Recent Victories 4 | Fort Lauderdale Crime Lawyer Bradford Cohen

Recent Victories 4

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 v. J.H.

Charge: Possession of a Controlled Substance

Facts: Fort Lauderdale, Hollywood Florida Criminal Defense Matter- Defendant was parked at the Seminole Hardrock Casino in Hollywood Florida. The Defendants version of events differ greatly from the Seminole Police Officer's in this case. Both can agree the Defendants car was parked. The Seminole Officer testified that he approached the driver's window which was rolled up, knocked on the glass and instantly smelled the odor of burnt marijuana. The Defendant testified that he was a approached outside the vehicle and asked to open the car. He refused and was immediately arrested for resisting without violence. The car was eventually searched and the controlled substance found in the center area of the automobile. Defendant was then arrested. Bradford filed a Motion to Suppress the evidence calling into question the officers recollection and veracity for truthfulness of the events that evening. On cross examination several key facts the officer testified to were not consistent with the chronology of events.

Result: Motion to Suppress GRANTED case was dismissed by the Florida State Attorneys Office.

Name: Federal Criminal Charge of Possessing False documents

Facts: This was an unusual case where the Defendant was charged with applying for a passport with a false birth certificate and possessing a false birth certificate. After case law research and discussions with the AUSA on the matter, Defendant plead that case to 4 months with credit for time served. 6 months later they file a new case of filing for a Social Security card and Driver's License with a fake document, as well as lying on a federal application to wit: the social security application. Criminal Lawyer Bradford Cohen, made the argument during the sentencing of the first case that any cases that natural would flow from that case should be brought at the same time or the Defendant would not plea. The AUSA at that time agreed on the record and the Judge also had a discussion in regards to new cases that would include relevant conduct. In this new case, Bradford argued that it should be dismissed as it included relevant conduct of the first charge.

Result: This is a case where the AUSA should be commended for his diligence and resolve in seeing through the crap and doing what is right. An Order of DISMISSAL was signed by the Judge DISMISSING all charges connected to this new case.

Name: State of Florida vs. K.C.

Facts: Fort Lauderdale Police Officers stopped a vehicle after it almost hit a cruiser while backing up. The driver was arrested for the criminal charge of Driving While license suspended and DUI. The passenger was asked to get out of the vehicle and then questioned as to the contents of the automobile. She stated "there is a large amount of money hidden in the center console from my tips this weekend." She also stated that she owned the vehicle. Search of the vehicle incident to the arrest of the driver revealed a large amount of money in the center console with marijuana under it. She was then arrested and read Miranda. She was then asked whose marijuana was it found in the console. She allegedly replied that it was her's and not the driver's. She was arrested and charge with the Criminal offense of possession of a controlled substance. Criminal Defense Attorney Bradford Cohen, filed a Motion to Suppress the statements made to the officer prior to Miranda and after Miranda based on an illegal detention and interrogation.

Result: Motion to Suppress GRANTED. The case was dismissed due to the inability to prove custody and control of the drugs.

Name: State of Florida v. R.R.

Charge: Criminal Violation of Probation

Facts: Defendant's original trafficking case had 3 year min man. of Florida State Prison. After Criminal Lawyer Bradford Cohen discovered blatant lies in the officers testimony, and filed a Motion to Suppress, the State broke down the criminal charge to attempted trafficking and offered 3 years probation. While on probation, an anonymous tip, later purported to be his father in law (a convicted felon for armed trafficking) told probation that the Defendant living at a different address then the one listed and that he had firearms in the house. Later that same day several probation officers and police knocked on the door of the house the tip told them he was living in, and conducted an administrative search. Inside that home they found a shotgun and shotgun shells. They arrested the Defendant and violated his probation. Bradford immediately filed for a bond hearing. At the bond hearing he presented case law concerning constructive possession, and testimony to show the bias of the witnesses involved. The Judge granted him bond and he was released. Probation attempted to "rearrest" him later that day by filing an amended warrant adding the shotgun shells. Bradford went before the court on an emergency motion within hours and had him released once again.

After reviewing the facts, Bradford gathered all the evidence and filed a Motion to Suppress the search of the home and a Motion to Dismiss the shotgun shells violation. Typically, a probationer consents upon sentencing to allow probation to conduct administrative searches of their residence without a warrant. This case was unique because we were asserting that it was not his residence. There was testimony that there were bills in his name at this residence and that he owned the apartment. Further, there was no provision in the orders of probation prohibiting ammunition. At the hearing the probation officer was positive they would be winning the Motion and offered the Defendant a Florida State Prison sentence.

Result: The Judge DISMISSED the ammunition charge prior to the Motion to Suppress being heard. The Judge then GRANTED the Motion to Suppress. The Defendant is now moving for early termination of probation. I'm sure probation will think next time before filing frivolous violations based on unreliable, unchecked sources.

Name: State v. K.R.

Charge: Felony Driving Under the Influence, DWLS, and a Second Refusal

Facts: Defendant was charged with his 3rd DUI, DWLS and a Second Refusal to submit to a breath test. Depositions were taken and the case was prepared for trial. Bradford suggested that the Defendant got to trial. The State's offer was a year and 1 day in Florida State Prison. That offer was rejected. He was facing up to 7 years in prison if convicted on all counts.

Result: On the day of trial, while the jury was waiting to enter the courtroom the State offered time served (2 days) on all charges to run concurrent.

Name: State of Florida vs. M.M.

Charge: Felony Possession of a Controlled Substance

Facts: This client was the same criminal client that we obtained a NOT GUILTY for 2 weeks ago after a jury trial on an Aggravated Assault with a firearm on a Law Enforcement Officer. In this case, another Fort Lauderdale Police Officer pulled over my client for "illegal tints" he then stated that my client welcomed a search of his car. Upon searching the vehicle the officer testified that he found a bag of marijuana containing over 20 grams, and then arrested the Defendant. I put my client on the stand that told a completely opposite story. He stated he never gave the officer permission to search.

Result: The Judge found the officers testimony unreliable and GRANTED the Motion to Suppress. The case was DISMISSED.

Name: State v. Rob Van Winkle aka Vanilla Ice

Charge: Battery Domestic Violence

Facts: Rob was charged in Florida with the crime of one count of Misdemeanor Battery stemming from an incident involving his wife. There were statements taken of witnesses by Bradford that indicated that it was only a verbal altercation. All evidence was presented to the State Attorney's Office.

Result: Case Declined. The State Attorney declined to file charges against the Defendant.

Name: State v. D.F.

Charge: Felony DUI

Facts: Defendant was alleged to be speeding up and down a street in a residential neighborhood in Florida. The police pulled him over for initially the crime of reckless driving and speeding. They then smelled the odor of an alcoholic beverage emanating from the Defendant. He performed poorly on the roadside exercises and then refused to blow. He was charged with a 2nd refusal, a felony DUI and multiple citations.

Result: On the day of trial the State tried to get the Defendant to plea. Bradford advised the client not to take the plea. Before a jury was picked the State DISMISSED all charges against the defendant, for lack of evidence to proceed.

Name: State of Florida vs. A.N.

Criminal Charge: Possession of Controlled Substance and Paraphernalia

Facts: This individual came to us because he was going to be deported due to the above referenced crimes. We filed a Motion to Withdraw his plea based on the failure to advise him of his immigration consequences. At the first hearing the Judge DENIED the Motion saying that there was enough evidence to prove he knew of the consequences. Subsequently, we filed a Motion for Rehearing with additional case law and memorandum of law detailing why the first ruling was in error.

Result: The Judge GRANTED the rehearing and REVERSED his prior decision. The plea was withdrawn and the Defendant is no longer subject to deportation.

Name: State v. J.J.

Charge: 4 Counts of 1st Degree Attempted Murder with a Firearm

Facts: This was a difficult case Miami Dade Criminal Case, involving 3 very badly wounded victims. The Defendant and several of his friends were alleged to have gone to a gentleman's club. This particular club has been known for violence in the past. Once inside the club one of the individuals with the Defendant began to smoke a joint. Seeing this the Bouncers attempted to throw him out. In the process they began to violently shake and hit the individual. A fight breaks out in the parking lot. The allegations are that the Defendant then goes to his car retrieves a .45 caliber auto handgun and opens fire on the crowd of bouncers. One of the bouncers was hit in the knee cap, one in the abdomen, one in the leg and one in the elbow. Two of the individuals the Defendant was with "flipped" and gave statements implicating him as the shooter. Originally, the Defendant had no bond on the matter. This was a LIFE FELONY that was charged.

Result: Bradford was able to get the Defendant a bond within one week of the arrest. After discovery the State Attorney broke the charges down to 3 counts of Agg. Battery with a firearm and agreed to a NON-JAIL SENTENCE. (probation and/or community control) along with 150 hours of Community Service.

Name: State v. K.J.

Charge: DUI Drunk Driving

Facts: Defendant pulled over for speeding and erratic driving. DUI task force officer smelled alcohol on the Defendants breath. Asked the Defendant where he was coming form and how much he had to drink. Response was a bar and a few beers. He also asked the defendant if he was on any medication. Defendant responded that he ingested some prescriptions pills a few hours ago. He went on to fail all roadside exercises. He refused to provided a urine and breath sample. He called Fort Lauderdale Criminal Defense Lawyer Bradford Cohen within 2 days of his arrest.

Result: No administrative loss of license at the administrative hearing. After depositions and review of the tape with the State Attorney, a lesser charge of Reckless Driving was offered with no judicial loss of license and no impounding or immobilization of the vehicle.

Name: State vs. M.M.

Charge: 2 Counts of Aggravated Assault on a Law Enforcement Officer with a firearm to wit: a Glock 23 .40 Caliber 3 year Minimum Mandatory in Florida State prison up to 15 years for each count if Convicted.

Facts: Officers arrive on the scene of an alleged domestic dispute. During the investigation the Defendant approaches the Officers and gets in a verbal dispute in regards to them arresting his brother. The Defendant proceeds to call the Officers "crackers" and tells them to get off his property. The testimony from the Officer's is that he then goes inside the home. Within a minute the Officers claim to hear the racking of a gun. They then say the Defendant emerges from a side door and points a Glock semi auto directly at them. After some time they order everyone out of the house and place the Defendant under arrest. They search the home and find a Glock 23, .40 caliber pistol in a room on a nightstand.

Bradford successfully attacked the credibility of the officers by impeaching them with their prior statements and pointing out the obvious lies in their testimony. The cross examination at one point was so heated that it lead one officer to ask Bradford, "have I done something personal to you to deserve this?"

Result: After a JURY TRIAL the verdict was NOT GUILTY of all Counts.

Name: State v. C.B.

Charge: DUI

Facts: Defendant was followed for apprx. 3 blocks. Defendant observed weaving inside her own lane, then crossing the yellow solid line to the left of the vehicle almost striking a curb. Officer activated his overhead lights and Defendant failed to pull over. He then got on his loud speaker and instructed her to stop. Subject then failed the roadside exercises and was asked to take a breath test. Subject complied with breath test request and blew a .127 and a .124. Bradford pointed out the descrepencies in the testimony and the video, as well as the case law regarding the stop.

Result: Motion to Suppress GRANTED. Case DISMISSED.

Name: State v. C.W.

Charge: Possession of a controlled substance, child neglect, resisting w/o violence, tampering with evidence.

Facts as alleged: Officer sees a car parked in a dead end street, pulls up next to the car and gets out of the car. The driver makes a "furtive movement". The officer pulls his weapon on the Defendant orders him out of the car. When he gets out of the car the substance falls to the ground, the defendant tries to eat the substance and resists the attempts of the officer to retrieve the substance. There was a minor child in the vehicle. Bradford files a motion to suppress indicating that the initial stop was illegal.

Result: Motion GRANTED. Case DISMISSED.

Name: State v. M.G.

Charge: Carrying a Concealed Weapon

Facts: Defendant was accused of carrying 6 brass knuckles onto an airplane at the Fort Lauderdale International Airport. The testimony was that he placed a bag onto the X-ray machine and it was discovered under some clothes in his bag. They took him to a separate room where he was asked if he owned the knuckles to which he replied in the positive. He was on his way back to Jamaica. Bradford raised the issue of actual and constructive possession of the bag where the knuckles were found.

Result: The matter was set for TRIAL. After Trial the Defendant was found NOT GUILTY.

Name: State v. A.A.

Charge: Battery

Facts: While on a cruise the Defendant was in an altercation with cruise ship security. This was due to the way they were treating his son and the physical and verbal abuse his son received at the hands of the cruise ship security. There were many issues that surrounded the case in terms of jurisdiction and eye witness testimony. Bradford announced ready for trial the first time up and pointed out the weaknesses in the State's case.

Result: On the day of Trial the State DISMISSED all charges.

Name: State v. N.B.

Facts: This is the Defendants 2nd DUI within 5 years. She was looking at a minimum of 10 days in jail up to a year. She failed the roadside exercises, according to officer and subsequently failed the breath test, blowing over a .08. The testimony of the officer in regards to her performance on the roadside exercises corresponded to the video tape provided to the defense. Bradford attacked the method and manner of the traffic stop. A Motion to suppress was filed.

Result: Motion to Suppress GRANTED. The State did not appeal. Case DISMISSED.

Newer Victories | Older Victories