***Please note that the Acosta Law Group has handled hundreds of large narcotics cases involving as much as 500 kilograms of cocaine and 1000 lbs. of marijuana as well as large amounts of heroin. We have handled many murder trials and cases that involve violent felonies such as armed robbery and attempted first degree murder. Any lawyer can say that they did this and they did that. Please have them back it up! We are more than glad to.***
LATEST CASE RESULTS
People v. J. P. (October 2017)
Battery Cl. A
The Defendant was arrested with 2 other co defendants after they allegedly got into a fight in the street after a night on the town.
At trial Mr. Acosta took the lead on the case and argued mutual combat and defense of others. The evidence at trial did not show that the Defendant had any involvement in the battery of the victim.
FINDING OF NOT GUILTY.
People v. D. B. (September 2017)
Battery Cl. A
The Defendant was part of a soccer league. There was a fight amongst the players and an opposite team member got punched several times on video. The police are called and the Defendant is arrested after the police see video footage of the victim getting punched several times by the Defendant.
After reviewing the video Mr. Acosta sees that the alleged victim was the one who started the whole thing by pushing a teammate of the defendant’s. At trial Mr. Acosta argues that the initial aggressor was the victim and the whole fiasco was part of the assumption of risk taken by the players when they play such a contact sport. The judge agrees and finds the Defendant NOT GUILTY on all counts.
People v. M. W. (September 2017)
Aggravated Robbery Cl. 1
Theft Cl. 3
The Defendant was arrested after it was alleged that he would rob taxi drivers as a passenger. There was a video in one of the cases. The Defendant was picked out of a lineup. The Defendant allegedly made a statement to the police about his involvement in these theft/robberies.
He is charged with robbing/theft of 3 different cab drivers in the Chicagoland area.
Mr. Acosta takes the most serious case to trial first. Mr. Acosta argues that there is no credible evidence that the Defendant was armed as the taxi driver suggested. The judge agrees and finds the Defendant guilty of Theft only and NOT GUILTY of Aggravated Robbery.
People v. M. G. (September 2017)
Aggravated Battery Child
The Defendant was arrested after her two (2) daughters were taken to the police station by the defendant’s Roomate. The kids alleged severe physical abuse and photos were taken of the injuries. The kids were also taken to have video statements taken from them as well as medical examinations. The Defendant is charged with this serious felony offense.
Mr. Acosta reviews the evidence and at trial argues that the photographic evidence did not match the abuse described by the girls.
The Defendant is found NOT GUILTY of all charges.
People v. E. C. (August 2017)
Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol
Defendant was stopped by police after a call of a reckless drunk driver. He was seen by a squad and approached for a field interview. Officer noticed signs of impairment and asked for him to do field sobriety tests. The officer also saw the Defendant hide a wine bottle right in front of him. The Defendant only completes some of the tests and is arrested.
The Defendant hires Mr. Acosta. Mr. Acosta argues that the officer never sees him driving and doesn’t know how long he had been in area prior to officers arrival at scene. Not to mention there is a passenger in the car. Judge agrees that the State does not prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt and finds him NOT GUILTY of all counts.
People v. M. G. (August 2017)
Non consensual dissemination of sex images
The Defendant allegedly sent out a video of his/her partner engaging in a sexual act with him/her to the new partner via email. Detectives interview the Defendant and he/she admits to sending the video via email. This is a new type of charge in Illinois known informally as REVENGE PORN.
The Defendant is charged with this very serious felony.
The Defendant hires Mr. Acosta to defend them in this very serious charge. At trial Mr. Acosta argues that the State has a problem with proving elements of the offense and the Judge agrees. Finding of NOT GUILTY!!!
People v. J. J. (July 2017)
Battery Cl. A
The Defendant was charged and arrested on a warrant after she was alleged to have spit on a retail store employee in the face after the manager had allegedly suspected her of suspicious activity in her store.
The Defendant was arrested and charged after she was identified as the offender via photo arrays conducted by the police department.
The Defendant hires Mr. Acosta to defend her. At trial 3 employees testify and identify the defendant as the person who spit on the manager of the store. After cross examination Mr. Acosta elicited 3 different descriptions from these 3 witnesses. Mr. Acosta argued that the State failed to establish that the Defendant was in fact the person who committed the crime. The judge agreed. NOT GUILTY.
People v. C. P. (May 2017)
The defendant was charged with a domestic battery after being accused of attacking her child’s father at a designated drop off time. The defendant hired Joe Venditti from the Acosta Law group and the case was immediately set for trial. Although the state had two witnesses supporting the charge against the defendant Mr. Venditti was able to show through cross examination the inconsistencies and bias that existed against his client. The result, NOT GUILTY.
People v. K. W. C. (April 2017)
The defendant was charged with battery, being accused of attacking another woman while at inside her garage. The matter went to trial and attorney Joe Venditti was able to show that not only the alleged victims story was potentially bias but was able to win the trial without his client taking the stand by arguing defense of property.
People v. O. S. (April 2017)
The defendant was accused of having unlawful contact with a gang member while on parole. At trial attorney Joe Venditti was able to establish that the states gang expert witness’ testimony was broad and did not establish that the individual in question was an actual gang member. The result, the defendant was found NOT GUILTY without even having to testify.
People v. A. P. (March 2017)
Aggravated Unlawful Use of a Weapon. Cl. 4
The Defendant was driving his vehicle and after a traffic stop the officers found out he was carrying a gun. He was charged with this serious weapons charge.
The Defendant hired Mr. Acosta. Mr. Acosta sets the case for trial and after hearing the evidence the Judge finds the defendant NOT GUILTY OF ALL CHARGES!
People v. T.R. (March 2017)
Aggravated Assault (gun), Battery & Disorderly Conduct.
The Defendant was arrested after he stopped a suspicious person near his girlfriends home. The Defendant believed that there was something going on out of the usual and stopped the person at gunpoint and asked what their business was in the area. The Defendant also told the man to call 911. Police arrive and take control of the situation. It is discovered that the man has business in the area and the Defendant is charged with the above crimes.
He hires Mr. Acosta to defend him. Mr. Acosta argues at trial that the Defendant was simply trying to find out what was going on. That is not a crime and since there was no criminal intent there could not be a crime.
NOT GUILTY ON ALL COUNTS.
People v. K.F.
Aggravated Domestic Battery (January 2017)
The Defendant was charged with this very serious crime and was in danger of getting a felony conviction. Not to mention possibly going to prison.
He was accused of beating his wife and step daughter with his fists after a family event.
He was arrested that same night.
The Defendant hired Mr. Acosta to defend him against these very serious charges. Me. Acosta argued that whatever happened at the house that evening was the result of the defendant acting out in self-defense. At the end of the trial the Judge found the Defendant NOT GUILTY of all felony charges and only guilty of a misdemeanor battery charge. The Defendant walked away free from all felony charges.
People v. A. N. (January 2017)
Attempted First Degree Murder
The defendant was arrested after he was identified by witnesses as being the person who shot another man at a bar. The defendant’s vehicle was identified and a gun was recovered from the Defendant’s home after he was arrested. The Defendant hired Mr. Acosta to defend him in this very serious case that carried a minimum of 31 years in prison at 85% if he is convicted. Mr. Acosta set the case for trial and argued that the witnesses were unreliable for various reasons. After hearing all the evidence the Judge found the Defendant NOT GUILTY on all counts.
People v C.V. (November 2016)
The defendant was arrested for DUI by the North Riverside police department after he struck a vehicle in the Miller’s Ale House parking lot. When the police arrived, they spoke to the occupants of the car that the defendant hit. At trial, there was testimony by one occupant that the defendant appeared “drunk” and staggered. The defendant admitted to the police officer that he drank too much but denied driving. The defendant subsequently failed all field sobriety testing on video. At trial, defense attorney Batovski argued that the officer never observed the driving or crash. Furthermore, there was evidence introduced that the defendant has leg injuries from military service in Afghanistan thus failing the field sobriety testing. The judge believed the defendant was in fact driving but no under the influence of alcohol. NOT GUILTY!!
People v J.S. (August 2016)
The defendant was stopped and arrested for DUI by the Illinois State Police after the defendant was observed swerving from lane to lane and driving under the speed limit. The defendant admitted to consuming one beer and performed and failed field sobriety testing. At trial, the arresting trooper testified that the defendant had bloodshot and glassy eyes and slurred speech. The prosecution submitted video of the entire arrest including the field sobriety testing. On cross examination, attorney Ronald Batovski asked the trooper if he questioned the defendant’s observations and his response was “no”. The officer admitted on cross examination that the defendant was extremely cooperative and never had any balancing issues. At closing arguments, the defense argued that the evidence presented by the prosecution was not enough – NOT GUILTY!!
People v J.E. (August 2016)
The defendant is charged with striking a semi, driving on a suspended license and DUI. The defendant hires the Acosta Law Group and attorney Joe Venditti immediately sets the case for trial. At trial Mr. Venditti is able to show that the States’ expert witness is incorrect in his assumptions regarding fault and is able to show that the Defendant is not guilty of DUI, driving on a suspended license or striking a semi-truck. THE RESULT – NOT GUILTY ALL CHARGES!!
People v A.M. (August 2016)
The defendant was arrested for DUI and leaving the scene of an accident. Both offenses are class A misdemeanors punishable by up to 364 days in jail. Attorney Ronald Batovski placed the case for a bench trial. At trial, the prosecution called a civilian witness to testify that on January 31, at approximately 4 am she was with her baby when she heard a loud crash. She looked out her window and observed a white vehicle strike multiple parked cars and fled. She identified the defendant as the driver. The arresting officer then testified that he observed the defendant in a matching white vehicle with heavy front end damage fleeing from the scene. The officer testified that upon stopping the defendant, he observed the defendant to have blood shot and glassy eyes and the officer detected an odor of alcohol on the defendant. The defendant admitted to consuming 4 alcoholic beverages prior to driving. Field sobriety testing was conducted on scene and the defendant failed all the tests. On cross examination, Attorney Ronald Batovski challenged the officers observations as being consistent with a driver who was possibly in a crash rather than a driver who was impaired. The officer never detected slurred speech and the driver was very polite which is not consistent with an impaired driver. As to the field sobriety testing, Batovski challenged the officers opinion as to whether or not the defendant actually failed the test. On the walk and turn test the officer testified that the defendant began too soon and walked 10 steps instead of nine. However, Batovski argued that the defendant never missed heel to toe and never stepped off the line. On the one leg stand test, the officer testified that the defendant never raised his foot six inches and put his foot down. Batovski argued that despite this, on the second attempt the devendant never put his foot down and counted as required. At closing arguments Batovski argued that the evidence presented at trial did not satisfy proof beyond a reasonable doubt. NOT GUILTY!!
People v I.P. (August 2016)
The defendant was arrested for DUI by the Chicago Police Department after he allegedly was involved in an accident and stranded his illegally parked vehicle, ran the plates and after seeing it was registered to the defendant, went to the defendant’s residence. The defendant admitted to the accident and drinking alcohol before the accident. The defendant submitted to field sobriety testing and failed. After the DUI arrest, the defendant submitted a breath sample that registered above the legal alcohol limit. Attorney Ronald Batovski filed a motion to quash the arrest and suppress all evidence based on lack of probable cause to stop and arrest the defendant. At the hearing, Batovski pointed out that no one including the officer ever saw the defendant driving. Further, the officer did not have an adequate description of any accident. Batovski further argued that anyone could have been driving this car that was registered to the defendant. Motion to quash arrest and supress evidence granted. All evidence suppressed. CASE DISMISSED!
People v. K.J. (July 2016)
Obstructing a Police Officer
The Defendant was wanted on a assault complaint from earlier in the evening. While on patrol an officer spotted him and tried to effectuate an arrest. The Defendant allegedly ran and was arrested 3 months later.
The defendant hired Acosta Law Group to defend him. Mr. Acosta set the case for trial. At trial Mr. Acosta argued that the state did not prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. Judge agreed and found the defendant NOT GUILTY.
People of the State of Illinois v. Y.R. (June 2016)
The defendant was stopped and arrested for DUI by the DuPage County sheriff’s police. The Sheriff responded to a caller identifying the defendant as the individual pounding on the caller’s front door at 2 AM. The caller gave a description of the defendants vehicle as it drove off. The DuPage county sheriff located that vehicle and observed the defendant exit that vehicle and walk at a fast pace. The defendant was stopped as the sheriff interrogated her. She, the defendant, admitted to consuming several shots and appeared extremely distraught because she thought her boyfriend who lived at that house was being unfaithful. The defendant performed and failed all field sobriety testing. At the trial, the sheriff testified that when the defendant was placed in handcuffs she became very combative and kicked the squad vehicle. He further testified that the defendant used vulgar language toward the sheriff. On cross examination, Attorney Ronald Batovski asked the officer if he learned that she suffered from any disorders such as depression or bipolar disorder? The sheriff responded that he learned that she in fact suffers from these disorders and was on medication as well that day. The officer also testified on cross examination that at no time did he detect slurred speech from the defendant. Batovski also asked the sheriff if her red and bloodshot eyes could be attributed to her crying rather than impairment and the sheriff said “yes”. At closing arguments Attorney Batovski argued that her observations were not consistent with impairment, rather, and upset distraught individual who suffers from multiple disorders. The trial judge agreed – NOT GUILTY!!
People v. R.J. (May 2016)
Aggravated Unlawful Use of a Weapon Cl. 4
Mr. J. was arrested after the car that he was driving was stopped and searched by a police officer. A gun was subsequently recovered from the center console. He was charged with this very serious offense that could send him to prison.
Mr. Acosta files a motion to suppress. After that motion is litigated the case is set for trial. Mr. J. is found NOT GUILTY of this very serious felony charge.
People v. F.A. and C. A. (May 2016)
Aggravated Battery to a Peace Officer Cl. 2
The A. brothers were coming home from a night out on the town and were within houses from their own residence when a police officer stops Mr. Francisco A. and tries to search and detain him. Christian A. is just behind his brother on the street. The officer escalates the situation and alleges that the brothers attack him and try to take his utility knife from him. The brothers are arrested and charged with this very serious crime.
The A. brothers hire Fred Acosta to defend them from the Acosta Law Group. After reviewing the limited amount of reports and seeing the officer’s alleged injuries in the case, Mr. Acosta sets the case for a jury trial. After 4 days of litigation and 13 witnesses testify. The jury finally deliberate and acquit the brothers of these false accusations. THE A. BROTHERS WERE FOUND NOT GUILTY!
People v. J. S. (April 2016)
Unlawful Use of a Weapon
Mr. S. was arrested after he was stopped for a minor traffic violation. Police started to ask Mr. S. questions and asked him out of his vehicle. While out of the vehicle officers say that Mr. S. stated that he had a gun in his car and gave consent to have his vehicle searched. A loaded weapon is found and Mr. S. is charged with this very serious offense.
Mr. S. hires Mr. Acosta to defend him. Mr. Acosta files a Motion to Suppress Evidence. At the evidentiary hearing Mr. Acosta argues that Mr. S. never consented to have his vehicle searched. Therefore the evidence should be suppressed. The judge agrees and grants Mr. Acosta’s motion. GUN IS SUPPRESSED.
State of IL v H. P. (April 2016)
The Defendant is charged with aggravated assault to a Police Officer after the Chicago Police execute a warrant at his home, ransack the home, and shoot the family dog six times! The Police assert that Mr. P. attempts to strike the officers with a brick and attempts to take the weapon of an Officer out of his hands. Mr. P. hires attorney Joseph Venditti of the Acosta Law Group and Mr. Venditti immediately sets the matter for a jury trial. During trial, Mr. Venditti is able to show the jurors that Mr. P. was never the aggressor and that only the actions of the Chicago Police Department were aggressive. The result, NOT GUILTY!
People v. A. H. (April 2016)
DUI Cl. A
Ms. H. was stopped by police after she allegedly committed a traffic violation. She had her children in the vehicle with her. The officer smells alcohol and asks the Defendant to submit to sobriety tests. She submits and ends up doing the breathalyzer. She is way over .08. She is arrested and charged with DUI. It appears that her case appears to be a lost cause.
Ms. H. ends up getting her driving privileges back. Mr. Acosta then files a Motion to Suppress Evidence. Mr. Acosta challenges the original traffic stop. After a hearing the judge agrees with Mr. Acosta that the officer had no reason to stop Ms. Herrera. The Judge GRANTS the motion to suppress. Mr. Acosta saves the defendant from serving time in Cook County jail!!
People v. S. L. (February 2016)
Driving while Under the influence of Alcohol – DUI
The Defendant was stopped for minor traffic violations. The officer allegedly notices a strong odor of alcohol and the typical observations during a DUI stop.
The Defendant some field sobriety tests and refuses the breathalyzer test. He is arrested and charged with DUI.
He hires the Acosta Law Group. Mr. Acosta takes the case to trial and argues that the State cannot prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. The Judge agrees and finds the Defendant NOT GUILTY OF DUI!
People v. E. V. (February 2016)
Possession of a Controlled Substance with Intent to Deliver Cl. X
The defendant was arrested after her apartment was raided by police officers who were in possession of a search warrant. The apartment was searched and a large amount of cocaine was found. She was arrested and charged with this non probationable offense.
She hires Mr. Acosta to defend her. Mr. Acosta gets the discovery and notices that 3 other individuals were present at the time of the execution of the search warrant. Mr. Acosta sets the case for trial.
At trial Mr. Acosta alleges that the State cannot prove that my client KNEW there was cocaine in the residence although it was established that it was her apartment. The judge agreed and finds the defendant NOT GUILTY of all charges.
The defendant was accused of having sexual intercourse with a 15 year old relative and charged with a domestic battery. The defendant hired the Acosta Law Group and attorney Joseph Venditti immediately set the matter for trial. Initial offers from the state included sex offender registration for life. After several tense motions prior to trial Mr. Venditti was able to show the State their inability to prove all the allegations made. The result, the defendant was given 2 years probation, 15 days of SWAP on a simple battery and NO SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION!
People v. N. A. (January 2016)
The defendant was charged with a battery and hired the Acosta Law Group. Attorney Joe Venditti went to trial on the case. Through cross examination of the alleged victim and testimony from the defendant, Mr. Venditti was able to show that the battery never occurred. The result, not guilty!
People v. M. (January 2016)
The defendant was charged with driving with a suspended license, no insurance, and having an open bottle of alcohol in her vehicle. The defendant hired the Acosta Law Group and the matter was taken to trial by attorney Joseph Venditti. At trial, although the defendant was found guilty of having an open bottle alcohol in her vehicle, Mr. Venditti was able to show that the defendant was indeed never driving the vehicle, therefore the defendant was found NOT GUILTY for driving with a suspended license and no insurance.
People v. J. S. (December 2015)
Aggravated Unlawful Use of a Weapon by a Felon Cl. 2 (non probationable)
The defendant was a passenger in a vehicle that was stopped by police officers for traffic violations. The officers ask the defendant to exit the vehicle because of suspicious movements in the car. The officers state that the reason was for “officer safety”. The defendant is brought to the rear of the vehicle where he is searched and handcuffed. The vehicle is subsequently searched and a weapon is recovered under the seat where the defendant was seated. He is charged with this felony offense which carries a mandatory 3-7 years in prison. The accused hires the Acosta Law Group to represent him.
The Acosta Law Group gets the discovery which includes video from the squad car. A motion to suppress evidence is filed and litigated. The judge agrees at the hearing that the officers did not have probable cause to search. MOTION GRANTED. The gun is suppressed.
People v. A. L. (December 2015)
Ms. L. was accused of retail theft. As soon as she exited the main door she circled back around into the store. The value of the items taken was more than $150. She is charged with Retail Theft.
At trial the State alleges that the reason that she leaves and comes back into the store is because she sees the police outside. Acosta Law Group argues that we don’t know what Ms. L. saw because we can’t see any indicia of police or police vehicles outside. The State simply wants the Judge to assume that she saw police. Acosta Law Group argues that the State can’t prove the defendant’s intent to permanently deprive the store of the merchandise. The Judge agrees and finds the Defendant NOT GUILTY!
People v. Z. M. (November 2015)
The defendant was charged with speeding, open alcohol in a vehicle, and Driving Under the Influence. The defendant hired the Acosta Law Firm and was facing a year long suspension of her drivers license. Acosta Law Group was able to reverse the suspension of the defendant and immediately set the matter for trial. At trial, attorney Joe Venditti, was able to show that the defendant, although guilty of speeding and open alcohol, was indeed NOT GUILTY of Driving Under the Influence.
Possession of a Controlled Substance with Intent to Deliver over 900 grams cocaine (November 2015)
Cl. X (15-60 years IDOC at 75%)
MOTION GRANTED. There is NO more evidence that the State can use against the Defendant. The Acosta Law Group saves this client from a long prison sentence!!!(September 2015)
Order of Protection Terminated!
Not Guilty of Aggravated DUI!
People v. M. M. (August 2015)
Defendant is found not guilty of driving under the influence, improper lane usage and of illegal transportation of alcohol.
People v S. (August 2015)
Trespassing, resisting arrest and obstructing the acts of the police officer. The jury found the defendant NOT GUILTY on all charges!!
People v G. (August 2015)
The defendant was arrested for DUI after driving the wrong way down a one way street. Judge agreed all evidence suppressed.
People v F. G. (August 2015)
The defendant was stopped and arrested after leaving a bar fight. When the arresting officers attempted to stop the defendant, the defendant committed multiple traffic infractions and would not obey the officers sirens. NOT GUILTY!
People v. C.S. (July 2015)
The Defendant hires The Acosta Law Group. Mr Joseph Venditti takes this case to trial. Mr. Venditti argues that the victim has reason to fabricate since she is a jilted girlfriend and that the victim’s testimony just doesn’t add up. The Judge agrees in spite of the photos and finds the Defendant NOT GUILTY.
People v. A.C. (July 2015)
Aggravated Domestic Battery Cl. 2
The Defendant is arrested after the police arrive on scene to see the Defendant push a woman to the ground. The Defendant’s family hires the Acosta Law Group. The Judge rules that since she is the only real witness and she has no credibility he has to find the Defendant NOT GUILTY. Defendant is released from custody.
People v. R.S. (July 2015)
Predatory Criminal Sexual Assault Cl. X
The Defendant was accused by the daughter of his ex that she was being molested by the Defendant. He is arrested and charged with this extremely serious crime. He hires the Acosta Law Group. Acosta Law Group argues that the only evidence is the girls word and that there is nothing to corroborate her version of events. The Judge agrees and finds the Defendant NOT GUILTY of all charges.
People v. R.O. (June 2015)
Filing a False Police Report
The Defendant was accused of having filed a false police report. The Defendant hires the Acosta Law Group to represent him in this very serious case. The Defendant was found NOT GUILTY of all charges.
People v. J.A. (June 2015)
Possession of a Controlled Substance with Intent to Deliver Cl. X
The Defendant was arrested after a confidential informant told the police that the Defendant sold drugs from his home. The Defendant hires the Acosta Law Group to represent him. The Judge finds the Defendant NOT GUILTY of intent to deliver and guilty only of possession. He is sentenced to probation. The Acosta Law Group saves the Defendant from the Illinois Department of Corrections.
People v. C.S. (June 2015)
The Defendant’s family hires the Acosta Law Group to defend him. The Judge agrees and finds the Defendant NOT GUILTY of Armed Robbery and guilty of a lesser included offense which carries the possibility of probation.
People v. A.M. (May 2015)
Possession of Cannabis with Intent to Deliver. (Over 5000 grams) Cl. X
An agents find 300 lbs. of cannabis in a truck. Mr. M. is then charged with this very serious crime. The defendants girlfriend hires the Acosta Law Group. Soon after the case it is dismissed. The defendant who was on a $250,000 cash bond is immediately released from jail.
People v. J.C. (May 2015)
Unlawful Use of a Weapon by a Felon Cl. 2 non probationable.
The defendant is arrested after someone calls the police that a man with a gun is shooting on 4th of July. The family hires the Acosta Law Group and after filing motions to suppress evidence there is a hearing and the Acosta Law Group wins the motion to suppress because the officer failed to Mirandize his client. MOTION GRANTED.
People v. J.G. (April 2015)
Aggravated Kidnaping / Criminal Sexual Assault / Unlawful Restraint
The Defendant was charged with these very serious offenses after he was accused of raping his wife through use of force. His family hires the Acosta Law Group. After the close of the trial the Judge found the Defendant NOT GUILTY on all counts except the less serious offense of Unlawful Restraint. The Defendant walked out of the courtroom free of the more serious charges!!!
People v A.B. (March 2015)
The defendant was arrested for DUI and reckless driving. The Acosta Law Group argued that the arrest occurred minutes later when the defendant was on foot and the offending vehicle was registered to Mr. B. Senior, not junior. Trial Judge agreed. FOUND NOT GUILTY!
People v J. de la C. (March 2015)
The defendant was arrested by the Police Department after multiple complaints that the defendant was drunk. The Acosta Law Group argued that there wasn’t adequate corroboration to rise to probable cause for the traffic stop. The Judge agreed and motion to suppress all evidence GRANTED!
People v. M. H. (February 2015)
The defendant was arrested for DUI after losing control of his vehicle and driving onto a sidewalk and striking a pole. The Acosta Law Group argued that the results should be given minimal weight. Batovski argued that the State failed to meet their burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. NOT GUILTY.
People v. K. H. (January 2015)
Armed Violence Cl. X
The Defendant was arrested after a unmarked police car allegedly sees the Defendant smoking a marijuana cigar commonly known as a “blunt”. He hires the Acosta Law Group to defend him. After the evidence is produced at the motion it is determined that the cigar in fact was NOT burned. The Judge grants the motion and the case should be DISMISSED. The Acosta Law Group saves the Defendant from going to prison!