Recent Victories 2

Case: Federal Case United States v. S.T.

Charge: Mail Fraud, Wire Fraud

Federal Sentencing

Facts:

This Federal criminal case involved a scheme to defraud known as "cramming". This is where a charge is placed on a phone bill where the owner of the phone did not authorize the charge. It was a multi million dollar scheme where the lead defendant was already serving 262 months in prison. The Defendant chose to co-operate with the Federal authorities. Although he assisted as much as he possibly could, the Governement felt that he did not meet the requirements of a reduction in sentence, more commonly referred to as a 5K. Federal Criminal Lawyer Bradford Cohen argued for a 2 point reduction for minor role and 3 points for acceptance, and not to add points for the sophistication associated with the crime. Additionally, the Federal client, tested positive for adderall while awaiting sentencing on the case. The Pretrial release officer recommended that he lose the 3 point acceptance and not be awarded a 2 point reduction for minor roll, as he was the CEO of the company accused of the mail and wire fraud.

Result:

At Federal Sentencing, the Judge agreed with Bradford Cohen and award the reduction for a minor roll and allowed a 3 point reduction for acceptance, even though he tested positive while he was on pretrial release. Over all the Federal client was saved from serving approximately 14-18 months more then what he received.

Case: State of Florida v. J.L.

Charge: Aggravated Assualt Firearm (3 year minimum mandatory sentence) and Misdemeanor Battery

Facts:

This was an interesting criminal case. The "victim" in the matter and his friends were at a local bar getting drunk. The "victim" stated that the Defendant came from nowhere, interjected himself into their conversation and pulled a weapon from his person, put it to his head and threatened the victim. His two buddies told a similar story, but there were inconsistencies throughout. The largest fact was 20-25 minutes later a gun was found in the "victims" car. The Defendant stated to Criminal Attorney Bradford Cohen that the "victim" showed a gun prior to him pulling his own gun. Before trial a plea was extended of probation on the felony charge. The Defendant refused to take the plea on a felony and requested trial, unless the State would offer a misdemeanor. The State refused. The State of Florida wasted your tax paying dollars to fly in the "victim" for trial. The trial was held over 3 days with several evidentary hearing being held on several issues. The State argued for 2 lessor included offenses of assault and reckless display of a weapon. The Defendant took the stand and explained his side of the story. The State also filed a Motion for Costs, to repay the State for all costs of prosecution if the Defendant was found guilty.

Result:

40 minute NOT GUILTY on all charges. The Jurors were highly intelligent and did not buy into the "victims" version of the offense. Follow-up on this matter is that Criminal Lawyer Bradford Cohen, has moved for the State to repay all costs of depositions involved in the case due to their loss.

This case represents the third Felony trial win in a row and constitutes the "Hat Trick Award for 2010" , given to Broward Defense Lawyers by the Defense Bar.

Criminal Case: State of Florida (Broward County) vs. F.A.

Criminal Charge: Battery on a Law Enforcement Officer (Seminole Police Department)

Facts:

Client hired Criminal Defense Attorney Bradford Cohen for an altercation that took place at the Seminole Hard Rock in Hollywood Florida. He was offered "time served" prior to trial, which we advised that he not take. The criminal case arose while he was being removed from a bar by an over zealous bouncer by the throat from a local nightclub. (which the bouncer denied on the stand while testifying) That bouncer continued to forcibly remove the client until he was outside the back door of the club. The client attempted to tell the bouncer that he should not be removed and that his friend had the keys to his car. The bouncer continued to be violent with the client. A Seminole Police Officer approached the client from behind, while being ruff housed by the bouncer. The Officer testified that she identified herself, asked the client to calm down, and took hold of his arm. At that point she says he turns and punches her in the right shoulder. The Broward State Attorney refused to call the 2nd bouncer. Bradford tracked the bouncer down after the first day of trial, had him served and interviewed as to what happened that evening. It turns out that the 2nd bouncer that WAS NOT CALLED BY THE STATE, but called by the defense testified that the 1st bouncer did in fact grab the client by the throat and throw him violently out the door. He went on to state that Officer NEVER got hit. The Officer on cross examination admitted that it could have been an "accident" or "unintentionally" done.

Result:

The Judge GRANTED a judgment of acquittal and the case was DISMISSED by the court before the criminal jury came to a decision.

Criminal Case: State of Florida v. M.S.

Criminal Charge: Violation of Probation (VOP Felony) and Misdemeanor Possession of Cannibas

Facts:

Defendant was pulled of for "failure to use his blinker." Defendant a prior convicted felony adamantly denied that he failed to use his blinker. In fact he stated that this Fort Lauderdale Police Officer has been harassing him for months prior to the stop. Criminal Attorney Bradford Cohen filed a Motion to Suppress the stop. The argument was simply based on credibility, whether or not the client used his turn signal. The Fort Lauderdale Officer appeared and attempted to testify that the client failed to use his turn signal. He also denied multiple contacts with the client. Bradford had all the documentation of prior arrests and stops in which to impeach. There were many, many holes in his story and inconsistencies in his police report. The Client and his friend took the stand and testified as to the use of the signal and his many encounters with the Fort Lauderdale Officer.

Result:

Without the Judge calling the Officer an outright liar, she found inconsistencies in his reports and testimony and GRANTED the Motion to Suppress. The criminal case and the Felony VOP were both DISMISSED.

Criminal Case: State of Florida v. D.C.

Criminal Charge: Violation of Probation (Felony VOP) and Misdemeanor Driving while license suspended (DWLS)

Facts:

This was an interesting case as there was no way for the Police Officer to deny it was a bad stop. Inexperience coupled with ignorance of the law lead this Officer to wrongfully stop the client. He was in a 2008 Cadillac Escalade in a location where the Police Officer stated that there had been several burglaries. He was waiting on the side of the road in his vehicle for his friend to catch up to his location. The Officer then activated his overhead lights and detained the client. After the illegal detention and stop, he realized the Defendants license was suspended and he was on probation. He was arrested on the spot.

Result:

Criminal Defense Attorney Bradford Cohen was able to immediately get him a hearing in which the Violation of Probation (VOP) was dismissed. He then filed a Motion to Suppress the stop on the Misdemeanor Driving While License Suspended (DWLS). The State CONCEDED (agreed) with the grounds for the Motion and DISMISSED all remaining charges.

Federal Criminal Case: United States v. J.B. (Federal Drug Charge)

Federal Criminal Charge: Trafficking Heroin

Facts:

Client was indicted on Trafficking in Heroin. He was scoring in accordance with the advisory guidelines 22 years in Federal Prison. There was many issues surrounding his involvement with the conspiracy.

Result:

At sentencing it was argued a downward departure was necessary due to certain factors. Due to those factors the court agreed with Criminal Lawyer Bradford Cohen and reduced the sentence by 60% to 9 years with credit for all time served. Basically saving the client 13 years of his life.

Criminal Case: State of Florida v. F.D.

Criminal Charge: Battery

Facts:

This criminal client was protecting the honor of his long time girlfriend and her young son. A waiter from a local restaurant yelled at his girlfriend and her young son. He felt her son was chasing the local ducks and in his opinion he shouldn't be doing that to the ducks. He began to yell explatives and derogatory phrases at her. Several minutes later the Defendant pulls up in his vehicle and allegedly without provocation knocks the waiter out cold.

Result:

The State Attorneys Office failed to served the client within the statute of limitations. Criminal Attorney Bradford Cohen filed a Motion to Dismiss charges arguing that they could have served them with due diligence. The State argued they attempted many times to serve the client. What they did not realize was that the client was actually a victim in another ongoing case, and the felony state attorney handling that case, had constant contact with him via mail and phone. Once the court heard those facts the criminal battery case was DISMISSED in its entirety.

Criminal Case: State of Florida v. J.P.

Criminal Charge: Driving Under the Influence (DUI)

Facts:

Client was on his second DUI. The first was dismissed via Motion to Suppress by Criminal Defense Attorney Bradford Cohen. Both DUIs were refusals to submit to the breathalyzer. This current DUI the client was pulled over for failure to maintain his lane over a 3 block area. The testimony was that he crossed the bicycle path line 3 times during 3 blocks that the Officer was following him. The Officer stated that was the sole reason he pulled the Defendant over. He also testified that it did not affect any other traffic.

Result:

Criminal Defense Lawyer Bradford Cohen filed a Motion to Suppress, based on case law concerning failure to maintain a lane. Motion to Suppress was GRANTED by the court and the case was DISMISSED.

Case: State of Florida v. J.B.

Charge: Perjury, Obtaining a False DL

Facts:

This case outlines the incompetence of a Florida Highway Investigator in regards to an investigation. In this criminal case, an "anonymous tip" was made to BSO who in turn called FHP, concerning fraud in obtaining a DL. The Defendant had no previous criminal record at all and no signs of fraud whatsoever. The FHP Investigator, Elizabeth Rupp, appeared at her house and began questioning her in regards to photos on her Florida Driver's License. She continually stated that one of the Photos on HER DL was not of HER. The Florida Highway Patrol investigator insisted that all of the photos on her DL were photos of her. The investigator went on to state that she believed that a photo on another individuals DL was actual the Defendant. In reality, that person appeared to be on the Defendant's DL, not the other way around. Not only was she completely incorrect about the statement, the investigator did nothing to gather evidence to prove her incorrect statement. The problem with the investigator was her huge ego and determination to make an arrest. In addition her incompetence in the area of investigation and pure lack of professionalism led to a very bad decision on her part to make an illegal arrest of the Defendant.

Result:

At case filing prior to any criminal charges being filed, the case was declined by the Broward County Prosecutor's Office due to the clear evidence that the Defendant did not obtain a DL by fraud. Criminal Case DISMISSED. The Fort Lauderdale Criminal Attorney Bradford Cohen, filed a internal affairs complaint and a letter of intent to sue the Florida Highway Patrol for the illegal arrest. This case is ongoing.

Criminal Case: State of Florida v. M.S.

Criminal Charge: Violation of Probation

Judge: Gillespie

Facts:

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.

Criminal Case: State of Florida vs. V.H.

Criminal Charge: Criminal Battery

Facts:

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)

Charge: Violation of Community Control underlying charge Grand Theft 1st Degree

Facts:

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.

Case: Florida v. S.L.

Charge: Tax Fraud; Grand Theft of State Funds

Facts:

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.

Case: State of Florida v. D.K.

Charge: Driving Under the Influence over a .20 with property damage

Facts:

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.

Newer Victories | Older Victories