- There was no bad driving;
- CS complied with his instructions as safely as she could;
- No real balance issues existed;
- No tests to prove intoxication existed;
- No blood alcohol evidence existed
- He could not prove what type of alcohol CS consumed;
- He had no idea how much alcohol CS consumed;
- He could not prove how much alcohol CS consumed;
AGGRAVATED (FELONY) DUI VICTORY/NOT GUILTY
0
felony DUI charge. There was no choice but to go to trial and win. The risks were high and the odds long, CS was stopped by the police after being seen passed out in her vehicle at a busy intersection. After following CS, the officer tried to pull her over and directed her into another intersection. CS chose to drive her vehicle to a different parking lot, where the officer claimed she used her hand to balance and steady herself as she got out of the car. Upon being questioned about drinking, CS told the officer friends were giving “drink after drink.” Based on CS’s own admission of drinking, a strong odor of alcohol, CS’s failure to follow the cops instructions and allegations of balance issues, the State felt they had a strong case. That was until Robert J. Callahan cross examined the State’s only witness, the arresting officer. Through skills developed over a 23 year Illinois Criminal defense career, Robert left the officer with no choice but to admit that:
AGGRAVATED (FELONY) DUI VICTORY/NOT GUILTY
CS was facing possible prison on a