Recent Victories 3
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.
Case: State of Florida vs. M.M.
2 Counts of Battery on a Law Enforcement Officer, 2 Counts of Resisting with Violence and 2 Counts of Resisting without Violence
This Fort Lauderdale Criminal matter was interesting because this was the same client we walked on gun charges several months ago. Since Fort Lauderdale Criminal Lawyer Bradford Cohen, obtained the NOT GUILTY on the charges of Aggravated Assault with a firearm on a 2 Law Enforcement Officers, the client complained he was being harassed. We instructed him to put up cameras at his house and record any and all activity. He followed my instructions and installed the system. Several days later an officer said his brother was speeding and playing his music too loud. He followed him to the Defendant's house and unluckily for the officer parked right in front of the camera. He then took some 45+ minutes to write a speeding and loud music citation. After he finished he asked the Defendant's brother to sign the infractions. When the Defendant's brother stated "I wasn't playing my radio at all," the officer arrested him for refusing to sign the infraction. At that point my client yelled "that's bullshit." The officer placed the Defendant's brother in the police cruiser and said to the Defendant, "this isn't Haiti, boy" and chased the Defendant. The Defendant ran into his home and the Officer kicked the door several times, leaving boot marks on the door. The Officer left, only to come back the next day and write citations for the vehicles parked on the Defendants front lawn. When the Defendant asked the Officer what he was doing, the Officer placed the Defendant under arrest, charging him with resisting without violence and obstruction for the day previous, 2 counts of Battery on a law enforcement officer and 2 counts of Resisting with violence.
We immediately set the Officer for Deposition and filed an internal affairs complaint. Of course Internal Affairs did not find calling an African American 22 year old man "boy" and saying "this isn't Haiti" a violation of conduct.
The officer showed to deposition and in our eyes perjured himself several times by saying he would use the term "boy" when addressing an African American. He also stated facts that were not present on the video tapes.
Bradford set the matter for JURY TRIAL. The week before trial the State offered a plea deal to time served to a Disorderly Conduct charge. It was rejected. The Friday before trial, the State called and DISMISSED all counts of the information. This is the 2nd NOT GUILTY or DISMISSAL the Defendant has received on the cases our offices have handled for him.
Criminal Case: State of Florida vs. K.H.
Charge: Trafficking in Oxycodone and Conspiracy to Traffic (Minimum Mandatory Prison Sentence pursuant to Florida Statute 893)
Facts: This Criminal matter stems from another South Florida Pain Clinic Criminal Investigation. In this case, the Officers were staking out a Pain Clinic that was reported to have drug transactions in the parking lot of their establishment. While staking out the location, they observed the Defendant obtain US Currency from an individual in a parked car, go inside the establishment and re-emerge with a prescription bag. He then handed the co-defendant a prescription bottle. The co-defendant drove off in his car and the Defendant left in a separate vehicle. The Officers stated that they followed the two cars separately and observed traffic infractions. They testified that even without the traffic infractions, they were going to pull over the Defendants based on what they had observed. They pulled over the Defendant and co-defendant separately. In regards to my client, they asked him to get out of the vehicle and asked a series of questions. The Officers asked if they could look in the center console. The Defendant replied "yes, I have nothing to hide". In the center console they found several prescription bottles all labeled with the Defendant's information. The officers realized that one of the bottles containing 80 pills was missing. Simultaneously, the co-defendants vehicle was stopped and searched. In the search that ensued the officers found the missing 80 pills in the glove box with my client's (Defendant) name on it. After Miranda was read to the Defendant, he stated that he "owed" the pills to the co-defendant from the month prior and was just paying him back. The State of Florida, Broward County filed 2 counts against both Defendant's with a minimum mandatory prison sentence of 3 years to a maximum of 60 years.
I filed a MOTION TO SUPRESS the statement given to the police, based on issues surrounding the criminal investigation taking place without the benefit of Miranda warnings. The co-defendant's lawyer also filed a Motion to Suppress based on the stop and search. This is where it gets ugly. On the day of the Motion to Suppress hearing, the State Attorney offers the co-defendant a deal to "flip" or testify against my client. Essentially, this was a no win situation for me. If I won the Motion to Suppress, my clients statements would be thrown out. But, if the co-defendant flipped then it wouldn't make a difference, because he would make incriminating statements against my client anyway, as part of his deal. The only chance we would have is if we both went forward with our Motions to Suppress. The co-defendant did not want to take the chance and wanted to take the deal. The State Attorney essentially told my client there was no deal for him.
RESULT: After speaking to the Police outside the courtroom, the State Attorney, as well as the Division Supervisor, and going over the facts multiple times, we were able to negotiate a change of charge and a probationary sentence. The Defendant (my client) did not have to co-operate in anyway or "flip" on anyone. The Officers (Davie Police Dept.) and State Attorney in this matter should be commended for doing the right thing on this case.
Case: State v. No Initials per request
Charge: Weapons violation carrying a concealed weapon
Facts: In this criminal case, a COO of a multi million dollar international corporation was accused of taking an unauthorized weapon onto an airplane in Fort Lauderdale Florida. After being accused of the crime he immediately hired criminal lawyer Bradford Cohen to represent him. He could not take any type of plea, as that would jeopardize his job and future employment. Defendant went through the X-ray machine at the airport, he was pulled aside and his bag was searched. The unauthorized weapon was then discovered. The Officers involved reported that the Defendant uttered his wife packed his bag and he did not know that the unauthorized weapon was illegal. As soon as criminal lawyer Bradford Cohen was retained, he took a statement from the Defendant's wife, who confirmed that she packed the bag and never told the Defendant she placed the unauthorized weapon in the Defendant's bag. It was provided to the State Attorneys Office, but they chose to file the charges. There were no plea negotiations as there was no plea that the Defendant could take aside from a dismissal.
Result: Prior to the verdict, but after the case ended one of the witnesses (a TSA officer) told the Defendant he should not have gone to trial because he had no Defense to the crime. Verdict: NOT GUILTY
Case: State of Florida v. J.B.
Charge: Felony Domestic Battery, Possession of controlled substance
Facts: Federal and State Criminal Lawyer Bradford Cohen was hired on this matter prior to charges to being filed and after the initial arrest. Immediately, Bradford contacted case filing to discuss the Felony Domestic battery. After providing documents including the relevant case law, the charge was dropped completely. In regards to the possession, the officers upon arresting the Defendant were told that he kept drugs in his desk. They asked his wife for permission to search his desk. She granted them permission to search the desk and they found controlled substances within the drawers.
Result: Motion to Suppress was filed asserting that the Defendant's wife had no authority to allow the officers to search the Defendant's Desk. After filing the Motion, the State AGREED that there was a violation of the 4th amendment and voluntarily, DISMISSED the case. This entire matter was dismissed within 70 days of initial hiring.
Criminal Case: State of Florida v. J.A.
Charge: Possession of a Firearm, Carrying a concealed Firearm, Possession of a controlled substance and Violation of an Injunction
Facts: Fort Lauderdale Criminal Lawyer Bradford Cohen got this case prior to the State of Florida filing formal charges. This is always recommended as many cases can be mitigated prior to formal charges being filed. This was exactly what happened in this matter.
The same day Bradford was hired he contacted case filing in regards to the charges and after providing relevant case law the charge of Carrying a Concealed Firearm was dropped. Bradford then filed a Motion to Suppress based solely on the Probable Cause Affidavit, which stated that a Seminole Police Officer cited the Defendant for having his music too loud at the Hard Rock Casino in Hollywood FL. It was evident that the Officer did not know the law, this citation is only valid on Streets and Highway. The Defendant was in a parked car at the time of the stop and initial encounter. That was just one of the many problems with the traffic stop which included an illegal search, an illegal interrogation and pat down.
Result: After reading the Motion to Suppress, the State Attorney conceded that it was a bad stop and DISMISSED all remaining charges. The State Attorney in this case should be commended for her professionalism.
Criminal Case: State of Florida vs. J.O.
Charge: Trafficking in Cocaine
Facts: Fort Lauderdale Criminal Lawyer Bradford Cohen was hired on this matter concerning a search of a warehouse pursuant to a search warrant. The warrant was obtained after an anonymous tip and a dog sniff of the door of the warehouse alerted to the presence of cocaine. The warehouse was purported to be rented solely by the Defendant and was locked from the outside with a pad lock. After depositions, it was revealed that there was a hole in the wall that could have been used to gain access to the warehouse from the individual renting next door. There was also no surveillance done on the warehouse at all to support a conclusion of drug sales. Florida Criminal Attorney Bradford Cohen filed a Motion to Suppress.
Result: After the Motion to Suppress which the court denied, the State felt that their case had substantial problems in regards to proving the charge and possible appellate issues with the Motion to Suppress. As such the State broke the case down from a trafficking in cocaine with a 15 year prison minimum mandatory sentence to a lesser charge and gave the Defendant 2 years probation.
Criminal Case: State of Florida v. J.P.
Charge: Count 1: Leaving a Child unattended Misdemeanor; Count 2: Felony charge of Child Abuse
Facts: The criminal client came to our Fort Lauderdale Criminal offices immediately after being arrested to speak about her case and retain us to mitigate the criminal liability. We immediately called the Broward County Case Filing division to discuss dropping the felony charge. After speaking with them in detail, they DROPPED the felony charge and filed on the misdemeanor. After review of the misdemeanor offense by our office it was clear that there was a constitutional argument based on the broadness of the statute as well as the ambiguity within the meaning of "unattended." We filed a Motion to Dismiss the charges based on the unconstitutional wording of the statute as well as the fact that we felt she did not leave the children "unattended" as there was a minor in the car old enough to open the door, ask for help, or otherwise provide assistance to the children who were under 6 years of age.
Result: Motion to Dismiss GRANTED. All charges were dismissed.
Criminal Defense Case: State of Florida v. M.R.
Offense: Driving Under the Influence DUI
Facts: This criminal defense case was interesting. The Fort Lauderdale Criminal Lawyer that was hired prior to our office had 18 months to wrap this case up. There were issues all over the case including accident report privilege material, medical records, and most of all a language barrier as our client spoke Spanish and the officers interpreted poorly. The previous Criminal Lawyer failed to file any motions, take any depositions, request any medical records or do anything to move this case forward. As I have said time and time again, there are no bargains when it comes to an effective defense to the charge. He fired his old attorneys and hired us. The Judge made us prepare for trial within one week of being hired. During that week we investigated the case, ordered med records, subpoenaed the treating doctor, filed Motions to suppress statements and reviewed the video. We showed up on the day of trial prepared to go forward arguing our motions and put on an effective aggressive defense.
Result: The State recognized the issues in the case and DISMISSED the matter prior to trial.
Case: State of Florida v. J.K.
Criminal Charge: Originally arrested for Trafficking; negotiated to simple Possession of controlled substance a violation of Florida Criminal Statute 893
Facts:This Miami Dade County Criminal case involved a young man was visiting from LA and was referred to us by our affiliate California Criminal Office. He was staying with a young lady in Miami Beach. In that house, the police found a plethora of alleged illegal substances along with controlled substances. The police had good cause to be in the home due to a call for the safety of the occupants and saw the items in plain view. Immediately upon being hired Bradford questioned the weight of the drugs found. He requested the drugs be re-weighed without "baggies" or what the police would characterize as "paraphernalia". It was then down filed from a trafficking charge with a 3 year min. man. to a simple possession cases. Due to the fact we had no good cause for a Motion to Suppress, Bradford negotiated with the State to try and reach the best resolution for his client.
Result: This criminal case worked out great for the client. Bradford was able to relay the fact that even though it was in plain view, the Defendant was a guest and was there for only a short period of time prior to the drugs being found. Based on those assertions and documents provided to the state, they did the right thing, and after 3 consecutive negative drug tests DISMISSED the charges against the Defendant. The Dade County State Attorneys Office should be commended for the result of this case.
Case: State of Florida Broward County v. J.O.
Criminal Charge: Violation of Probation (VOP) and a new charge of Driving While License Suspended.
Facts:This Broward County Florida Criminal Case was interesting because the individual was in need of some testing and evaluations by experts. The Defendant was driving while on a DUI suspension and was caught. The violation of probation did not immediately issue, so he was released on bond. The warrant was then issued about 1 week later. Criminal Lawyer Bradford Cohen had him surrender the day before he set a bond hearing. The Defendant only spent a day in jail before the hearing the next day. Florida Criminal Defense Lawyer Bradford Cohen discussed the need for treatment with the Judge and she agreed to Release him on his own recognizance (ROR) and seek treatment.
Result: Defendant returned 2 months later with a great report. He eventually received a reinstatement of probation. The State Attorney of Broward County initially offered revoke probation and 60 days Broward County Jail. The Defendant only spent a day in jail on a Violation of Probation, where he was driving on a DUI suspended license.
Case: State of Florida vs. S.B.
Charge: Possession of Cocaine Chapter 893 Florida State Statute
Facts: Broward County Sheriff's Deputy was running radar in a school zone. He stated that the Defendant was speeding and he motioned him to pull over. Defendant failed to immediately pull over, but stopped approx. 100 feet away. The Broward Deputy stated that in his experience if someone doesn't pull over right away, it is a sign they might be hiding something. Broward Deputy runs over to the vehicle and opens the door of the car. Upon opening the door of the car he states he sees in plain view a small white rock on the door sill. He picks it up and inspects it. At that point the Deputy realizes that it is crack cocaine and arrests the Defendant. Motion to suppress is filed based on the lack of probable cause to open the car door, and the failure to state that the item was immediately recognized as crack cocaine, without inspection.
Result: Motion to Suppress GRANTED. The court agreed that the Officer lacked the Probable Cause to open the car door for the traffic infraction, as well as the fact that the item needed to be inspected in order to determine its illicit nature. The Judge in this matter should be commended for studying the case law and issuing a well written Order.
Case: State of Florida v. S.L.
Charge: Various Possession Charges of controlled substances
Facts: Defendant was seen riding in a vehicle at 4:30 AM in the area of a few closed warehouses and one open warehouse. He was driving slowly. He did not commit any infractions whatsoever. He never got out of the vehicle, nor did he ever roll down his window. He never made contact with any individual during the 2 minutes the Officers observed the Defendant. The Officers did testify that there had been some theft of copper wire from the area. The problem is that this copper wire is in spools that are 4 feet high and 4 feet long. The Defendant was driving an Impala. The Officer testify that he leaves the area. They stop him to see "what he is doing" . Upon stopping him they smell the odor of Marijuana and search the vehicle. Upon searching the car, they find various pills. IF YOU ARE THINKING THIS IS A SLAM DUNK READ BELOW.....
Result: I added this case so people don't think I only put up our wins. Judge Jeffery Levenson Broward County Circuit Judge DENIED this Motion to Suppress. Despite 5-8 cases directly on point from our district and the Supreme Court of Florida the court decided that this case was analogous with a 3rd District Court of Appeals case where Officers observed a car at 4 AM doing 15 in a 30 driving 5 or 6 times around a shell station that had been robbed previously. THIS MATTER IS GOING UP ON APPEAL, IT'S NOT OVER YET....STAY TUNED.
Case: State of Florida v. Earl Simmons aka DMX
Charge: Attempted Purchase of Cocaine and Marijuana
Facts: Miami Dade Florida Criminal Offense- 2 Officers in a sting operation stated that Mr. Simmons approached them as requested marijuana and cocaine. They arrest Mr. Simmons and charged him with the above referenced criminal charges. This case got complicated due to pending charges in Arizona. Mr. Simmons missed court in Arizona and a warrant was issued. He was then picked up in Florida and was being held no bond on a Fugitive Warrant. Although the Criminal Judge in Florida had authority to grant him bond he refused to release Mr. Simmons. In response to the denial, Mr. Simmons said something to the effect of "I'm not gonna fuckin' be here on October 3rd." referring to his next Florida Court Date. Mr. Simmons was 100% right because we already had a deal in the works with the prosecutor in the case to resolve the matter, and get Mr. Simmons freed from jail.
Result: Mr. Simmons was looking at a maximum of 6 years in Florida State Prison. After negotiations with the State, Bradford was able to get him time served, essentially, 2 days in jail for the criminal offense.
Case: State of Florida vs. D.F.
Charge: 4th DUI Felony offense
Facts: Fort Lauderdale Florida; Broward County Criminal Matter- This is another unique criminal case. If you scroll down you will see that we had this Criminal case previously dismissed the day of trial, due to a lack of evidence to proceed. Well, the State decided to re-file these charges and try and go forward using a different method to convict the Defendant. The same Broward County Criminal prosecutor who handled the case previously, re-filed this case, without informing Bradford. As a result a new criminal warrant went out and the Defendant was picked up out of county. Immediately Bradford filed for a bond hearing which was GRANTED over the States objection. Although not notifying the Defense attorney of a re-file is not illegal, in our opinion it is un-professional. This time around the State wanted to introduce the video tape through witnesses that were on scene, yet they could not testify to the actual contents on the video. For trial it was assigned to a different prosecutor who was not only more professional, but understood the case and Motion's strengths and weaknesses. After a hearing on the matter and review of the case law, the Criminal Judge Denied the admittance of the video tape.
Result: All criminal charges pending against the Defendant were DISMISSED by the State after the Courts ruling and they decided not to appeal the ruling.