’t refuse. In exchange for a small number of community service hours, all charges were dismissed.
United States v. RR
RR was charged by federal prosecutors for his role in a large-scale drug conspiracy that sold at least 25 kilograms of heroin and fentanyl at known drug spots throughout Chicago. The government referred to RR as “middle management” and had video/audio recordings of RR obtaining wholesale quantities of drugs, helped package and mix them at a so-called stash house, transported money earned from the conspiracy and acted as a go-between the leaders to pass messages. Due to the overwhelming evidence, including the multiple wiretaps of RR and his co-conspirators, RR pled guilty, but not by a plea agreement with the government, but by a plea declaration because Mr. Goldberg fundamentally disagreed with the government’s view of the evidence and application of various sentencing enhancements. In it’s sentencing memorandum, the government sought a sentence of 210-262 months in prison and asserted that RR did not qualify for the “safety valve,” based on his role in the charged conspiracy, which would mean that he could not be sentenced below the 10 year mandatory minimum in this case. At the sentencing hearing, Mr. Goldberg convinced the federal judge that the safety valve applied, which removed the 10 year mandatory minimum, and also convinced the judge to sentence RR even well below that. Ultimately, RR was sentenced to 48 months in prison, radically less than the government’s request and far less than his co-defendants, even ones who were much less involved and responsible for much less heroin and fentanyl.
Forfeiture of $299,025.00 in United States Currency
Special Agents of the DEA seized a shipment of almost $300,000 in cash when it was shipped from the Chicagoland area to Northern California. Agents investigated and sent notice to whom they believed to have sent the money. The claimant retained Mr. Goldberg to fight the forfeiture and attempt to obtain the money back. Mr. Goldberg investigated, filed the appropriate paperwork with the DEA, and the matter was sent to federal prosecutors in San Francisco to file a judicial complaint for the money, meaning they would have to file a lawsuit. Mr. Goldberg explained to the Assistant United States Attorney that based on his investigation he believed the seizure on the money was unlawful and also raised a variety of issues that would help his client prevail if the government filed a judicial complaint for forfeiture. As a result, Federal prosecutors did not file a lawsuit for the money, and the DEA returned all of it.
Illinois v. MM
MM was indicted by Cook County prosecutors for five felony Cannabis (Marijuana) deals to an undercover police officer and charged in five separate felony cases. Mr. Goldberg was hired to represent MM. After Mr. Goldberg scrutinized the laboratory testing in the case, he convinced prosecutors that the Illinois State Police Crime Lab did not appropriately test the cannabis and all five cases were dismissed.
Illinois v. Mr. X
Mr. X was an attorney indicted by Cook County prosecutors and charged with a slew of offenses including non-probationable money laundering charges, forgery, and subornation of perjury all related to a scheme to purportedly launder $400,000 in drug proceeds in exchange for a fee of over an additional $100,000 for his efforts and those of his co-defendants. The funds were used to satisfy a “source of bail” requirement and to secure the release of a kilogram quantity drug dealer on bond. Mr. X hired Mr. Goldberg to defend him. During the many years Mr. Goldberg fought and defended Mr. X, he filed numerous pretrial motions attacking the indictments and alleged prosecutorial misconduct before the grand jury. After Mr. Goldberg litigated numerous motions, the prosecution finally offered a plea to a probationable offense. Over the prosecutor’s objection, Mr. Goldberg convinced the judge that a special type of probation was appropriate. With this type of probation, if completed successfully, the Court could exercise its discretion and vacate the conviction; in other words there was potential Mr. X would not be a permanently convicted felon. The Court agreed to place him on what is referred to as TASC probation and Mr. X successfully completed it. Mr. Goldberg filed a motion to vacate the conviction and the prosecutor objected. A lengthy hearing was held and thanks to Mr. Goldberg’s advocacy the judge vacated the conviction and the case was dismissed without Mr. X spending even a night in jail.
Illinois v. AD
AD is a convicted felon who has been to prison with prior convictions for narcotics distribution and possession, money laundering, and other charges in multiple states throughout the country. AD was arrested after over 5500 pills of MDMA purchased on the dark web and sent from Spain were intercepted when the package entered the United States. In a joint operation between the United States Postal Inspection Service, Department of Homeland Security Investigations, and the Chicago Police Department, the agencies performed a controlled delivery involving the placement of a GPS tacking device, theft detection powder, and alarming device placed inside the package and secured an anticipatory search warrant. The package was delivered to AD who fled after picking up the package but was arrested in short order with theft detection powder on his hands. Unfortunately, AD made the mistake of speaking to the investigating officers and not only admitted to possessing the MDMA pills but pointed out the location of other illegal drugs on the property, including raw MDMA, ketamine, LSD, and various other drugs, as well as confessing to his use of Bitcoin to purchase the drugs on the dark web. In short, the evidence of AD’s guilt was overwhelming. AD was prosecuted in state court by Cook County prosecutors for multiple counts of trafficking and manufacturing of controlled substances, all Class X or “Super X” felonies that carry non-probationable penalties of 6-30 years or 12-60 years in prison. AD hired Mr. Goldberg to defend him. Despite overwhelming evidence of AD’s guilt, prior prison sentences, and the severe nature of the charged crimes, Mr. Goldberg pointed out potential issues with legality of the searches and seizure of evidence and other mitigating evidence to the prosecutor and convinced her to radically reduce the charges and AD was sentenced to a period of probation.
Illinois v. FN
FN was charged by DuPage County prosecutors with possession with intent to deliver over 44 pounds of methamphetamine in one of the largest single meth seizures in the Midwest. FN was not satisfied with his first two sets of lawyers and hired Mr. Goldberg to represent him. FN was facing decades in prison. After Mr. Goldberg investigated the case, he negotiated a deal with the prosecutors that was substantially less than FN’s prior lawyers; Mr. Goldberg also convinced prosecutors to reduce the charge to a possession offense (opposed to possession with intent to deliver) which may have less of an effect on FN’s immigration related issues moving forward and also reduced the percentage of the custodial sentence he will have to serve. Thanks to Mr. Goldberg, FN was sentenced to 4 years in prison where he will have to serve only 50% of that time.
United States v. Mr. X
Mr. X was a bright student studying at Northwestern University and recent valedictorian of his high school graduating class. Despite his intelligence, he made the mistake of buying thousands of pills of MDMA (ecstasy) and pounds of marijuana on the dark web through a platform called Silk Road. Others have referred to this as the illegal amazon or ebay of the internet. Unfortunately for Mr. X, Special Agents of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) and other federal law enforcement agencies investigating Silk Road intercepted Mr. X’s packages. Mr. X and his family hired Mr. Goldberg to defend him against a looming federal prosecution where Mr. X faced years in federal prison. Fortunately for Mr. X, Mr. Goldberg was able to contextualize Mr. X’s behavior and presented mitigation material to federal prosecutors, convincing them to allow Mr. X to enter into a deferred prosecution agreement; that meant that Mr. X would never step into a courtroom, spend a minute in jail or prison and there is no public court record. Mr. X has now graduated college and employed at a Fortune 50 company.
United States v. MK
MK was an owner and manager of a North suburban Chicago-based home health agency. MK was charged as the lead defendant in a kickback conspiracy involving paying physicians for patient referrals. Prosecutors originally sought restitution of over 2 million dollars, as well as forfeiture of several hundred thousand dollars. Mr. Goldberg represented MK and convinced prosecutors that their application of the law was incorrect to the facts of the case, that the conduct involved did not involve fraud, and the government dropped its request for restitution which saved MK millions of dollars. Prosecutors asked the court to sentence MK to prison for a period of 30 to 37 months; however, thanks to Mr. Goldberg’s efforts, MK was sentenced to only 4 months in prison.
United States v. Dr. X
Dr. X was a respected oncologist who purchased cancer drugs from foreign countries and billed insurance companies as if the Dr. was dispensing ordinary FDA approved medication subject to government inspection; Dr. X billed and received over $1,000,000 in doing so. After being told by her prior lawyer that federal prosecutors were planning to indict her, Mr. Goldberg was hired to take over Dr. X’s representation. Mr. Goldberg convinced prosecutors not to indict the Dr. and negotiated a pre-charging deferred prosecution agreement, meaning that there would be no prosecution if the Dr. abided by very minimal conditions. Dr. X never saw a day in court or even a public court allegation. In addition, as part of the deferred prosecution agreement Dr. X was only responsible for a small forfeiture in comparison to the money the Dr. received. Many of Dr. X’s colleagues across the country were convicted of felonies, sentenced to years in prisons, and fined or forfeited hundreds of thousands of dollars for similar conduct. Not only did Dr. X avoid a felony conviction, prison/jail time, and substantial financial penalties, but Dr. X also avoided the potentially embarrassing public prosecution and a stain on her reputation.
United States v. MK
Federal prosecutors in Milwaukee, Wisconsin charged MK with multiple counts of wire fraud for allegedly stealing thousands of dollars of social security benefits MK was not entitled to. MK’s prior lawyers told MK she should plead guilty to the indictment or at best she could hope for was a reduced charge to a misdemeanor if she paid full restitution. Dissatisfied with her former lawyers, she hired Mr. Goldberg to represent her. After months of pushing prosecutors to look at the case from a different perspective, Mr. Goldberg convinced prosecutors to dismiss MK’s case. The US Attorney’s Office in Milwaukee dismissed MK’s case.
United States v. Leo Earl Sharp
Clint Eastwood’s fictionalized Hollywood movie The Mule was based on this case and was covered by every major media outlet around the world. In late 2011, Leo Sharp, an 87-year-old, military veteran and well-known day lily hybridizer, drove on Interstate 94 headed towards Detroit, Michigan when a Michigan State Trooper stopped Mr. Sharp in his pickup. The trooper was directed by the DEA to stop him under the pretext of a garden-variety traffic stop and attempt to search. A drug sniffing k9 purportedly alerted and the trooper found 104 kilograms of cocaine (which the DEA already knew was there) in the bed of the pickup. Mr. Sharp was arrested and brought to federal court in Detroit where he was charged with possession with intent to distribute the cocaine found in the bed of his pickup. After Mr. Sharp was released on bond, he returned to Michigan City, Indiana. When faced with a virtual death sentence given his age and the severity of the charges, he hired Mr. Goldberg to represent him. After Mr. Goldberg investigated and requested K9 records from the federal prosecutor, a superseding indictment was filed charged Mr. Sharp with 17 other co-defendants in one of the largest drug conspiracies in Detroit’s history. The DEA tracked Mr. Sharp after obtaining a court authorized warrant to monitor the GPS location on his cell phone, as well as numerous court authorized wiretaps to listen to a variety of phone calls from different numbers/people throughout the country. In doing so, they learned that Mr. Sharp was expected in Detroit with the latest load of cocaine, since Mr. Sharp was hailed as one of the largest drug couriers for the Sinaloa Cartel. Federal prosecutors in Detroit indicted Mr. Sharp for his approximately two-year involvement as a courier where they had evidence that he drove about 1,700 kilograms of cocaine and seven million dollars across country during the course of multiple trips. An investigative reporter traveled from Chicago to Indiana to confront Mr. Sharp and had him confess on tape to his knowledge and involvement in the conspiracy. Prosecutors were not willing to remove the 10-year mandatory minimum sentence required in the case given the seriousness of the case. Mr. Goldberg filed and litigated a motion to suppress evidence and filed a pretrial motion asking to allow the jury to learn the mandatory penalties Mr. Sharp would face upon conviction. After fighting those motions, the prosecutors agreed to remove the 10-year mandatory minimum. Not only did Mr. Goldberg negotiate the removal of the mandatory minimum and retain the ability to request any sentence, but Mr. Sharp was also not required to forfeit his home or even the entire amount of money he earned for his involvement in the offense. At sentencing prosecutors sought a 5-year prison sentence. Thanks to Mr. Goldberg’s advocacy, Mr. Sharp was sentenced to only 3 years in prison and ended up serving less than one year before he was released.
FBI, HHS and agents from a variety of law enforcement agencies simultaneously executed search warrants raiding offices in Chicago, Detroit, and Indianapolis. They also seized over $2.5 million dollars from bank accounts containing alleged proceeds of fraud, before arresting the Chief Executive Officer of a Chicago based business that manages physicians and makes house calls in six states. The CEO, DA, was charged via a criminal complaint and ultimately indicted in a highly publicized health care fraud prosecution. The indictment accused DA of masterminding a health care fraud scheme that generated approximately $35 million dollars in payments from Medicare. Facing decades in prison, DA hired Mr. Goldberg to represent him in the massive prosecution brought by the United States Attorney’s Office in Chicago, as well as the Fraud Section of the Department of Justice’s Criminal Division, under the Medicare Fraud Strike Force. Prosecutor’s pushed DA to plead guilty to multiple health care fraud charges that could have landed him in prison for the bulk of the remainder of his life. They sought a plea to charges that carried a sentence capped at the statutory maximum of 20 years in prison. After scrutinizing the government’s evidence, Mr. Goldberg convinced the prosecutors to radically reduce the amount of fraud or what is referred to as the loss amount under federal sentencing guidelines. Prosecutors agreed to deviate from their initial position that the fraud resulted in approximately $35 million dollars of fraud to a position where DA was only responsible for $1.8 million in fraud, as well as eliminate various enhanced penalties under the federal sentencing guidelines. Prosecutors asked the Court to sentence DA to 48 months in prison, but Mr. Goldberg succeeded in convincing the Court to sentence DA to 15 months. DA only served less than a year in prison.
State of Illinois v. GH
The Illinois Attorney General’s Office charged GH with various counts of Vendor Fraud and theft for billing the state for over $3.7 million dollars of psychiatric services that never occurred or were provided by people who were not doctors. GH hired Mr. Goldberg to represent her as she was in the process of being extradited from the United Kingdom. Prior to her arrival in the United States, Mr. Goldberg worked to arrange GH’s expedited process through customs and the processing of her arrest warrant at O’hare International Airport. He also reduced her bond so she could be released on a recognizance bond, also referred to as an I-bond, which means she would not have to post any money to be released or be processed through Cook County Jail. Once Mr. Goldberg obtained copies of the prosecutor’s purported evidence or what is commonly referred to as discovery, he pushed for additional material. Mr. Goldberg prepared a successful Motion to Dismiss the Indictment where the two most significant charges were dismissed. After the successful motion, Mr. Goldberg convinced prosecutors that they could not meet their burden of proof and lacked the evidence to continue their prosecution. The prosecutors agreed and they dismissed the remaining charges in the case. Mr. Goldberg was then able to expunge (erase) the record of GH’s case.
United States v. Dr. H
Dr. H was a chiropractor charged as part of a massive national health care fraud enforcement action. Dr. H was charged in federal court in Chicago in an 18-count indictment with various counts of health care fraud for participating in a scheme to defraud Blue Cross Blue Shield. He was accused of submitting roughly $1.1 million in fraudulent claims to the insurance company where Dr. H and his co-defendant falsely represented that they provided certain chiropractic services. Dr. H hired Mr. Goldberg to represent him. Dr. H’s co-defendant was sentenced to prison, but thanks to Mr. Goldberg’s successful advocacy, Dr. H was sentenced to probation with a short period in a halfway house.
United States v. CA and EA
As part of another national health care fraud takedown, Mr. and Mrs. A were owners of various home health agencies and indicted for violations of the anti-kickback statute for paying for referrals of patients to their home health businesses. Prosecutors from the Department of Justice Fraud Section dubbed this the largest anti-kickback prosecution in the district (the Northern District of Illinois). Mrs. A, the lead defendant hired Mr. Goldberg to represent her. Mr. A also had Mr. Goldberg represent him at sentencing. Mr. Goldberg negotiated a plea where Mr. and Mrs. A were only responsible for a small portion of forfeiture compared to what is referred to as the improper benefit that resulted from the offense and only were required to plead guilty to a single count of the indictment when prosecutors were pushing a plea to multiple counts to increase their advisory sentencing guideline range. At sentencing prosecutors pushed for sentences near the statutory maximum of five years. Specifically, the prosecutor asked for a sentence of 57 to 60 months for Mrs. A and 51 to 60 months for Mr. A. Although Mr. and Mrs. A were sentenced to prison for the serious offense that spanned a number of years, thanks to Mr. Goldberg’s effective advocacy, Mrs. A was sentenced to 15 months, where she will serve less than a year, and Mr. A only 3 months in prison.
United States v. ED
In yet another highly publicized health care fraud prosecution, ED was the owner and operator of a home health agency in Chicago. She was the lead defendant indicted for health care fraud for her involvement in a Medicare Fraud and kickback scheme. Prosecutors from the Medicare Fraud Strike Force alleged that ED and her agency fraudulently billed Medicare for over $6,000,000. Mr. Goldberg represented ED, and although there was overwhelming evidence of ED’s guilt, Mr. Goldberg was able to drastically reduce the amount of fraud attributed to ED to $2.2 million. Despite prosecutors push to send ED to prison for 8 years, Mr. Goldberg also convinced the federal judge to sentence her to only 2 years in prison where she served substantially less than that.
United States v. JD
JD was arrested by the DEA and charged with conspiracy to possess and distribute, as well as possession with intent to distribute over 15 kilograms of cocaine after he was setup by a confidential informant (CI). The evidence of the negotiation before the transaction and distribution were captured on audio and videotape and there were multiple cooperating witnesses prepared to testify against him. Mr. Goldberg was hired to represent him. Mr. Goldberg was able to negotiate a plea agreement, which eliminated the 10 year mandatory minimum after challenging the Government on the application of the “safety valve.” The Government sought a sentence of between 70-87 months in prison. Even though the government fought for that lengthy sentence, Mr. Goldberg convinced the federal judge to sentence JD to only 40 months in prison.
Illinois v. EA
EA was charged with various counts of aggravated domestic battery involving great bodily injury (and other charges) after an altercation with her boyfriend. She was accused of taking a fire poker and thrashing her boyfriend’s face during a fight, among a variety of other instances of violence that led to various charges. Gruesome photos and medical records documented her boyfriend’s injuries. EA also had a history of other prosecutions involving domestic batteries, aggravated battery to a police officer, as well as resisting and obstructing arrest. Faced with serious felonies that carried mandatory jail time and potential prison based on her history and the nature of the case, EA hired Mr. Goldberg to defend her. After carefully investigating, Mr. Goldberg filed a Motion to Suppress Evidence and Quash Arrest attempting to throw out a variety of evidence discovered in EA’s home, which was the so-called scene of the crime. After putting pressure on the prosecution with a strong motion based on a unique application of the law, Mr. Goldberg convinced the prosecutor to drastically reduce the charges to a single misdemeanor charge. As a result, EA was not convicted of a felony offense and never had to serve a day in jail.
Illinois v. RW
RW was charged with reckless discharge of a firearm for allegedly shooting a firearm at a car window during an argument in a parking garage on the north side of Chicago. Facing felony charges, potential jail/prison, the potential loss of his job/reputation and the security clearance required for his employment, RW hired Mr. Goldberg to defend him. Mr. Goldberg dove into the case scrutinizing every piece of evidence and successfully convinced prosecutors to completely dismiss all charges.
Illinois v. JZ
JZ was a successful business executive who worked hard, but according to federal agents and prosecutors liked to play hard too. He was arrested for allegedly buying quantities of cocaine off of the dark web when packages were intercepted by the Department of Homeland Security, United States Postal Inspectors, and Chicago Police Officers. A search warrant was executed on his home. Officers also discovered large quantities of Xanax during their search. JZ was prosecuted in state court by Cook County prosecutors. JZ was referred to Mr. Goldberg given Mr. Goldberg’s vast experience handling similar cases involving large amounts of drugs and package interdiction. Faced with felony charges, the loss of his job, professional reputation and licensing, JZ hired Mr. Goldberg. Despite the relatively large quantity of drugs found at JZ’s home, Mr. Goldberg convinced prosecutors to allow JZ to participate in a Drug Deferred Prosecution Program (DDPP) which normally only accepts defendants caught with a significantly less amount of contraband. After a short assessment and follow up session, JZ’s case was dismissed and Mr. Goldberg expunged (erased) the record of his entire case as if it never happened.
United States v. RR
RR was charged by federal prosecutors in the Southern District of New York (SDNY) by a criminal complaint charging conspiracy to possess and distribute over 5 kilograms of cocaine. RR was arrested in Chicago and the government sought his removal to New York. Agents recovered over 16 kilograms of cocaine and $35,000.00. RR was also alleged to have been the Chicago supplier and resident of a drug stash house. Mr. Goldberg represented RR and rather than waive a preliminary hearing and agree to RR’s removal to New York, Mr. Goldberg challenged the government. Mr. Goldberg pushed prosecutors to turn over a variety of evidence, including recordings that were purportedly made. After Mr. Goldberg’s intense preparation, demands upon the government, and pointing out the apparently flaws in the government’s case, prosecutors in New York dismissed the case.
United States v. Approximately $626,915.00 in United States Currency
In early 2017, a Missouri State Highway Patrol Trooper and a Columbia, Missouri K9 officer seized approximately $626,915.00 in cash during a traffic stop. Originally local law enforcement attempted to forfeit the cash, but federal prosecutors from the United States Attorney’s Office in Kansas City, Missouri took over the forfeiture and filed a complaint for forfeiture in the Western District of Missouri federal court. The IRS Criminal Investigation Division and other federal law enforcement agencies conducted an investigation. Mr. Goldberg was hired by the claimant to fight the forfeiture. The lawsuit was highly publicized in the local media. After Mr. Goldberg and his colleagues scrutinized the evidence and legal issues involved, Mr. Goldberg was able to obtain the majority (approximately 2/3) of the money back for his client.
Forfeitures of Various Automobiles and Large Amounts of Money in Cook County, Illinois
Mr. Goldberg has successfully advocated for the return of dozens of automobiles and large amounts of currency when prosecutors from the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office have initiated forfeiture actions. Mr. Goldberg has won many contested court hearings, entered into extremely favorable settlements, and also convinced prosecutors to decline forfeiture all together on many occasions. Mr. Goldberg regularly represents claimants in forfeiture matters in both federal and state courts.
Various Cash Seizures/Forfeitures of United States Currency at Airports, Train and Bus Stations and During Interstate Traffic Stops
Mr. Goldberg has represented individuals and business entities that collectively have had millions of dollars of cash (United States Currency) seized for purposes of forfeiture at airports (such as O’hare International Airport (ORD) and Midway Airport (MDW)), train stations like Union Station in Chicago, Greyhound bus terminals, and highways throughout Illinois and the United States like Interstate 80. Mr. Goldberg has been successful in recovering most, and often all of the currency seized on many occasions whether it be seized by local, state of federal law enforcement such as DEA, TSA, HSI, Customs and Border Patrol or various interdiction task force officers.
United States v. Postal Worker X
Mr. X was employed by the United States Postal Service (USPS) where he was employed as a Sales and Service Associate at a local post office. Part of his responsibilities included the sale and issuance of Postal Money Orders to postal customers, as well as processing passport applications for the Department of State and collecting fees from the customers for those passports. After numerous complaints, United States Postal Inspectors conducted an investigation and learned that Mr. X stole well over $100,000 during the course of his employment. Mr. X was provided a “target letter” by the United States Attorney’s Office and Postal inspectors and told that prosecutors intended to indict him. Mr. X hired Mr. Goldberg to represent him. Mr. Goldberg convinced prosecutors not to indict Mr. X, allow Mr. X to avoid prosecution and enter into a Deferred Prosecution Agreement. Due to Mr. Goldberg’s advocacy, Mr. X walked away without any criminal record or publicly available record of the matter.
In addition to Mr. X, Mr. Goldberg has also represented numerous postal employees being investigated for federal felonies. In those cases, Mr. Goldberg has negotiated reduction in charges to misdemeanors with no jail time.
United States v. NA
NA was a former partner and senior director at the world’s most prestigious global consulting firm. When he arrived back to the United States after an overseas trip, he was arrested at JFK airport and charged in an eight-count indictment with various counts of wire fraud for a scheme that lasted a number of years. The indictment charged NA with defrauding his former employer and plotting with an internal consultant employed at one of his large consulting client companies to bill for services not performed and to obtain reimbursement for expenses that were personal. The indictment also contained a forfeiture allegation, meaning the government sought to strip him of the money he allegedly obtained. NA hired Mr. Goldberg to defend him. In this highly publicized case, the government accused NA of stealing close to $1,000,000 through his inappropriate billings. Mr. Goldberg scrutinized the evidence and was able to cut that figure almost in half after finding flaws in the government’s methodology. In addition, Mr. Goldberg also conducted an exhaustive investigation on NA’s background and was able to set forth substantial mitigation evidence that convinced the government to seek a sentence below what was called for in the federal sentencing guidelines. Originally facing a tremendous amount of time in prison, federal sentencing guidelines now called for a sentence in the range of 41 to 51 months. NA was sentenced to only 24 months. After his release, Mr. Goldberg also was able to obtain permission for NA to relocate to the United Kingdom and serve his supervised release there while simply reporting electronically to his US probation officer.
United States v. MQ
MQ was arrested during a federal drug and gang investigation for being a middleman in multiple crack cocaine transactions that were caught on audio and video tape. Because MQ previously served a significant amount of time in prison for a murder conviction and the seriousness of the current case, MQ faced years in prison. However, Mr. Goldberg convinced prosecutors to join him is his recommendation for a probationary sentence to the federal judge. Mr. Goldberg also convinced the judge as well and MQ left the courthouse without having to spend anytime in jail or prison.
UR was arrested after corrupt Chicago Police raided his home with a search warrant. UR was originally represented by another lawyer who pled him guilty to the possession of the marijuana in his home. Upon learning that the officers involved in his arrest and who searched his home were targets of a federal investigation, UR hired Mr. Goldberg to investigate and attack his conviction. Mr. Goldberg filed a Petition to Vacate his Conviction and Withdraw his Guilty Plea which was granted. UR’s conviction was vacated and his case was dismissed.
Within a few months, UR was arrested again and charged with possession of heroin after other officers raided his apartment and found almost $30,000 in cash in addition to drugs. UR again hired to Mr. Goldberg to represent him and not only did Mr. Goldberg get the case dismissed, but he negotiated the return of half the money seized during the search warrant.
Mr. Goldberg also represented UR’s father and sued the City of Chicago and the police officers in a civil rights lawsuit for stealing money from his home when UR was previously arrested (the vacated conviction). Mr. Goldberg and his colleagues negotiated a confidential settlement for RR.
United States v. Mr. X
Federal agents investigated Mr. X and his colleagues for a large-scale mortgage fraud. Mr. X was subpoenaed before a federal grand jury and commanded to produce documents pertinent to the investigation. Mr. X hired Mr. Goldberg to defend him given Mr. Goldberg’s experience defending clients in large-scale mortgage fraud and federal cases generally. Mr. Goldberg thoroughly investigated the matter and convinced the Assistant United State’s Attorney that Mr. X did not knowingly commit a crime. Although his colleagues under investigation were indicted, Mr. X was never prosecuted.
United States v. RC
The Chicago Strike Force is a group of law enforcement officers made up of agents from the DEA, FBI, HSI, Chicago Police Department, the Internal Revenue Service Criminal Investigation Division, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the U.S. Marshals Service, and officers from other various state and local law enforcement agencies, including the Cook County Sheriff’s Police Department and the Illinois State Police. The Chicago Strike Force conducted a massive investigation into the importation and distribution of cocaine in the Chicagoland area. RC was arrested and charged with conspiracy to possess and distribute cocaine, as well as distribution of cocaine and acted as the main courier for the organization, moving over 100 kilograms of cocaine and millions of dollars in drug proceeds. At one point, RC was caught at a so-called stash house with over $4 Million. This lengthy federal investigation involved recorded telephone calls, cooperating witnesses (snitches), as well as other audio and video recordings. RC and his family hired Mr. Goldberg to represent him. RC did not cooperate in the investigation, but otherwise received the lowest sentence of all principal participants. At sentencing, the government fought for a sentence of 108 months, but Mr. Goldberg convinced the Court to sentence RC to 60 months, much less than the sentences received by even less responsible co-defendants in the case.
United States v. AC
AC was indicted for her role as a courier for a massive drug trafficking organization that moved over 1,500 kilograms of cocaine and 400 kilograms of heroin across the country from the Los Angeles, California area to Chicago utilizing Amtrak. AC personally was involved in multiple trips, moving over 10 kilograms of heroin, kilograms of cocaine and storing cocaine in her home. AC also repeatedly lied to DEA agents regarding the scope of her involvement in the case prior to Mr. Goldberg representing her. Facing years over 5 years in prison under federal sentencing guidelines, and prosecutors seeking a hefty sentence, Mr. Goldberg convinced the federal judge to sentence AC to 2 years, a fraction of time compares to what AC’s co-defendants (responsible for the same amount of drugs) were sentenced to. Other defendants received sentences ranging from approximately 6 to 35 years.
Illinois v. CM
CM worked as a part-time bartender at a popular restaurant/bar in the Oldtown neighborhood of Chicago while seeking a professional degree. CM was accused of stealing over $12,000 from her employer. CM hired Mr. Goldberg to defend her against the felony theft charges that could potentially ruin the professional career she worked so hard to achieve. Mr. Goldberg aggressively negotiated with prosecutors to drop all charges after CM completed a deferred prosecution program. All charges were dismissed.
Illinois v. TW
TW was a convicted felon with a history of drug dealing arrests in other parts of the Midwest. TW was arrested when driving through the Chicagoland area with approximately 50 pounds of marijuana in his rented SUV. TW was charged with Unlawful Cannabis Trafficking of over 5000 grams, which is considered a non-probationable “Super X” felony that carries penalties of 12-60 years in prison. TW hired Mr. Goldberg to represent him. After scrutinizing the evidence and seeking additional information from prosecutors, Mr. Goldberg convinced prosecutors to drastically reduce the charges and sentence TW to probation. Not only did Mr. Goldberg keep TW out of prison, but when TW was arrested again for a violent crime in his home state while on probation, Mr. Goldberg convinced the judge to set a recognizance bond (also referred to as an I-bond) on the petition to violate his probation. As a result, TW did not have to post any money to remain free and did not spend time in jail. Later, Mr. Goldberg also got TW’s violation of probation dismissed altogether.
Illinois v. DF
DF was a convicted felon and previously convicted marijuana grower from Oregon who was driving from the west coast with over 16 pounds of marijuana concealed in a rental car. DF was pulled over while driving through the Chicagoland area when his car searched, the marijuana was discovered, and DF was arrested. While being transported, DF then gave oral, and later a written confession to the police. Faced with an uphill battle, DF hired Mr. Goldberg to defend him after DF was charged with Unlawful Cannabis Trafficking over 5000 grams and Manufacturing/ Delivery of Cannabis over 5000 grams, which are considered non-probationable “Super X” felonies that carry penalties of 12-60 years in prison. After scrutinizing the traffic stop and discussing a motion to suppress (throw out) the evidence, Mr. Goldberg convinced prosecutors to drop the most serious felony charges and allow DF to plead to a possession charge where he was sentenced to probation.
Illinois v. RL
RL was what some might refer to as an OG. RL was middle-aged and a former admitted gang member with multiple stints in prison and numerous felony convictions. When Chicago Police raided RL’s home with a search warrant, they found loaded firearms, heroin, and approximately $25,000 cash. RL was charged with various crimes including Armed Violence, Armed Habitual Criminal, and various Possession with Intent to Deliver Heroin charges. Easily facing over a decade in prison, RL hired Mr. Goldberg to represent him. Mr. Goldberg filed a Motion to Quash the Search Warrant and Suppress Evidence arguing that there was no probable cause to support the search warrant, as well as other procedural irregularities that amounted to a violation of RL’s Fourth Amendment Constitutional Rights. After prosecutors struggled to respond to Mr. Goldberg’s motion, they made RL an offer he could not refuse. They dismissed the most serious charges, reduced the drug charges, and RL was sentenced to a period of probation. Mr. Goldberg also represented RL in the forfeiture case where he received approximately 33 percent of RL’s money back in a negotiated settlement. Mr. Goldberg represented RL’s mother and prevented the City of Chicago from forfeiting her home under the Drug and Gang Housing Unit’s authority.
RW was a truck driver charged as a result of a long-term investigation by BNSF railway police and Cook County Sheriff Police Investigators into the theft of over $100,000 in railroad car chassis. RW was accused of hauling chassis out of the rail lot on a regular basis. Mr. Goldberg was hired to represent RW. Despite videotaped evidence and cooperating witnesses, Mr. Goldberg challenged various issues with the prosecutor’s case and convinced them to radically reduce the charges from a Class 1 Felony (carrying 4-15 years in prison) to a misdemeanor where RW could keep his job, not serve jail time, and avoid a felony conviction.
Illinois v. LM
Illinois laws regarding driving under the influence of drugs are among the toughest in the country, particularly as they relate to having controlled substances (or even metabolites of drugs) in your system. In short, you do not have to be impaired to be held responsible. LM, a respected member of the community and successful business owner, was driving with metabolites of cocaine in his system as well as alcohol. LM was involved in a tragic accident, where a 4-year-old girl lost her life. The McHenry County State’s Attorneys Office charged LM with a variety of offenses including Aggravated Driving Under the Influence of Drugs Involving the death of child, which carries a presumptive sentence of prison, unless “exceptional circumstances” exist; the vast majority of defendants convicted under the statute are sentenced to years in prison. LM hired Mr. Goldberg to represent him. Mr. Goldberg filed numerous pretrial motions, which led prosecutors to dismiss counts and only proceed on the DUI charges related to the cocaine metabolites. LM pled guilty and Mr. Goldberg convinced the Court that “exceptional circumstances” existed. As a result, LM was sentenced to probation with 180 days in county jail, where the prosecution sought a sentence of at least 5 years in prison.
Illinois v. CM
One morning on his way to work, CM drove into a college student walking in the South Loop. Panicked, he took off as if nothing happened. An off-duty United State’s Marshal witnessed the incident chased and held him until police arrived. CM appeared disoriented and was taken to the hospital. His blood was drawn which revealed the presence of cocaine metabolites. CM was arrested and charged with Driving Under the Influence (DUI) of drugs, leaving the scene of an accident causing great bodily injury (as unfortunately the victim ended up paralyzed and wheelchair bound for life) and a variety of other offenses. CM hired Mr. Goldberg to represent him. Mr. Goldberg challenged the toxicology results and convinced the prosecutors to allow CM to plead guilty to one count of leaving the scene of the accident in exchange for a sentence of probation. All DUI charges were dismissed. The offer was so favorable to the defense, the Court even hesitated to accept it, until Mr. Goldberg convinced the court otherwise. In this tragic case, originally looking at years in prison, CM never spent a day in jail.
Illinois v. JR
With a long criminal history and having spent time in prison, JR was charged in Kendall County with a “Super X” felony for possessing hundreds of pills of MDMA (ecstasy) as well as serious felony domestic battery charges for allegedly beating and choking his girlfriend. JR missed a court date related to the Kendall County charges and an arrest warrant was issued. He was stopped by Special Agents of the DEA as well as Cook County State’s Attorney Investigators who were allegedly executing the arrest warrant when JR also happened to have a kilogram of cocaine in his briefcase when he was stopped. JR was charged with another “Super X’ felony for the cocaine in Cook County. Facing mandatory consecutive sentences and a minimum of decades in prison, JR hired numerous lawyers whom he believed could not do anything for him, until he finally contacted and hired Mr. Goldberg. After thoroughly reviewing the discovery, Mr. Goldberg filed a motion with the Court asking for specific and additional discovery from the DEA, since he believed it would directly relate to the legality of the search and seizure of JR and his briefcase. After arguing the motion that was contested by the prosecution, Mr. Goldberg won and the Court ordered the DEA to produce certain records. Before the records were produced, but after discussing the contents of the same, Mr. Goldberg convinced prosecutors to radically reduce the charges in Cook County to where JR would serve only one night in jail. It was an offer JR couldn’t refuse (and couldn’t be happier with). Prior lawyers told him the prosecutors were offering 12 years. With the Cook County charges out of the way, Mr. Goldberg then filed a Motion to Suppress the MDMA seized in the Kendall County case. After also pushing to receive certain disciplinary records of the police officers involved in the search and considering that even if the drugs were suppressed from evidence, JR was still looking at a minimum of 6 years in prison (to be served at 85 percent) given the violent nature and his criminal history. Mr. Goldberg convinced prosecutors to amend and reduce the charges, so JR would serve less than 2.5 years in prison on charges that require he serve only 50 percent of that sentence. As a result of Mr. Goldberg’s aggressive and novel lawyering, JR did not serve decades in prison.
Representation of Various NFL players
Mr. Goldberg has represented several NFL players and their family members in criminal cases across the United States. For example, in the Chicagoland area, he represented a former Chicago Bear for Driving Under the Influence (D.U.I.) and convinced the court to suppress all evidence from the illegal arrest, resulting in a dismissal of the D.U.I. charges and a rescission (removal) of the Statutory Summary Suspension he received for allegedly driving under the influence. In another northern state, Mr. Goldberg also successfully represented a professional football player who was charged with various crimes including felony domestic battery for allegedly battering and strangling his girlfriend. Despite overwhelming evidence, including recordings, text messages, and other electronic evidence, Mr. Goldberg was not only able to convince prosecutors to reduce his case to a low-level misdemeanor where he avoided a felony conviction (and even the domestic battery where a conviction would carry other collateral consequences), but was also able to save his career by explaining the circumstances to the new NFL team that signed him. In a different midwestern state, Mr. Goldberg had significant drug charges dismissed against another NFL player’s significant other who was caught in a stolen Range Rover with pounds of marijuana. In yet another state, Mr. Goldberg also assisted another team of lawyers where all charges (D.U.I. and various traffic offenses) were dismissed.
United States v. BF
Federal prosecutors indicted BF for possessing kilograms of cocaine in the Eastern District of Texas. BF was facing a mandatory minimum of 10 years in prison (since he possessed in excess of 5 kilograms) and a likely sentence much higher since he was stopped with a trunk full of cocaine. He also fled Texas when granted bond and arrested in Chicago. Mr. Goldberg represented BF and convinced the prosecutor to dismiss all charges and vacated the removal order which would have sent him back to Texas in custody. BF’s case was dismissed and he was released from jail.
Illinois v. CW
CW was first arrested and charged in two separate cases for allegedly selling cocaine to an ATF Confidential Informant. His cases were sent to State Court as part of a joint federal and state drug prosecution targeting drug dealers on Chicago’s West and South Sides. Both of the alleged deals were recorded on video. Mr. Goldberg was hired to represent CW. Mr. Goldberg filed a variety of motions attacking the credibility of the Confidential Informant, demanding his presence in court, and found fault with the video recordings. While those matters were pending, CW was arrested after a search warrant was executed in suburban Cook County and CW was charged again with the distribution size quantity of cocaine found in that home. As a result, Mr. Goldberg filed additional motions attacking the search warrant in that case. The Court found that based on Mr. Goldberg’s motion alleging that police officers misled the court and left out information material to the court’s finding of probable cause for the warrant (a Franks motion) and the Court granted a hearing. After prosecutors attempted to battle Mr. Goldberg, they ultimately gave CW an offer he couldn’t refuse. CW was facing a minimum of 8 years in prison given he was charged with non-probational Class 1 drug dealing charges that must be served consecutive to each other (since CW was arrested for one while on bond for the other), prosecutors dismissed one case. CW pled guilty to the others where he was sentenced to TASC probation and his convictions were ultimately vacated, meaning the charges were dismissed upon successful completion of probation. Years later, CW was arrested again when a suburban drug task force caught CW dealing cocaine to an UC (undercover officer) and CW was charged with a Class X drug charge. Mr. Goldberg was hired again to represent CW and was able to convince prosecutors to reduce those charges. CW never spent a day in jail.
TB was originally charged in state court prosecutors with various drug and gun offenses. However, given his long criminal history, the federal government prosecuted TB federally with possession with intent to deliver cocaine base or crack, being a felon in possession of firearm, and possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. Given the charges and TB’s criminal history, if convicted he faced a sentence of roughly 38 years in prison under federal sentencing guidelines. Unhappy with this first attorney, Mr. Goldberg began representing TB and filed a motion to suppress evidence and quash arrest alleging that the officers violated TB’s constitutional rights. Mr. Goldberg’s investigation made clear that the police officers that stopped, searched, and arrested TB were lying about how and when they obtained the evidence. In the middle of the hearing on the motion to suppress, after Mr. Goldberg thoroughly cross-examined both police officers, the prosecutor dismissed all charges.
United States v. GF
GF was a real estate developer and Chief Operating Officer of his firm. He was charged in an enormous mortgage fraud scheme related to a mixed-use commercial development in the northern suburbs of Chicago involving $27,524,289.00 in loss. His indictment charged GF with wire fraud, bank fraud, and making false statements to influence the action of a bank. Mr. Goldberg represented GF in this highly publicized case. Despite GF being more involved than other co-defendants, he received the lowest sentence of any defendant in the case. GF was sentenced to time served, the 11 days that he spent in jail before property could be posted for his release on bond.
United States v. OP
OP was a mortgage broker charged in an undercover operation conducted by the FBI, HUD, and the Office of Inspector General, dubbed Operation Madhouse. Mr. Goldberg represented OP. OP was caught on tape soliciting fake documents, verification of employment, bank statements and tax returns. Mr. Goldberg convinced prosecutors to consider the gain to OP opposed to the intended loss which is ordinarily used to calculate the advisory sentencing guideline range. If prosecutors used the intended loss it would have resulted in a significantly higher advisory guideline sentence. At sentencing, Mr. Goldberg convinced the federal judge to spare OP any prison time and rather sentence him to the one day he spent in custody when he was arrested and before he released on bond.
United States v. AS
In another case stemming from Operation Madhouse, AS was charged with wire fraud for participating in two fraudulent mortgage loans. They involved false representations in documents, including real estate contracts, loan applications, title commitments, and HUD-1 settlement statements concerning sales prices, the true disbursement of the loan proceeds at closing, the buyer’s assets, employment, and income, all of which were publicized in FBI and DOJ press releases. AS provided stolen identities to assist in the scheme. Mr. Goldberg represented AS. Despite AS being more significantly involved than other co-defendants, he received a sentence of one-month in prison, which was by far the lowest sentence of all defendants in the case.
Illinois v. MS
In their opening statement to the jury, Cook County prosecutors called MS “every woman’s worst nightmare.” MS was charged with breaking into an apartment while in disguise and sexually assaulting and sodomizing a woman at knife point before robbing her of her Cartier watch. Mr. Goldberg was hired as part of a team of experienced trial lawyers to represent MS who was charged with home invasion, kidnapping, and various charges of criminal sexual assault. In what many referred to as a “slam dunk” for the prosecution because MS’s DNA was found along with various other evidence obtained by experienced police officers, the jury deliberated for hours and hours, over a weekend, before MS was convicted. However, based on Mr. Goldberg and his colleague’s objections and charges of prosecutorial misconduct for the prosecution’s continual improper questioning of MS at trial, MS’s conviction was reversed along with his 30-year sentence. On remand (when his case was sent back to the trial court) given the challenges faced at a retrial, Mr. Goldberg and his team negotiated an unprecedented plea agreement where MS was sentenced to less than 50 % of his original sentence (14 years) with credit for the time he spent incarcerated.
United States v. Anthony Doyle
Mr. Goldberg was part of the defense team that represented Chicago Police Officer Anthony Doyle in the famed “Family Secrets” trial. The Family Secrets is a historic trial that has been the subject of many books. It involved a 4-month jury trial stemming from Racketeering (RICO) charges against Mr. Doyle and members of the Chicago Outfit (sometimes referred to as the mob of mafia). The enterprise charged in the RICO conspiracy dates back decades and the case involved 18 murders, including 2 that formed the basis for the characters in the famous Hollywood movies, Goodfellas and Casino.
Illinois v. Drew Peterson
In another sensationalized case that has been the subject of international news, books, and TV movies, Drew Peterson, a Bollingbrook, Illinois police officer was charged by Will County, Illinois prosecutors with the murder of his third wife, and was suspected of the murder of his fourth wife Stacy. Mr. Goldberg was brought in as part of a team of lawyers to represent Mr. Peterson in the months long jury trial and various pretrial hearings. Mr. Goldberg was added to the team to focus on the technical and difficult task of cross examining the prosecution’s forensic experts (pathologists, neuropathologists, toxicologists), the treating physicians (internist, neurologist) of the deceased, and the deputy coroner who found the body. Although the lead lawyer on the team has been criticized for his personal blunder, Mr. Goldberg was complimented for his advocacy and cross-examinations by the national media that attended the entire trial.
Illinois v. AM
“Aggravated speeding” is considered a misdemeanor criminal offense in Illinois, which means you can end up with a criminal record if you are convicted of aggravated speeding (26-35 mph over the speed limit is a Class B misdemeanor, 35 mph or more is a Class A misdemeanor). AM drove his sports car from the far north suburbs of Chicago to the downtown area, leading an Illinois State Trooper on a chase at speeds of over 120 mph. Not only was AM charged with Aggravated Speeding, reckless driving, and reckless conduct (all criminal misdemeanors) but was also charged with a variety of other traffic offenses. AM also missed his court date and a warrant was issued for his arrest. Looking to avoid a conviction and jail time, AM hired Mr. Goldberg to represent him. Mr. Goldberg filed a motion to quash (get rid of) the warrant. Not only were all criminal charges dismissed, but AM was not even convicted of a “petty offense.” AM received a minimal fine and was sentenced to a period of court supervision (a non-conviction) on the petty offense of speeding less than 15 mph over the speed limit thanks to Mr. Goldberg’s efforts.
Various successful petitions to vacate guilty pleas and convictions
Many lawyers don’t fully consider the long-term consequences of convictions and/or guilty pleas for non-citizen defendants. A guilty plea or conviction can result in removal/deportation, denial or denaturization of citizenship or other “immigration” related consequences. Mr. Goldberg has vacated numerous convictions for felony and misdemeanor offenses throughout the state of Illinois, in various counties, based on the faulty or non-existent advice given to his clients by their prior attorneys. As a result, Mr. Goldberg’s clients have avoided immigration related consequences, criminal records, and have been able to stay or return to the United States.
In addition to vacating convictions for immigration-related reasons, Mr. Goldberg has vacated criminal convictions for various other reasons. One reason is because prior convictions can aggravate sentencing in other newer cases. These prior convictions could result in added criminal history points in a federal criminal case that could result in the application of a mandatory minimum sentence or denial of relief under what is referred to as the “safety valve,” higher sentencing guideline ranges, or simply be aggravating based on the conduct underlying conviction. In state court cases, the same can be said, but prior convictions could also result in currently charged conduct charged as a higher-class offense. In one case, Mr. Goldberg vacated a prior public indecency conviction that allegedly involved masturbating in public in front of grade school children that certainly had the potential to upset a federal sentencing judge in a pending significant drug case. Mr. Goldberg has also vacated felony Unlawful Use of a Weapon convictions, commonly referred to Aguilar cases, based on the Illinois Supreme Court finding parts of the UUW statute unconstitutional in People of the State of Illinois v. Aguilar. Vacating UUW convictions can help restore firearm ownership rights and other prohibitions based on a felony conviction.
Illinois v. LA
LA was charged with possession with intent to distribute a large quantity of heroin, a non-probationable Class X felony while already on bond for a massive graffiti campaign at Hubbard’s cave and charged with felony criminal damage to property. Cook County prosecutors also seized and attempted to forfeit his car used in the drug case. LA hired Mr. Goldberg to represent him. Mr. Goldberg filed and litigated a Motion to Suppress Evidence arguing that Chicago police officers illegally searched LA and violated his Fourth Amendment constitutional rights. After presenting witnesses and cross-examining police officers, the court did not believe the testimony of the officers and granted Mr. Goldberg’s motion. The drug evidence was suppressed (thrown out) and the case was dismissed. After Mr. Goldberg won the motion to suppress, he also used that in the forfeiture case and prosecutors returned the seized car to LA. The graffiti case was reduced to a low-level misdemeanor non-conviction where LA was given a period of court supervision. LA was later arrested again for criminal damage to property. Mr. Goldberg represented him on that matter as well and the case was dismissed. Mr. Goldberg filed petitions to expunge (erase) all records of the cases which were granted.
Illinois v. DB
Cook County prosecutors charged DB with battery for allegedly attacking her soon to be ex-husband’s girlfriend. She was also accused of vandalizing the alleged victim’s home. Mr. Goldberg was hired to represent DB. After Mr. Goldberg’s cross-examination of multiple prosecution witnesses at trial, DB was found not guilty.
Illinois v. AC
AC was investigated by the DEA and local law enforcement. He was arrested for allegedly participating in the sale of a kilogram of cocaine to an undercover officer/agent. AC was prosecuted in state court. Mr. Goldberg was hired to represent AC. After Mr. Goldberg cross-examined the DEA agent at the preliminary hearing the judge found that there was no probable cause and the case was dismissed.
Forfeiture of $89,450.00 in assorted jewelry, Infinti SUV and related Marijuana Investigation
Mr. X was investigated by the DEA for large scale marijuana distribution. DEA agents seized and attempted to forfeit almost $90,000 in assorted jewelry and Mr. X’s Infiniti SUV. Mr. X hired Mr. Goldberg to contest the forfeiture, as well as represent him during the federal criminal investigation. Mr. Goldberg filed the appropriate claims with the DEA and the matters were sent to the United States Attorney’s Office. Mr. Goldberg convinced the federal prosecutor to no longer seek forfeiture and challenged the government’s case. The prosecutor agreed and did not charge Mr. X. with any crime. All the jewelry and the SUV were also returned to Mr. X.
Illinois v. RJ
RJ was charged by LaSalle County prosecutors with burglary for allegedly breaking into a truck yard. He was originally represented by the public defender’s office and was offered a plea deal that would sentence him to prison, which he was advised to accept. Unhappy with the public defender’s office, RJ hired Mr. Goldberg to represent him. After Mr. Goldberg represented RJ the state dismissed the case.
United States v. TH
TH was investigated by the FBI and federal prosecutors charged him with the interstate transportation of money taken by fraud and impersonation of an FBI Special Agent. TH hired Mr. Goldberg to represent him. TH faced significant prison time. Thanks to Mr. Goldberg’s effective advocacy, TH was sentenced to probation and TH’s probation was also terminated early.
Illinois v. SP
Burbank police officers arrested SP and charged her with battery to a police officer. SP hired Mr. Goldberg to represent her. Mr. Goldberg cross-examined numerous police officers at trial and as a result SP was found not guilty. Mr. Goldberg and his colleagues also sued the City of Burbank and the police officers in federal court in what is commonly referred to as a 1983 civil rights case for violating SP’s constitutional rights, false arrest, and malicious prosecution. SP obtained a very favorable confidential settlement.
United States v. JD
Federal prosecutors indicted JD for stealing public funds for collecting over $25,000 of unemployment insurance benefits because he collected unemployment while he worked at Chicago public schools. Mr. Goldberg represented JD and convinced prosecutors to reduce the charges to a misdemeanor. Mr. Goldberg also convinced the federal judge to sentence JD to probation. As a result, JD avoided a felony conviction, saved his job, and served no jail time.
Illinois v. CJ
CJ was arrested and charged with felony possession of marijuana, driving under the influence of alcohol, as well as a variety of other traffic offenses. Mr. Goldberg was hired to represent CJ. Mr. Goldberg had the felony charges dismissed at the preliminary hearing stage and then the DUI and traffic charges dismissed once the case was transferred to traffic court. After all charges were dismissed, Mr. Goldberg’s team successfully sued the City of Chicago and the police officer for violating CJ’s constitutional rights in which CJ received a very favorable confidential settlement.
Illinois v. KR
Chicago Police investigated KR as a significant methamphetamine dealer on the North side of the city. They obtained a search warrant to search KR’s apartment and found Class X quantities of methamphetamine. KR was charged with a non-probationable felony. After hiring Mr. Goldberg to represent him, Mr. Goldberg filed a motion to quash the search warrant and prosecutors dismissed the case. Not only did KR avoid a felony conviction and a prison sentence, but he avoided deportation as a non-citizen.
Illinois v. JM
Chicago Police investigated JM, because they thought he was a large “meth” or methamphetamine dealer. After raiding his home with a search warrant and recovering a variety of drugs, JM was charged with Class X non-probationable felonies. Mr. Goldberg was hired to represent JM. Mr. Goldberg attacked the prosecution’s case, explained mitigating circumstances surrounding JM’s substance abuse, and convinced prosecutors to dismiss JM’s case after he completed a rehabilitation program. All charges were dismissed. Mr. Goldberg successfully expunged JM’s case; it as if it never existed.
Illinois v. SC
SC was a 24-year-old man arrested after Berwyn Police Officers raided his home, seizing various computer equipment; SC was indicted and charged with almost 2 dozen child pornography related charges, including the possession of videos and images of child pornography of very young children being abused. SC’s family hired Mr. Goldberg to represent SC. After conducting a thorough investigation, Mr. Goldberg convinced prosecutors to allow him to participate in what is referred to as a 402 conference where he convinced the Judge that if SC were to plead guilty to a single count of possession of child pornography, he should be sentenced to probation, which he was. Not only was SC spared a prison sentence, but he was also spared the potential lifetime supervised release (parole) by the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC) if he was sentenced to a term of imprisonment.
Illinois v. MC
MC was charged in Will County with a felony aggravated battery of a police officer and domestic battery to his wife, after an altercation with the police in which he punched and threatened his wife with a loaded firearm and battered the responding officer. MC hired Mr. Goldberg to represent him. Mr. Goldberg successfully negotiated a dismissal of the felony charges in order for MC to keep his job and avoid professional consequences; MK also did not spend any time in jail.
Illinois v. WJ
WJ was charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, domestic battery, and unlawful use of a weapon for allegedly punching his cousin and pulling out a loaded firearm and threatening her with it. WJ hired Mr. Goldberg to represent him. WJ was employed as an armed security guard and held what is commonly referred to as a Tan Card and a PERC card; he was also a CCW holder. Not only would a conviction mean that WJ would have his license to carry a firearm revoked and lose his job, but he would have been permanently prohibited from possessing a firearm under federal law. Mr. Goldberg convinced the prosecutor to offer a deferred prosecution, meaning all charges would be dismissed soon after against WJ completed a short four-hour anger management course. As a result, WJ has no criminal record, can continue his employment and lawfully possess a firearm
Illinois v. SR
SR was a licensed professional working in Illinois who was arrested for bringing a loaded firearm through the security check point at O’hare International Airport. Facing jail time, loss of employment, and potential licensing issues, SR hired Mr. Goldberg to represent him. Mr. Goldberg successfully convinced the prosecutor to dismiss the charges.
United States v. JC
After a lengthy FBI investigation, federal prosecutors charged JC with various counts of wire fraud for stealing over $400,000 from her employer. JC hired Mr. Goldberg to represent her. JC faced years in prison for this significant theft; however, due to Mr. Goldberg’s efforts the federal judge sentenced her to a period of probation. JC never spent a night in jail.
Various Title IX University Investigations, Orders of Protections, and School Discipline Matters
Mr. Goldberg has successfully represented College/University students in various Title IX investigation and disciplinary actions. He has saved students from expulsion, suspension, and vacated orders of protections that have often accompanied these university matters. Mr. Goldberg has also successfully challenged school disciplinary issues at the high school level, causing one major public school system to rewrite their procedure to ensure the due process rights of the accused are protected.
United States v. AV
The FBI conducted a high-profile investigation in a fraud scheme targeting a major international brewing company. AV was charged with wire fraud for stealing approximately $1.2 million dollars by overbilling for services or billing for services that were not performed at all. AV hired Mr. Goldberg to represent him. There was overwhelming evidence of his guilt and AV pled guilty. Prosecutors fought for a sentence of roughly 3.5 years, but Mr. Goldberg convinced the federal judge to sentence AV to only 9 months in prison.
United States v. NJ
Federal agents conducted a long-term investigation into a ring of 13 people who stole large corporate checks from the mail and creatively cashed them in a bank fraud scheme netting over $2.5 million dollars. Mr. Goldberg represented NJ and convinced prosecutors to reduce NJ’s case to a misdemeanor. Rather than face mandatory prison on a felony bank fraud charge, Mr. Goldberg convinced prosecutors to file an information and charge of obstruction of United States mail. In addition, Mr. Goldberg also convinced the federal judge to sentence NJ to a period of probation. NJ was the only defendant who received a reduced misdemeanor charge and the only defendant who was not sentenced to prison.
United States v. Mr. X
A massive national investigation was conducted by federal law enforcement targeting importers, wholesalers and retailers of synthetic cannabinoids (synthetic marijuana). Search warrants were executed all over the country and many people went to prison for a number of years. Federal prosecutors in Central Illinois executed a search warrant on a popular adult bookstore and seized synthetic cannabinoids, a large amount of money, and two firearms. Mr. Goldberg was hired to defend the owner of the bookstore. Mr. Goldberg successfully represented Mr. X and convinced federal prosecutors to not formally prosecute Mr. X, but rather agree to a deferred prosecution agreement where Mr. X promised not to sell any synthetic cannabinoids in the future. As a result of Mr. Goldberg’s efforts, Mr. X was not charged with any crimes, did not lose his license to conduct his business or own firearms and never spent a minute in jail.
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, alleging 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.
United States v. DC
Federal prosecutors charged DC for his supervisory role in a massive fraud scheme targeting a national wireless service provider and hundreds of customers. It was alleged that DC and his co-schemers traveled to various states to obtain information necessary to perpetuate the charged fraud that resulted in millions of dollars of attempted loss. In addition to fraudulently obtaining service, they obtained phones and devices and paid delivery drivers to redirect packages to various locations. DC had an extensive criminal history that included 13 prior felony convictions and, prior to obtaining Mr. Goldberg as his attorney, the federal judge found that DC lied under oath at his bond revocation hearing, continued to perpetuate the fraud while on release, and committed various other violations of his bond conditions. Once Mr. Goldberg began representing DC, given the overwhelming evidence, DC provided a plea declaration that acknowledged his guilt, but contested multiple enhanced penalties the government was seeking. At sentencing the government sought the statutory maximum sentence of 20 years on the count of conviction given DC’s role in the scheme, its scope, and his criminal history; however, Mr. Goldberg convinced the federal judge that DC should be sentenced to 12 years instead. In addition, Mr. Goldberg convinced the government to drop the remaining aggravated identity theft charges that carried an additional mandatory 2-year prison sentence on top of the 12 years if DC waived his right to appeal the substantially below guideline sentence the Court imposed. Much later, after DC was released from prison he violated his supervised release by committing another felony offense in a different state involving similar conduct, failed to notify his supervising officers about the case or his travel, and failed to keep up to date with his restitution obligations. The supervising United States Probation Officer recommended DC’s supervised release be revoked and DC be sent back to prison for a period of 21-27 months, of which the prosecutor agreed. At the revocation hearing, despite DC’s admitted supervised release violations, Mr. Goldberg convinced the judge not to revoke DC’s supervised release, not to modify any of the conditions of his current release, and simply fine him a nominal $500 as a total punishment without sending back to prison or jail.
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.