Recent Victories 5 | Fort Lauderdale Criminal Lawyer Bradford Cohen

Recent Victories 5

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.

Name: State v. K.A.

Facts: Deputies allegedly saw Defendant stuff a baggie with several smaller baggies into his pants. The Deputies searched the Defendant and found a large baggie containing several smaller baggies of suspect cocaine. He was arrested and charged with possession with intent to distribute.

Result: Motion to Suppress filed and GRANTED case DISMISSED by the state, no appeal taken on the victory by the defense.

Name: State v. Z.K.

Charge: 2nd Degree Grand Theft, Operating without a Car Dealers License

Facts: Broward Sheriff's Office investigated Defendant for allegedly tampering with Odometers. They arrested the Defendant on approximately 50 Counts. After speaking with the State Attorneys Office only 3 Counts were actually filed on the Defendant. Bradford announced ready for trial on the remaining three counts.

Result: On the day of trial the State DISMISSED the charges pending against the Defendant.

Name: State v. A.G.

Charge: Trafficking in Cocaine and MDMA

Facts: Officers responded to a domestic dispute. Officers testified that the women who answered the door looked to be calm. They ask to see her boyfriend and she goes up the stairs to get him. The officers follow her up the stairs and in plan view they see a scale, a bag of cocaine and a bong. They seize the items, and eventually search the room and find trafficking amounts of MDMA and another baggie of Cocaine. They allege that the Defendant gave them permission to search and signed a consent waiver form to search. Bradford files a MOTION TO SUPPRESS based on the lack of probable cause to search the room and alleges the waiver to search was signed after the search was conducted. During cross examination it is revealed that there is a conflict in testimony between the officers. Further, they failed to label which baggie of cocaine was found in which location.

Result: MOTION TO SUPPRESS GRANTED the trafficking amounts of drugs were suppressed.

Name: State v. N.G.

Charge: VOP (Violation of Probation)

Facts: Defendant a non US citizen was charged with a violation of probation for failing to repay over $200,000 in restitution and failing to inform his probation officer that he had moved. Defendant served a jail sentence to be followed by a term of probation. Defendant called Bradford from Germany. He had to come back to the US as his wife was very ill, but he could not with the warrant out for his arrest. Bradford filed an Emergency Motion to Dismiss the Warrant, based on a letter that the Department of Homeland Security sento the Defendant indicating that they were going to deport him unless he left the country after his prison sentence. Essentially, the Motion to Dismiss asserted that the State could not prove the violation was a willful one.

Result: Luckily, the Defendant had a judge that recognized the seriousness and importance of this matter and set the hearing within 2 days. After careful review of the facts, the Judge GRANTED the MOTION TO DISMISS, the warrant and the Defendant was free to come into the country with the proper paperwork to be at his wife's side for surgery.

Name: State v. G.S.

Charge: Trafficking in Cocaine and Marijuana to wit: a kilo of cocaine and 4 lbs. of marijuana

Facts: Defendant was charged with Trafficking in Cocaine and Marijuana. The substances were allegedly found in her house, in her bedroom, inside a closet. The State introduced testimony of the lead investigator who stated that they ran surveillance on the home and saw the Defendants entering and leaving the home over a three week period. In addition the investigator stated he found mail belonging to the Defendant in the room, and ID belonging to the Defendant. The min. mandatory on the case was 15 years F.S.P., the state offered 7 years Florida State Prison to the Defendant. Bradford and his client rejected the offer.

Result: JURY TRIAL, after the State rested their case, Bradford argued that they had not met their burden of proof to the Judge. The Judge based upon the evidence presented before her granted a DIRECTED VERDICT in favor of the Defendant.

Name: State v. G.G.

Facts: Defendant was charged with Aggravated Battery. The victim was alleging that he was beaten with a glass bottle by the Defendant. Three (3) of his front teeth were knocked out, there was a lateral 2-3 inch cut on his forehead which required stitches, and he had numerous facial abrasions. The matter was set for a JURY TRIAL. The State called the victim, the Detective, the EMT officer, the responding Officer, and the victims treating Dentist. The victims story was inconsistent with the factual evidence as well as his previous statements. The Detective interrogated the Defendant for an hour and half, using inappropriate and profane language during his interview. Bradford then grilled the Detective for over and hour and half on his lack of investigation, his failure to follow leads that could have exonerated the Defendant and the Detective's interrogation "techniques".

Result: After 15 minutes of deliberation the JURY returned with a verdict of NOT GUILTY.

Name: State v. R.R.

Facts: Defendant was charged with trafficking in MDMA. The MDMA was found in a vehicle Defendant was driving, and the container holding the drugs had the Defendants fingerprints on it. He was looking at a 3 year min man on the charge with a max sentence of 15 years. The Officers at deposition were caught in multiple lies and conflicts in testimony with each other. The Officers stated they never met the Defendant before, Bradford request incident reports that showed the lead officer had contact with the Defendant multiple times. Additionally, the employee files were pulled on all Officers involved. The lead Officer had a prior crime of dishonesty on his record. The lead Officer stated he smelled burnt marijuana in the vehicle. The responding K-9 officer stated that he did not smell burnt marijuana. One Officer was a rookie and the deposition taken was the first in his career. After swearing multiple times to a certain fact that was crucial to the case, Bradford finally broke him, and he admitted he was not sure of the fact. The matter was set for a Motion to Suppress.

Result: At the Motion to Suppress the Officers insisted on going forward and not giving the Defendant a deal. Yet, due to the facts of the case, the strength of the evidence and the total lack of credibility of these officers, the matter was broken down before the Motion and the Defendant was offered 36 months of probation.

Name: State v. R.S.

Charge: Trafficking in Cocaine This was a multiple Defendant Trafficking case. The State alleged that the whole family was part of an organized trafficking ring. Defendant had priors for Trafficking in Cocaine. Police served a search warrant on 3 homes and took a total of 3 kilos of cocaine and a pound of marijuana from the homes. Police found a kilo in Defendants bedroom under her pillow. Defendant was looking at mandatory prison minimums. After reviewing the case with the prosecution deficiencies in the case were discovered.

Result: Defendant received 24 months probation. Early terminated after 12 months.

Name: State v. A.M.

Charge: Trafficking in Marijuana Defendant and her boyfriend were sleeping downstairs, in a home that contained over 50 plants of marijuana. The marijuana was in a sealed room upstairs. Police obtained what the defense alleged was an illegal warrant to search the home. Defendant hired Bradford Cohen, soon after the initial arrest. Our offices immediately contacted the Prosecution and discussed the case and the deficiencies in the case.

Result: Prosecution declined to prosecute case. Case Dropped.

Name: State vs. P.M.

Facts: Defendant was charge with Felony DUI and Felony Driving on a Suspended License, it was his 9th DUI and was driving on a permanent license suspension. He scored over 5 years at the bottom of the guidelines. He was unsteady on his feet and could not perform the roadside exercises. The drew two sets of Blood tests one for the legal blood and one for the medical blood, as he passed out at the police station. The blood draw listed his blood alcohol at a .28 more then 3 times the legal limit. A motion to suppress was filed siting state misconduct.

Result: Motion to Suppress GRANTED. Defendant received a time served sentence.

Name: State v. A.F.

Facts: Defendant involved in a car accident causing $3000.00 dollars worth of damage to the other car. He had a strong odor of alcoholic beverage, blood shot watery eyes and slurred speech. Officer indicated he did poorly on the roadside exercises and was arrested for DUI, Driving While License Suspended, No vaild DL, and Careless driving. Discussed the case with the State attorney pointing out the weaknesses in the case in regards to accident report privilege and problems with a "wheel" witness.

Result: DUI was reduced to a reckless driving with no loss of license, all other charges were dismissed by the state.

Name: State v. A.D.

Charge: DUI Defendant stated on video tape he had just ingested a controlled substance.

Officer with over 20 years experience testified he believed Defendant to be impaired as he failed the roadside exercises.

Outcome: Jury Trial NOT GUILTY on all counts.

Name: State v. R.P.

Charge: DUI Defendant failed the roadside exercises. Deputy testified that the Defendant ws driving in a manner that almost caused a accident on a roadway.

Outcome: Jury Trial NOT GUILTY

Name: State v. M.N.

Charge: Aggravated Battery deadly weapon. Defendant a 40 year old male was accused of cutting a 15 year old unrelated male with a box cutter. Self defense was raised.

Outcome: Jury Trial NOT GUILTY

Name: State v. J.V.

Charge: Possession with Intent to distribute. Defendant was stopped with a friend in a parking lot. Search of the Defendants person revealed 2 lbs of marijuana in a shoe box defendant was holding. Defendant stated he thought there was something else in the box.

Outcome: Motion to Suppress GRANTED. Case DISMISSED

Name State v. S.H.

Charge: Possession of cocaine and paraphernalia. Female Defendant stopped and searched. On her person was found an alleged crack pipe and crack cocaine. She was scoring 30 months in Florida State Prison at the bottom of the guidelines.

Outcome: Motion to Suppress filed. State offered a withhold and short term of probation the day of the Motion to Suppress.

Name State v. T.M.

Charge: Possession of marijuana and paraphernalia. Defendant was stopped on a roadway and searched. Officer testified he smelled the odor of burnt marijuana coming from the car.

Outcome: Motion to Suppress GRANTED. Case DISMISSED.

Name: State v. J.H.

Charge: Violation of Probation on two prior cases and a new charge of Attempted Burglary. Defendant was scoring a min. of 55.8 months Florida State Prison on his new charge and the VOP. Before the VOP hearing a deposition of the victim in the new case revealed that he was lying about certain prior convictions on his record. Day of the VOP hearing the State offered to reinstate probation, modified to drug offender probation, with credit for time served on all three cases.

Case: Petition to Reconsider Denial of VISA application.

Facts: Applicant a 20 year old native of Honduras who entered the US on April 11, 2006 on a B-2 Visitor Visa. On July 27th, 2006, the applicant filed the application requesting a change in her nonimmigrant classification to F1 student.

The application was denied August 9th, 2006.

She presented herself to the Office of Bradford Cohen Law, who filed a motion to reopen and reconsider September 8, 2006, outlining the evidence to be considered.

Although very infrequently granted, after review of the entire record, and our presentation of additional evidence, the denial was reversed and the Motion was GRANTED

Result: F1 status change APPROVED

Client: O.M.

Facts: Client came to the office with immigration problems because he plead to a 1996 DUI in Lee County, Florida. Immigration wanted to deport him due to the adjudication on his record. We filed a Motion with Lee County, to withdraw his plea that was over 12 years old. We also investigated the 12 year old case and found valid defenses to his breath test.

Result: Case is reopened and the Judge allowed him to withdraw his plea from over 12 years ago. Client is now not facing deportation and is applying for his citizenship.

Newer Victories