Chicago Criminal Investigation :

Your Defense and Your Freedom.

Thorough investigation wins cases. Just look at our recent victories section or ask our clients. Robert J Callahan is the Chicago defense lawyer for murder, drug charges as well as an Illinois dui attorney. Call, your freedom is counting on it.

Investigation Creates Recent Victories : Illinois

Defense Attorney Robert Callahan Wins Cases.

 (the following are summaries and do not contain all relevant facts)

May 2009 - Domestic Battery

Nelson C. was charged with Domestic Battery in August of 2008.  His ex-girlfriend and mother of his children alleged that he had punched her and grabbed her during a dispute about child visitation. Nelson has adamantly maintained his innocence since that time, and we took on his case because we believed him.  At trial, numerous inconsistencies and outright lies were uncovered.The alleged (fake)injuries testified to at trial turned out to be completely different from the injuries reported to the police. Once again thorough investigation prior to trial carried the day.  Finding of Not Guilty

April 2009 - Felony Unlawful Use of Weapons, Impersonating a Police Officer-No Probable Cause, Case Dismissed

Cross-examination of the arresting officers resulted in a finding of No Probable Cause, all charges dismissed.

February 2009 - Felony Possession of a Controlled Substance (Heroin)- No Probable Cause, Case Dismissed

Another case thrown out at Preliminary Hearing.  Inconsistencies were pointed out in Police testimony, and the judge made a finding of No Probable Cause.

January 2009 - Felony Leaving the Scene of an Accident
NOT GUILTY!

In July of 2008 Ray W. was charged with Felony leaving the scene of an accident. Ray was driving on south Vincennes Avenue in Chicago when a man ran in front of his car. Ray had no time to react, and the man was struck and injured. Ray briefly slowed down and stopped, but fearing for his safety he left the scene. Ray's license had been revoked for a prior offense, and the police had no sympathy when he returned to the area approximately one hour later. The State's Attorney's office approved Felony Charges and Ray was held on $250,000 bond.

Attorney Callahan asked for and was granted a significant reduction in bond. Ray was then released and assisted in the preparation of his defense. Investigation revealed that the victim was being chased, and that he ran into traffic without stopping or looking. Witnesses revealed that Ray's car was surrounded by the individuals who were chasing the victim. The State's witnesses were strenuously cross-examined, and numerous inconsistencies were pointed out to the Judge.

After a Bench Trial Ray was Found NOT GUILTY of all charges

December 2008

Matthew B.  was charged with the offense of Possession of Controlled Substance with Intent to Deliver (530 grams of cocaine). By employing an undercover Confidential Informant, Chicago Police were able to obtain a Search Warrant for Matthew's apartment.  The Confidential Informant had testified before a judge that he had seen approximately half a kilogram of cocaine inside the residence.  Police executed the Search Warrant the next day and the above mentioned narcotics were discovered underneath a bathroom sink.  

Matthew was not at home at the time the Search Warrant was executed.  His girlfriend and three of her friends were present when Chicago police came in. Matthew was located at his place of employment and brought back to the scene.  Several factors were in Matthew's favor.  In order for the State prosecutor to sustain a conviction for Possession of Intent to Deliver, several The law requires that several things be proven. The State must demonstrate Exclusive Possession and Control. The Defense argued that Matthew did not have exclusive Possession and control over the narcotics. Furthermore, the State must demonstrate that the defendant had knowledge of the presence of the controlled substance. They must sustain both of these burdens beyond a reasonable doubt. We further argued that the State had not met their burden because Matthew was not home at the time the warrant was executed.

The case was somewhat complex and there are too many other details to cite in this limited space.  However, due to the above mentioned aggressive defense, Matthew was found Not Guilty of all charges.  There was a highly emotional reaction in the courtroom when the verdict was announced.

The MINIMUM sentence for a conviction was 12 years in the Illinois Department of Corrections.  Instead of the penitentiary, Matthew went home that day. 

October 07 People v. Shanklin :

Mr. Shanklin was on his way home from a White Sox game in late July. As he exited the elevated train station at North and Clybourn, he was confronted by an upset and angry man who claimed that Mr. Shanklin had insulted his girlfriend. The man told the police that Mr. Shanklin had attacked him without provocation, and had then fled the scene. The man was hospitalized for his injuries and sought to have Mr. Shanklin prosecuted with Aggravated Battery.

Upon being retained by Mr. Shanklin, Attorney Robert Callahan began an in depth investigation. All police reports were obtained and all relevant witnesses interviewed. During the investigation, Attorney Callahan discovered a missing police report. The report had been prepared by a certain Chicago Police Detective, and the State’s Attorney’s had not tendered it to the defense. This missing report explained that the alleged victim had been armed with a metal pipe at the time of the altercation. None of the reports tendered by the State’s Attorney’s office mentioned a pipe.

Attorney Callahan used the missing report during cross-examination of the State’s witnesses at trial. The complainant’s first witness admitted for the first time that the complainant had been armed with a pipe. She did not mention a pipe at any time during her testimony on direct examinaton by the State, and in fact said that the victim had NOTHING IN HIS HANDS. When confronted with the report she now admitted that he had been armed.

Largely due to this and other major inconsistencies uncovered by Attorney Callahan, Mr. Shanklin was found NOT GUILTY.

June '07 People v. Moore :

Mr. Moore was charged with Possession of a Controlled Substance (Class 1 Felony) (cocaine). The arresting officer testified that he had received complaints of a drug dealer matching Mr. Moore's description in the area. The officer testified that he approached Mr. Moore for a field interview at which point Mr. Moore threw to the ground a plastic bag containing 3 grams of cocaine. The arresting officer's story was a total fabrication. During cross-examination, the officer admitted that he did not see Mr. Moore doing anything illegal. His story also made no sense, and had numerous factual inconsistencies. The judge found there was no probable cause and dismissed the case outright.

People v. Davis : (Unlawful Use of Weapon) (Class 2 Felony)

Mr. Davis was charged with Unlawful Use of Weapon by Felon. The arresting officer testified at the preliminary hearing that a 9 mm. handgun was recovered in plain view from the car Mr. Davis was driving. The officer also testified that Mr. Davis admitted to the possession of the recovered handgun. During cross examination Attorney Callahan confronted the officer with a previously obtained arrest report which stated that the gun was recovered from the glove compartment of the car. Attorney Callahan also uncovered several other common sense inconsistencies in the officer's testimony. The judge found that there was no probable cause to arrest Mr. Davis and the case was dismissed.

People v. Little : (Possession of a Controlled Substance) (Class 4 Felony cocaine)

Another finding of No Probable Cause after Cross-examination by attorney Callahan. Again the Officer's testimony defied common sense. No money was recovered from Mr. Little, and the factual consistencies uncovered during Cross resulted in the case being dismissed.

March '07 People v. Johns : (Manufacture/Delivery of a Controlled Substance) (Class X)

This is a case where investigation made the difference between a guilty verdict and a finding of Not Guilty. The Chicago police had charged Mr. Johns with engaging in numerous drug sales. They testified that they had set up a surveillance of a drug spot and that Mr. Johns had delivered drugs to numerous individuals during their surveillance. The officers testified during the preliminary hearing that Mr. Johns had retrieved narcotics from an exterior building light at a certain address. The police reports also stated that he had retrieved narcotics from that light. Attorney Callahan went to the crime scene with his investigator and took several measurements and photographs. It turned out that the light on the building had no area where narcotics could have been concealed. At trial, Attorney Callahan confronted the police officers with the photographs of the scene, and challenged the common sense of their story. Also, through investigation a witness was located who had observed the police activity on that day. The witness gave a statement and later testified that the police had fabricated a great deal of what they said happened on that day. At trial the Judge found that there was a Reasonable Doubt and found Mr. Johns NOT GUILTY.