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.

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.