Results

Murder; Not Guilty. December 19, 2012

Criminal law attorney David Olshansky wins the highly publicized trial of the People of the State of Illinois v. John Bamberg. After two years and thousands of hours of preparation the trial of John Bamberg was held in the Circuit Court of Cook County’s District 2 courthouse. John Bamberg was charged with the First Degree Murder of Marcus Davis and the Attempted First Degree Murder of his girlfriend Tuwanda Smith while they were allegedly having their vehicle repaired at Smitty’s repair shop on Dodge Street in Evanston, Illinois. It was alleged that Tuwanda Smith saw John Bamberg walk up to the vehicle and fire approximately seven shots into the vehicle killing Marcus Davis and wounding her. At the hospital shortly after the homicide Tuwanda Smith was shown a photo array containing six pictures and she was unable to pick Mr. Bamberg’s picture in that line-up. Later at the Evanston police station she was shown a second photo line-up and this time she did pick Mr. Bamberg’s picture as the one whom she saw firing the gun into the vehicle. Mr. Olshansky argued that because Mr. Bamberg’s was the only person used in both photo arrays that they were unreliable and unduly suggestive. David Olshansky hired private investigator Steve Glazier to track down, interview, and get statements from multiple independent eyewitness whose accounts of the events contradicted Tuwanda Smith’s. Mr. Olshansky also hired a Harvard Medical Doctor who testified that because of debilitating injuries of John Bamberg it would have been physically impossible for him to have ran the way the eyewitness described, or hold the gun in the manner in which the eyewitnesses described. Mr. Olshansky described this case simply as the police focusing only on John Bamberg because of a known rivalry between the Davis and Bamberg families, and that the police failed to investigate any other potential suspects and focused solely on John Bamberg as the offender. There was allegedly gunshot residue found in a vehicle that Mr. Bamberg had rented during the time of the murder, however, Mr. Olshansky was able to keep that evidence out of the trial after a pretrial hearing attacking the validity of that evidence. There was extensive DNA and finger printing done during the investigation, none of which returned to Mr. Bamberg. During the week long trial the Prosecution did a great job with the evidence they had, Mr. Olshansky was just able to poke enough holes in their case to build reasonable doubt and eventually leading to the finding of Not Guilty.

This case was followed extensively by the press. Some Chicago Tribune and Trib Local article

Driving on Revoked License, Motion Granted and Case Dismissed. April 24, 2013

In Criminal Law case the People v. J.T. the Cook County, First District, Chicago Judge granted the defendant’s Motion to Quash his arrest and Suppress Evidence. The Judge originally heard the Motion to Suppress the Evidence several months ago and denied the defendant’s motion. Attorney David Olshansky was sure that the judge ruled incorrectly on the evidence that was presented at trial and ordered a transcript of the proceeding from the previous hearing. After a careful review of the transcript, Mr. Olshansky filed a Motion to Reconsider and outlined the testimony that was presented to the judge during the hearing. On April 24, 2013, the Judge reversed her opinion, agreed with Mr. Olshansky, and granted the Motion to Quash the Arrest and Suppress Evidence leaving the State’s Attorney with no choice but to dismiss the charges against J.T..

The defendant was charged with Driving on a Revoked License and, although a misdemeanor, was facing up to one year in the Cook County jail. The officer alleged that J.T. was driving on the west side of Chicago and failed to use a turn signal. The Officer then maintained that after J.T. was pulled over it was discovered that he had a revoked license. This officer testified at the original hearing and was subject to cross examination by Attorney Olshansky. Through extensive cross examination the officer’s testimony was challenged. Mr. Olshansky picked through each detail of the officer’s testimony, and then he called the defendant to testify on his own behalf. After the defendant testified the judge ruled that J.T.’s testimony was more believable and compelling then the officer’s, however, she still thought that there was a legal basis for the detention of the defendant which led to the discovery of his revoked license, and therefore originally denied the motion. After the testimony was outlined in the motion to reconsider the judge reversed herself and ruled that under Illinois Criminal Law there was not right to detain the defendant. Left with no evidence the State’s Attorney dismissed the charges.

Felony Retail Theft, Finding of No Probable Cause; Case Dismissed April 4, 2012

In Criminal Law Case People v. J.M. on April 4, 2012 there was a finding of No Probable Cause during the Preliminary Hearing at the courthouse located in Chicago commonly referred to as 51st and Wentworth, Branch 48.

The defendant was charged with a felony count of retail theft outside of J.C. Penny’s for his alleged taking of a $30 dollar belt from a store located at the Ford City shopping mall. Usually retail thefts of under $300 are charged as Class A Misdemeanors punishable by up to 364 days in the County jail and a fine up to $2,500, however, based on the Illinois Retail Theft Statute 720 ILCS 16-25 the law allows for the offense to be upgraded to a felony if the accused has a qualifying previous conviction. J.M. did have a qualifying previous conviction and was therefore charged with a Class 4 Felony, punishable by 1 to 3 years in the State penitentiary. Significantly, the defendant was on felony probation at the time he committed the offense and was being held without bond until the outcome of the preliminary hearing.

Under Illinois Criminal Law, Preliminary hearings are intended to establish whether it is more likely than not that a crime occurred and whether it is more likely or not that the accused was involved in the commission of that offense. During these preliminary hearing the State’s Attorney calls witnesses to establish their case. After these witnesses testify for the prosecution they are then subject to questions, called “cross examination” by the defendant’s attorney.

In the case of the People v. J.M. The Law Office of David Olshansky and Associates, represented the defendant during the hearing. The prosecution presented two witnesses; the first was a clerk from the store of the alleged violation and the second was a State’s Attorney to provide information about the defendant’s previous conviction which allowed for the upgrade from a misdemeanor to a felony.

After cross examination of the witnesses the Judge agreed that there was insufficient evidence for probable cause and dismissed all of the allegations against the defendant. One day later, April 5, 2012, attorney David Olshansky appeared before the judge who put the no-bond order on J.M. and had the hold lifted and our client slept at home for the first time in several weeks.

Battery Charges against 4 clients, Not Guilty. March 13, 2013

In Criminal Law case The People v. A.M. the judge found the defendants not guilty after a bench trial. The trial took place March 12, 2012 at the Branch Court located at 5555 W. Grand Ave., in Chicago. A.M. and three other defendants were charged with battery after an incident at 3am on Chicago’s west side. All four defendants were represented by the Law Firm of David S. Olshansky and Associates. During the trial the prosecution presented several employees from the tavern who testified that there was an altercation inside the tavern and that security escorted the four defendants outside when they became unruly, attacked, punched, and bit at the security and tavern personnel. At the end of the altercation it was the defendants that were injured and hospitalized. During this horrible assault on the defendants one of whom was pregnant suffered a miscarriage, another was hospitalized with multiple injuries. Chicago Police who responded to the scene also testified for the prosecution, however, during the cross examination it became apparent that the testimony of the security personnel was fabricated and contradicted by what they originally told the police. Under Illinois Criminal Law a charge of battery subjects a person to up to 364 days in the County Jail and a fine up to $2,500.00.

After the Criminal Law trial our clients were happy with the result and looking into a civil action against the tavern and security personnel. If you have been injured in one of these types of cases you may be compensated civilly for damages.

Murder; Not Guilty. 2002

In case number 02 C6 61xxx. Shortly after suing the police for harassment and winning a large money judgment against them, our client is charged with murder. Sixteen years old, charged as an adult, fighting a case he claims the police put on him, and where the mandatory jail sentence is 45 to 60 years with no good time credits (meaning that if convicted the defendant has to spend 100% of his sentence in jail), the sends his family on a mission to find him an. At trial The Law Office of David S. Olshansky & Associates prove through an expert witness that the fingerprints on the scene did not match their clients, he had an alibi defense, and the same police officer involved in the original harassment case was also involved in the current murder charge. The client is found not guilty at trial.

Cocaine; No Probable Cause Case Dismissed, Preliminary Hearing. February 27, 2013

In Criminal Law case the People v. C.M. on February 25, 2013 there was a finding of no probable cause at the preliminary hearing for felony charges of possession of cocaine. The charges carried a term in the State penitentiary for a period of one to three years. After the finding by the judge that there was not enough evidence against our client the charges were dismissed. During the hearing at the 111th and Ellis branch court in Chicago a police officer testified that a vehicle was curbed for a traffic violation when the officer searched the driver of the vehicle he discovered a significant amount of cocaine. After the cocaine was recovered the officer testified that there was an alleged confession by our client that he had just sold the cocaine to the driver.

After the officer testified our Attorney was able, through cross examination, to establish that there was not enough connection between the recovered drugs and our client when there were other occupants to the vehicle who had better access to the cocaine. Our attorney was also able to establish that this alleged statement by the defendant was the only evidence they had connecting him to the cocaine and that statement was not recorded, written, or signed by our client. We argued that when the only evidence to be used to convict a defendant is an alleged statement, that his statement could not be the corpus delicti of his guilt. Corpus delicti is a term from Western jurisprudence referring to the principle that a crime must have been proven to have occurred before a person can be convicted of committing that crime.

Armed Violence, Possession of Drugs and a Gun; Not Guilty. 2003

In case number 03 CR 46xx. A search warrant is executed and the FBI breaks down the door of an apartment. Inside they find a gun, drugs, and the only person home is a man asleep on the couch who doesn’t live there. That man is charged with unlawful use of a weapon by a convicted felon and possession of a controlled substance. At trial we show that the apartment was rented to someone else, our client had just spent that one night there, and had no knowledge of the gun or drugs. The judge dismisses the charges during trial on a motion by The Law Offices of David Olshansky for a directed verdict claiming that the prosecution did not make a case by presenting any evidence that seen in the most favorable light to the prosecution that our client had any knowledge, actual or constructive, of the contraband that was recovered.

DUI; Motion to Suppress Granted, Case Dismissed. 2003

In Criminal case number 0332323xxx our client is charged with driving under the influence of alcohol after a concerned citizen sees her asleep behind the wheel at a green light. The concerned citizen is an off-duty fireman who calls the police from his cell phone. After the fireman honks his horn several times the driver finally wakes up and continues to drive. The fireman follows the person, who drives home, and continually tells the police dispatcher about all of traffic violations including swerving and and other violations that our client commits while driving. Upon arriving at the house the fireman observes the driver fall back asleep behind the wheel. The fireman gives the police the address of the house and drives away. When the police arrive they approach our client’s vehicle. The driver performs the road-side sobriety tests and fails all of them, then takes the breathalyzer test and scores three times the legal limit. David Olshansky files a motion to rescind the summary license suspension and suppress all observations from the police and results of the breathalyzer test based on an illegal arrest. The motion is granted and the DUI charges are dropped. The client keeps her license.

Obstruction of Justice Charges; Not Guilty, January 31, 2013

In the Criminal Law Case of the People of the State of Illinois v. M.S. a Judge found our client not guilty after a bench trial. Our Attorney took the case to trial at the Cook County Courthouse located in District 3, Rolling Meadows, Illinois. During the trial one Cook County Sheriff’s Officer testified and the defendant testified on his own behalf.

The charges against the defendant stem from the Cook County Sheriff’s Police arriving at his Mount Prospect apartment to serve our client’s brother with an Order of Protection. Our client, after opening the door for the sheriff, does not want to allow them to enter his apartment, and after some words are exchanged he attempts to close the door to push the sheriff out of the apartment. The brother is eventually served and afterwards they place our client under arrest for Obstructing Service of Process under Illinois Criminal Law Statute 720 ILCS 5/31-3. Although only a misdemeanor in Illinois, the charges are serious, and still have the potential to place a defendant in the County Jail for six months. Prior to trial there were plea offers made by the prosecution to our client, who rejected the offers and insisted he did nothing wrong and was going to trial.

Our position was that the Judge did the right thing in finding our client not guilty. There was no evidence presented by the prosecution that this Sheriff ever stated the reason to our client why he was at the location prior to trying to remove him from his apartment, which, under these specific circumstances, the Sherriff did not advise of his purpose to be there and was not justified in his actions without advising his purpose first.

Aggravated Assault to a Police Officer. Not Guilty. 2003

In Cook County case 03 MC 6009xxx a police officer investigating a disturbance enters our client’s home and shoots our clients 16 year old son in the head with a stun gun while the 16 year old is trying to pick up his 14 pound dog and trying to keep the dog from barking at the police officer. The 16 y ear old is knocked unconscious and has to be taken to the hospital. The police officer claims that he was trying to shoot our client, the father, because the father was approaching him in an angry manner while telling the police officer to get out of his house. The father is charged with assaulting the police officer. Then the police officer claims that while trying to shoot the father with the stun gun the 16 year old jumped in front of the stun gun. Based on that the 16 year old’s wound from the gun was on the top of his head and the angle of any jump made by him made no sense, the judge rules that he doesn’t believe the police officer’s story and our client is found not guilty.

Aggravated Unlawful Use of Weapon, Not Guilty. January 29, 2013

In the Cook County Criminal Law Case of The People of the State of Illinois v. C.D. a judge on January 29, 2013 found our client Not Guilty of Aggravated Unlawful Use of Weapons. As charged, under Illinois Statute 720 ILCS 5/24-1.6, the defendant was looking a mandatory minimum of 1 year in the State Penitentiary with a maximum penalty of 3 years. There were 2 witnesses that testified during the Bench Trial at 26th and California in Chicago’s District One Courthouse.

The allegations were that Chicago Police Officers were on a Theft from Motor Vehicles Mission on the 800 West Block of Huron when they were walking through parking lots looking for evidence of thefts. A police officer claimed that at approximately 4:00 a.m. while looking for evidence of vehicle thefts in the valet parking lot of a local nightclub he shined his flashlight into the defendant’s unoccupied parked vehicle and observed the butt of a handgun protruding from the passenger side door panel. The officer then established a place of surveillance and waited for the owner of the vehicle to return. Sometime later a valet driver brought the vehicle back to the front of the nightclub where the officer waited for the occupants to enter the vehicle and start to drive away before curbing the vehicle and searching the occupants and the driver. Our client was that driver of the vehicle, which was a car rented from Avis, and allegedly gave an oral statement to the police admitting the gun was his.

Our client testified on his own behalf and contradicted the statements of the police involved in his arrest. In his ruling the judge found both or client’s version of events to be credible and also the officer’s. In criminal law cases the standard of proof is not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The judge ruled that not knowing exactly what occurred when both versions of events were logical and there were multiple people with access to the area where the firearm was allegedly recovered that he could not find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Our client expressed his gratitude to the court and is hopeful to get this arrest expunged from his record and continue with the small business he owns with his mother.

Unlawful Use of a Weapon by a Convicted Felon; Motion to Suppress Granted, Case Dismissed. 2002

02 CR 35xx. Our client is charged with unlawful use of a weapon by a convicted felon after the police search his apartment and find a gun. The police claim that his girlfriend signed a “consent to search” form allowing the search. After a review of the facts of how the police officers arrive at the location and make initial contact with the occupants of the apartment we disagree with the way the police persuaded the girl to sign the form and file a motion to suppress the evidence. The motion is granted, the evidence is suppressed, and the charges are dismissed.

Armed Violence, Search Warrant, Cocaine and a Gun: Motion to Suppress Granted, Charges Dismissed. January 24, 2013

On Wednesday January 23, 2013 a Judge in the Circuit Court of Cook County Fifth District Court located in Bridgeview, Illinois dismissed the charges against the defendant in a Search Warrant Case which revealed 86.8 grams of Cocaine and a handgun after a pretrial Motion to Suppress was argued by The Law Office of David S. Olshansky and Associates.

The judge granted Olshansky’s Motion to Suppress Evidence. The defendant was charged with Possession of a Controlled Substance with Intent to Deliver and Unlawful Use of of a Weapon by a Convicted Felon under Illinois Statutes 720 ILCS 570/401(A)(2)(A) and 720 ILCS 5/24-1.1(E) and was looking at a 9 to 40 year sentence in the State Penitentiary. Chicago Police Officers executed a search warrant on the 9100 Block of South Essex St. in Chicago and upon knocking and announcing their office forced entry. Once inside they encountered two individuals who they searched and discovered some narcotics from the defendant, then discovered a firearm and a large amount of cocaine in plain view on a counter. The 86 grams of cocaine was packaged in 24 items alleged by the police to be for resale. The defendant was not the “Target” of the search warrant, meaning that he was not the person whom they went to that location with information and an authorized warrant for arrest. We were able to argue that because he was not the target that the search of his person that revealed the narcotics in his pockets was unconstitutionally invalid. When the judge granted the motion to suppress the narcotics found on his person the state determined there was no other way to tie the defendant to the other contraband found in the location because he was not the target of the search warrant. “A search warrant isn’t a ticket to jail, it is merely a piece of paper with writing on it that needs to be challenged like all other evidence against someone in any criminal case.”

Predatory Criminal Sexual Assault on a 4 year old; Not Guilty. January 22, 2013

The Judge found the defendant Not Guilty on after a trial that started on January 18, 2013. The trial took several days and multiple witnesses were called at the First District, 26th and California, Cook County Courthouse. The defendant was charged with Predatory Criminal Sexual Assault of a Child, Criminal Sexual Assault, Aggravated Criminal Sexual Abuse, and Criminal Sexual Abuse and facing decades in jail. The allegations stemmed from a series of events the four year old victim told her mother, hospital workers, social workers and the police. Our attorneys attacked the credibility of the out cries from the victim, as each time the stories seemed to change. The defendant also gave a signed confession to the allegations, however that statement was challenged on its validity because allegedly signed statement was in English and the defendant only speaks Spanish. The experience of the seasoned Criminal Law Attorneys came into play to question why the statement was being translated by a Chicago Police Officer from Spanish to English instead of just giving the alleged statement in Spanish. All sex offense cases are particularly challenging, as the allegations are heinous and usually it comes down to questioning what the victim actually said happened and whether it is truthful.

In Illinois the allegation of Predatory Criminal Sexual Assault of a Child under 720 ILCS 5/11-1.40 is a Class X offense and carries a sentence of 6 to 60 years in the state penitentiary. “He was released from custody after a long 2 year process getting him to trial. He told me he was thankful and he just wants to move on and put this horrible event behind him.”

Armed Robbery; Not Guilty. January 16, 2013

On January 16, 2013 there was finding of Not Guilty in Criminal Law case for our client who was charged with Armed Robbery under Illinois Statute 720 ILCS 5/18-2 and Aggravated Battery under 720 ILCS 5/12-3.05. The allegations were that the defendant banished a firearm, pistol whipped the victim, and then took his money and cell phone. After a bench trial in the Cook County District 6 Markham Courthouse the judge found the defendant Not Guilty of all charges. The charges carried a minimum of 21 years in the penitentiary without the option of probation. The prosecution called several witnesses to try and support their version of events, however, after cross examination the versions of events from the witnesses didn’t add up. The defense called the responding police officers to the witness stand, and after the officers’ testimony it became apparent that there were too many inconsistencies to find anything other then reasonable doubt.

“The judge did the right thing. When you looked at the evidence they had against our client from the reports it seemed that he was in some real hot water, but at trial that evidence just fell apart.” There were offers of significant jail time made to our client, but those offers were rejected and We do it again: Not Guilty on another Armed Robbery

Armed Robbery Charges; Finding of Not Guilty. January 14, 2013

There was a trial and finding of not guilty for our client in his Criminal Law case on Wednesday January 12, 2013 in the Cook County Circuit Court District 4 located in Maywood Illinois. Charged with Armed Robbery under Illinois law our client was facing a minimum of 21 years in jail, without the possibility of probation. Our attorneys Dennis discounted the complaining witnesses version of events and through brilliant cross examination the trial court had no option other then acquitting the defendant. Armed Robbery with a firearm under Illinois Statute 720 ILCS 5/19-2 requires an individual to be sentenced to a minimum of 21 years behind bars. Our client was “happy and relieved” with the results.

Driving on a Revoked License Based on Previous DUI; Not Guilty

Under the charging ticket Y95473xxx or client is charged with driving with a suspended license. His previous attorney convinces him to plead guilty and he does. The judge gives the client 1 month to turn himself into the Cook County Jail where he is to stay for two weeks. Before he turns himself in he calls David Olshansky and explains the entire circumstances of his situation, including the facts that his wife was epileptic and in distress and he was actually driving and speeding when he got pulled over trying to take her to the hospital. David Olshansky files a motion to withdraw his guilty plea and the Judge agrees. The guilty plea is withdrawn based on ineffective assistance of his prior attorney and the case is reset for trial. David Olshansky presents the affirmative defense of necessity, that even though his license was in fact suspended, he was driving his sick wife to the hospital in an emergency situation and there was no other reasonable way to quickly get her to the hospital. Based on this affirmative defense, the judge finds the client not guilty.