Please Read the following before entering the section of our site called past cases. Pursuant to the Florida Bar Rules, Criminal Lawyer Bradford Cohen can not make statements that create an unjustified expectation of success. (4-7.2(b)(1)(B) ) the exception to that rule is when the information if provided or furnished at the request of the perspective client and/or existing client.
If you are interested in viewing information about the criminal lawyers results and possible testimonials about the criminal defense firm, please read and acknowledge the information below. The following section contains information about the criminal attorney's past results, and possible statements about the quality of work Bradford Cohen produces. This information has not been provided nor has it been reviewed by the Florida Bar.
The following sections on past criminal cases that Bradford has handled are not testimonials, nor are they to be considered testimonials. They are simply a history of events that are well documented with the criminal clerk of courts in the perspective jurisdictions. They do not all reference State or Federal criminal successes, in fact some of the criminal cases are examples where Bradford felt the criminal court ruled incorrectly and they may be before a criminal Appellate Court. These examples of past cases handled are not to be construed as an example of what may or may not happen on your particular State or Federal Criminal case. This disclosure is being made with the intent to adhere to any and all Florida Bar Rules considering advertising.
By clicking I agree at the bottom of the page you are agreeing that you wish to learn more about the type of cases Bradford Cohen has handled in the past and some commentary on the results of those cases. You should know that:
The facts and circumstances of your case may differ significantly from the matters in which the criminal results and testimonials have been provided. All results of cases handled by Bradford Cohen are not provided. The results on the following pages are not necessarily representative of the results obtained by the criminal defense lawyer or of the experience of all or others that have hired Bradford Cohen. Again every State and Federal criminal case is different and must be evaluated and handled on its on merits.
The information provided in this article is for educational purposes. The content of any advertisement noted in this article may constitute the intellectual property of the advertising lawyer or another person and use of any of the content of the advertisements may require permission of the copyright holder. If you have any questions regarding lawyer advertising, call the Ethics Hotline at 1-800-235-8619 and we will assist you. You may also review the advertising rules and sample advertisements on the Bar's web site at www.floridabar.org
I have read and understood the above information and would like to view the information to find out more about Bradford Cohen's State and Federal criminal cases.
This Florida violation of probation case stems from an individual that we had represented prior to this VOP hearing. The family hired Criminal Attorney Bradford Cohen the day he was arrested and held "no bond" in the jail. The Defendant Violated his Probation due to the Fort Lauderdale Police Officer finding what he said was "seeds and a green leafy substance" in the Defendant's vehicle after stopping him for a minor traffic infraction. We saw the Defendant the same day we were hired, requested the documents demonstrating that Officer had stopped him no less then 4 times in the past few months, and requested a physical examination of the evidence.
Result:
After only spending a few days in jail, we were before the judge with the evidence we procured. Criminal Lawyer Bradford Cohen showed the evidence to the prosecutor and discussed the case. The evidence that the Fort Lauderdale Police Officer described as "seeds and a green leafy substance" , turned out to be literally a seed and 3 tiny leaves that were completely untestable. After seeing the evidence the Broward State Attorney DISMISSED the warrant and released the Defendant.
Bradford was hired pre-filing on this Criminal matter. That means that after the police investigation or arrest, the file is handed to the State Attorneys Office to make a decision on what criminal charges if any to file. This Broward County Criminal case involved a customer in my clients store. This customer had been in previously, causing trouble and stealing items. He was asked to leave the property on several occasions. On this day he came back to the store and started verbally assaulting the Defendant's employees. The Defendant asked him to leave and he refused, throwing a punch at one of the employees. The fight trickled out to the side walk, where the Defendant attempted to break up the fight. The "victim" attempted to throw a punch at the Defendant and they ended up wrestling on the ground. The police were called and the "victim" stated that the Defendant threw a punch at him. No one was arrested, but the case was presented to the State Attorneys Office.
Result:
Criminal Defense Lawyer Bradford Cohen immediately took statements of witnesses and put together a prefile defense packet for the State to review prior to filing any case. Upon receipt of the defense file, the State decide to "NO INFO" or not file the battery charges thereby DISMISSING the case.
Case: US v. L.M.
Criminal Charge: Indictment for Trafficking and Conspiracy to Traffic 11lbs. of Heroin
Facts:
This Federal Criminal Defendant was accused of being part of a heroin ring. An individual coming into the airport from Peru, was caught with 11lbs. of Heroin and immediately started to co-operate with authorities. As part of that co-operation he was told to call the number he was given for the "pick up man." He called the number arranged to be picked up from the airport. All calls were monitored and taped. Defendant showed up at the airport and allegedly asked if the confidential informant was "friends" with the dealer. Soon thereafter the Defendant was arrested and charged. He sat for 7 hours, while constantly getting a barage of questions and veiled threats of deportation, without saying a word. He finally spoke after that period and said that he had nothing to do with the transaction. Defendant hired Federal Criminal Lawyer Bradford Cohen within days of his arrest. Bradford instantly recognized serious issues with the Federal criminal arrest and seizure of the Defendant. At the Federal Bond hearing those issues were raised. The Federal AUSA, stated that the individual was accused of smuggling heroin, he was not a US citizen, he did not have ties to the US, he had access to travel outside the US at any time, and the majority of his family lived in Peru. The Judge GRANTED BOND for the Defendant. Bradford and the Defendant turned down any offer of assistance to the Government in exchange for a lighter sentence.
Bradford then filed a Motion to Suppress based on the lack of Probable Cause to arrest, as well as the illegally obtained statement from the Defendant.
Result:
Case DISMISSED. After 6 months, this Federal Criminal Case was DISMISSED.
Case: State v. O.G.
Criminal Charge: Robbery with a Firearm; Life Felony
Facts:
This Criminal Defendant was accused by an individual of setting up a fake purchase of an automobile in order to rob her. She alleged that she went to look at an automobile for sale, and was robbed of $1,400.00 by gun point by the Defendant. Criminal Attorney Bradford Cohen was hired within 24 hours of the arrest. When the Defendant was arrested he remained quite and asked for his lawyer. As soon as Bradford was retained the "victims" story was examined. It did not make sense in whole or in part. Questions arose as to where this "car" was seen for sale and why she went with cash in hand before test driving the "car". Bradford made a Motion to inspect the Defendant's cell phone and discovered some conflicting statements made by the "victim". The Miramar Police Department should be congratulated for their follow up on this case. In the end it was proven the "victim" lied to the police about the deal. She was attempting to purchase pills from the Defendant. The Defendant had no pills and did not give her back her money, so she made up a story. Due to her falsehood and history of lying about the transaction it should she was an unreliable witness.
Result:
The criminal case was declined by the State Attorney's Office. Defendant was released from jail and charges where never filed agains him.
Case: State of Florida v. K.S. (Dade County Criminal Case)
Dade County Criminal Violation of Community Control accusation. Criminal Lawyer Bradford Cohen was hired from an out of county defendant (Orange County) He had a hold on him in Orange County for a Violation of Community Control stemming from 6 counts of technical violations. He scored 39.7 months Florida State Prison at the bottom of the guideline sentencing sheet. The offer when we initially appeared in court was 39.7 months and they were unwilling to negotiate. After receiving the discovery packet Bradford noticed an error in the date on the Affidavit of violation. Essentially, the Officer stated on the affidavit that the Defendant was placed on Community Control on the wrong date. It was not a minor mistake, as if that date was correct, then the violation would have occurred outside the punishment date. Bradford argued that it could not be corrected by an amendment, as warrant was issued based on the faulty information. Similarly to a search warrant issued on faulty information. You cannot correct it by simply amending the affidavit. Bradford discussed the matter further with the Supervisor for the Division.
Result:
After the discussion with the Supervisor of the Criminal Division, she saw the logic to the argument and was willing to reinstate the Defendant to supervised release. The Criminal Division Supervisor in the division should be commended for weighing the negatives and positives about the argument and offering a fair resolution. Defendant was released that day on those charges.
Case: State v. K.L.
Charge: Trafficking in Oxycodone 14 to 28 grams (Pain Clinic)
Facts:
This criminal case revolved around a South Florida "pill mill" or Pain Clinic. The client departed from a pain clinic with approx. 250 pills of oxycodone. Once in the car he allegedly handed a portion over to the driver. That driver allegedly counted out a portion and placed them in another container in the center console. They left the area. A drug task force pulled the car over for a "traffic infraction" and began asking questions regarding prescriptions. Based on those answers they asked to search the vehicle, the pills in the center console were found and more incriminating statements were made by our client. We moved to suppress the statements and result of the search based on the lack of Miranda. Essentially, we argued that although stopped for a "traffic infraction", the Officer's knew they were conducting a criminal investigation due to their earlier observations, and stated such in their deposition. As such, they should have advised the Defendant of his rights.
Result:
Motion to Suppress GRANTED. Case DISMISSED no appeal from the State.
The State of Florida brought charges against Bradford's client for essentially theft of State Funds. The State had witnesses that said?his client was responsible to pay the taxes for his auto sales business and he was the only signature on the checking accounts for the corp. The client was also president of the corp. and was the individual signor for the auto dealers license. The State alleged that his corporation owed over $45,000.00 in back taxes. They also alleged he bounced checks (bad check)to the State. We raised issues with the amount involved, the signature on the checks, the method in which the State criminally charges individuals with crimes allegedly committed by the corporation as well as, the identity of the individually truly in charge of paying the State taxes for the corporation. Specifically, in questioning the "tax auditor" from the State, we questioned his expertise in the area of taxes and finance. It was revealed he obtained his undergrad degree in "arts and science" with a major in psychology. He never obtained a degree or specialized in the field of tax prior to getting the Job with the state. "Good enough for Government work" became the mantra of the criminal case. We announced ready for trial after Bradford (who majored in Finance) meticulously went over all the records, amounts, signatures and facts and found huge flaws in the State's case. The Defendant had to obtain a NOT GUILTY in order to stay in this country as he was a foreigner on a VISA
Result:
The client could settle for nothing less then a NOT GUILTY. On the day of trial the State approached the Defense and offered to settle for literally pennies on the dollar and a DISMISSAL of all criminal charges.
Defendant was at a closed gate in the port of Fort Lauderdale Florida. The stopping Officer testified that the vehicle had hit the gate causing damage. He pulled the Defendant out of the vehicle and smelled a slight odor of an alcoholic beverage, he was unsteady on his feet and did not know where he was in Fort Lauderdale. He also stated that the car was never moved at any point. The DUI task force unit was called in to conduct a DUI investigation. Ultimately the Defendant was arrested and agreed to provide a breath sample. That sample came back as a .213, almost three times the legal limit. After a review of the video tape and supporting documents, Bradford filed a Motion to Suppress the stop as illegal.
Result:
The Motion was GRANTED. On the video tape you could clearly see the Officers walking around the car, it was impossible that it was up against the gate as the Officer testified. Further there was no accident report, no pictures of the alleged damage, and no corroboration from any of the other officers as to the "accident." The Judge cited a severe conflict in testimony as the basis for her GRANTING the Motion to Suppress.
Case: State of Florida vs. B.R.
Charge: Possession of Paraphernalia, Possession of Cocaine, Possession of Marijuana and Possession of a controlled substance.
Facts:
This Criminal case revolved around a Defendant that was staying at a Hotel in Broward County Florida. The Officers testimony was that she was on routine patrol and pulled into the Hotel parking lot. She testified that she did not block the Defendant's car. She noticed the Defendant exiting his room and smelled what she testified to as "the strong odor of marijuana." The BSO Deputy stated on cross examination that the odor was that of "fresh" marijuana as opposed to burnt. Defendant approached his car and was stopped by the officer for what she considered a "consensual encounter." During this alleged encounter the Deputy testified that she asked the Defendant is there was any drugs in his car, to which he allegedly replied, "there is some weed in the center console." After that point the Defendant was placed in cuffs and asked if they could search his room. He allegedly said "yes." The room was searched and cocaine and other narcotics were found in the Hotel Room. There was absolutely no marijuana found in the room. The Defendant was transported to Jail.
The Deputies version of events made no sense whatsoever. Upon further investigation it was discovered that there were a minimum of 4 officers involved in this "consensual encounter." On cross examination the Deputy stated that although she never heard the Miranda warnings read, one of the other Deputies told her he read it to him. She did not know that Deputies name. When asked who requested for permission to search the car and room, she again said she did not know, but one of the Deputies told her. Her testimony was completely unbelievable. From her statement that she was wandering around a Hotel parking lot at 4:30 pm with 4 other Deputies to the "strong smell of fresh cut marijuana" coming from the Defendants room. (where no marijuana was found) All Testimony was taken at a Motion to Suppress. At the end of her testimony the court made the statement the "I just don't believe her."
Result:
Motion to Suppress was GRANTED all physical evidence and statements were excluded from trial. As a result of that the State Attorney DISMISSED all charges against the Defendant. This Deputy should be embarrassed by the testimony she gave to the court, her lack of knowledge of the law, her preparedness for court and her veracity for truthfulness. The Judge on the other hand Broward County Judge Tobin-Singer should be complimented for her candidness and proper decision.
Case: State of Florida vs. Scott Storch
Charge: Grand Theft
Facts:
Record Producer Scott Storch hired Fort Lauderdale Criminal Defense Lawyer, for a Grand Theft case revolving around a leased Bentley Flying Spur. The vehicle was allegedly rented by the Defendant on or about August 2004. The lease terms were for 36 months, plus the initial month of use. The lease payments were $4,200.00 per month with an initial deposit of $51,000.00. The approx. value of the vehicle at the time of the lease was $200,000.00. The leasing company alleged that Mr. Storch failed to return the vehicle at the end of the lease.
The allegations went on to state that at the end of the lease, the leasing company sent out a "7 day Notice" pursuant to Florida Statute. According to Florida Statute, 7 days after the certified letter is mailed a formal police report can be filed. The Leasing company allegedly sent out the letter September 2nd, 2008 and filed the police report September 9th, 2008. One of the problems with the case was that the certified return receipt was dated October 26th, 2008, over a month after the police report was filed. Essentially, they reported the car stolen prior to giving the Defendant notice, pursuant to Florida Statute. The other issue was that Mr. Storch did not have custody and control of the automobile at end of the lease. It was in the possession of a third party. That party was identified to the leasing company and the car was eventually recovered.
Result:
After discussing the case at length with the State Attorney, providing case law and filing a Motion to Dismiss on failure to adhere to the Florida Statute, the State DISMISSED all charges against Mr. Storch.
