Recent Victories
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.
Criminal Case: State v. Couvell
Charge: Felony Battery on a sporting official
Facts: Fort Lauderdale criminal lawyer Bradford Cohen was hired by a client that was accused of committing a battery on an umpire. Multiple witnesses say our client, who was playing in an adult baseball league, took off his catchers mask and threw it intentionally at the umpire. The umpire claimed tens of thousands of dollars in physical injuries allegedly due to the incident.
Result: After a 2 hour deliberation the Jury returned a verdict of NOT GUILTY; the Umpire recovered nothing on his "damages"
Criminal Case: State vs. AM
Charge: Possession with intent within 1000 feet of a park, Possession with intent, Firearm charge
Facts: This Fort Lauderdale criminal client was driving through a private community with private stop signs. The Officers, members of the elite drug task force for the area, pulled the client over after they followed for some time. They pulled him over in front of a park in the area. They insisted he blew through 2 stop signs and they immediately smelled the odor of marijuana when they approached the vehicle. They ordered the cleint out of the care and searched the vehicle. In the car they found marijuana, $1,800 in cash, and a gun. Bradford argued that not only were the police officers not permitted to enforce stop signs on private property without an agreement with that properties HOA. That they were being less than honest in regards to the fact that the client blew through the stop signs and the way he allegedly blew through them. On cross examination the Officers testimony differed in key parts, remembering only the facts that hurt the Defendants case, but nothing that helped his case.
Result: Luckily, Criminal attorney Bradford Cohen was before a Judge that listened to the facts and weighed the evidence fairly and objectively. The Motion to Suppress was GRANTED and the case was DIMSISSED in its entirety.
Criminal Case: State of Florida v. G.S.
Charge: Official Misconduct; Fraud 9 counts in all
Facts: Fort lauderdale Criminal Lawyer Bradford Cohen was hired to defend a local Fort lauderdale Police officer. The Prosection was confused in their theory of the case and changed them throughout the criminal trial. The crux of their argument was that an accident that took place during the chasing of a convicted felon did not happen the way that the police officers were describing it as happening. The state put on an expert that had no higher then an high school diploma, and put on evidence that was controverted by other evidence in their possession. The trial was based on inuendo and assumptions and riddled with prosecutorial misconduct with improper statements.
Federal Sentencing: The clieint was fond Not Guilty on several counts and a Hung Jury on the balance. After argument the Judge then dismissed the rest of the charges based on Prosecutorial misconduct and in addition that the State failed to present the requisite evidence.
Case: Federal Criminal Matter US vs. F.C.
Charge: Trafficking in Cocaine (10 year Min Man)
Facts: This Federal Criminal client and his co-defendant were arrested attempting to purchase 22 Kilos of cocaine from an undercover FBI agent. Upon being arrested his family hired Federal Criminal Lawyer Bradford Cohen to represent his interests. Due to the minimum mandatory 10 year sentence, Defendant decided to take a plea on the case and hoped Bradford Cohen would be able to negotiate the best Federal Sentence he could receive.
Federal Sentencing: At the Federal sentencing hearing Bradford was able to take him out of the minimum mandatory criminal category and also argued many other points that would warrant a departure from the Federal Guide Line sentence. This client did not get any less time due to any co operation, classically called a 5K reduction. What was argued was the clients past history, his drug use, his personal life and his past heroic efforts in making a citizens arrest. After the argument the Judge sentenced him to 41 months with allowing him to enter into the RDAP drug program essentially reducing his prison sentence to 23 months. Going into the sentencing hearing he was looking at 120 months. His co-defendant received 62 months for the exact same participation in the crime and was not rewarded a RDAP drug program.
Case: Federal Criminal Matter US vs. M.A. (Federal Bond issue and Sentencing)
Charge: Mail Fraud, Wire Fraud, Sales Tax Fraud
Facts: This Federal Criminal Matter revolved around 3 co-defendants. 2 were arrested and/or surrendered immediately. The third Federal criminal defendant was located essentially hiding from the FBI. The family hired Criminal Lawyer Bradford Cohen upon his arrest. The facts were essentially that the co-defendants were conspiring to buy illegal cigarette shipments from the FBI without paying taxes on the units. The did this over the course of many years. The loss to the government was at first to be alleged to be over $750,000.00. The Defendant and his co-defendants did not co-operate and were looking at essentially a 2 and 1/2 year prison sentence as well as deportation.
Federal Bond hearing: At the Federal Bond hearing the government argued for pre-trial detention, alleging that the Defendant was not a US citizen had no real ties to the community and was hiding from the Government upon learning he was wanted for the Federal Crime. Bradford was able to argue at the Federal Bond hearing that he was ot a flight risk nor, harm to the community. He demonstrated those facts by bringing forth a litany of paperwork and documents indicating that the Defendant was enrolled in graduate school and never failed to appear in the past. He was GRANTED bond.
Federal Sentencing hearing: At the Federal sentencing hearing Bradford argued a multitude of reasons why the Defendant should receive No Prison time. Although the other Co-Defendant was sentenced to over a year in prison, the Federal Judge listened and accepted the Defendants plea and sentenced him to a non-prison sentence. The Defendant received NO FEDERAL JAIL TIME and the way the sentence was fashioned, he was able to stay in the country to finish his PHd at a local University.
Case: Federal Criminal Matter US vs. D.L. (Federal Bond issue and Federal extradition)
Charge: Federal Drug Conspiracy
Facts: This Federal Drug Charge began in Massachusetts, but the Federal Defendant was arrested in Florida. He was brought before the Florida Federal Magistrate for a bond hearing in Florida. The family hired Bradford to handle the Federal criminal matter. The Governments position was that of pretrial detention, they did not want the Defendant to have a Federal Bond. The Defendant had a lengthy criminal record and had very little ties to the State he was charged as well as very little ties to the State of Florida. The Government asked for more time to prepare for the Federal Bond Hearing. The Judge set the matter for the day after Christmas. Although Bradford had pre arranged and pre paid vacation plans, he knew the Defendants best chance at Federal Bond would be the day after Christmas, as the agents may fail to appear. As such, he re arranged his plans an attended the hearing.
Federal Sentencing hearing: Bradford intuition was correct. The Government failed to have their agent at the hearing. As such the presumption of pre-trial detention was waived and Bradford was able to argue a very reasonable bond secured by the Defendants signature, for him to be RELEASED from custody and make his appearance in Massachusetts Federal Court.
Case: State of Florida vs. D.H.
Charge: B.U.I. Boating under the Influence
Facts: This was an interesting case in that the Defendant was stopped on a Jet Ski and had all the indicators of being under the influence of alcohol. Road sides were conducted and the Defendant was arrested. He refused to give a breath sample.
Result: Defendants case was broken down to a lesser crime and he was not convicted of the crime, thereby saving his criminal record and future employment opportunities.
Case: State vs. S.S.
Charge: Possession of Drugs to wit: Oxycodone
Facts: This Fort Lauderdale Criminal client was stopped for a traffic infraction and then arrested for Driving While License Suspended (DWLS). Search incident to that arrest it was revealed that he had Oxycodone pills on his person. As such he was subsequently charged with possession of the pills as well. Defendant's defense was that he had a prescription for the pills. The prescription however was over a year old and it appeared was for different pills.
Result: Fort lauderdale Criminal Lawyer Bradford Cohen was able to negotiate with the State to DISMISS all charges, due to a discrepancy between the lab report and the police officers arrest report. Case DISMISSED.
Criminal Case: State of Florida v. S.H
County: Broward
Charge: Trespass after warning
Criminal Facts:
Defendant was allegedly asked to leave the Seminole Hard Rock Casino. She willing left, but whe she realized she didnt have any money she returned to the area to obtain her purse out of her vehicle. She was allegedly again asked to leave the area. The case proceeded to trial and it was revealed that the State witness never turned over a video that could have exonerated the Defendant as well as completely misled the court in regards to their testimony.
Result:
The court granted a directed verdict due to the questionable testimony coupled with the fact that they destroyed valuable evidence that would have exonerated the defendant and she was highly prejudiced by their actions.
Criminal Case: State v. A.S.
County: Broward
Criminal Charge: DUI property damage
Criminal Facts:
Defendant was driving when he lost control of his vehicle and plowed into a curb flattening all his tires and bending all his rims. When approached by the officer he was asked if he knew what happended to which he replied "you pulled me over". He then made statements such as "I cant put my head back I get too dizzy" and that he didnt recall hitting anything. He then refused to blow while on video. The video shows him swaying from side to side and slurring his sentences.
Result:
A Motion to Supress was filed and was GRANTED all of his statements on and off the video were excluded from the trial. The State never filed an appeal and on the day of trial he was offered a with hold of adjudication on a Reckless driving.
Case Name: State of Florida v. J.R.
Criminal Charge: Contracting without a License
Facts:
Fort Lauderdale Criminal Lawyer Bradford Cohen was hired by this handyman, who was employed by a handyman service and was one step from gettting his contractors license to be a general contractor. He was frantic as a conviction on a criminal case would prevent him from obtaining his GC license. Fort Lauderdale Criminal Attorney Bradford Cohen reviewed the file took depositions and investigated the case. The Defendant was on video discussing putting in doors without permits, as this was a complete sting set up by the Broward Sheriffs Office. During the deposition the Detective stated I don't know how you are going to defend this one we have him dead to rights." What the Detective didn't know was the law.
Result:
Bradford provided case law and discussed the exceptions to the statute in which he felt the Defendant fell into one of the categories. The case was DISMISSED the day of trial and the Defendant was able to obtain his GC license.
Criminal Case: State of Florida v. S.C.
Charge: Grand Theft
Facts:
Criminal Lawyer Bradford Cohen was hired on this Broward County case days after the alleged event. The Defendant was a 60+ women with absolutely no criminal history. She owned a nice restaurant for years and was well known in the community. The accusations are that she went into a local business and put a pocket book as well as a wallet from the store shelf in her bag. They then stated she walked out of the store with those items. They stopped her on the way out and brought her to an interrogation room. In that room they found a purse in a bag and a wallet. She allegedly admitted to taking the purse, even though she speaks Turkish and very little English. The video provided to the defense was grainy and did not show her placing a bag in her shopping bag. She stated that she was returning a bag to the store. She took it out of the bag to compare to others, and when she was done she picked up the wrong bag and placed it in her shopping bag. The State offered Pretrial Intervention, which the client turned down and refused as she would not admit to something she did not do. Bradford set the matter for trial.
Result:
On the day of trial the State of Florida DISMISSED all charges against the Defendant.
Case: State of Florida v. J.H.
Criminal Charge: Driving while Under the Influence of Alcohol
Facts:
Fort Lauderdale Criminal Defendant was allegedly passed out behind the wheel of his car at a draw bridge. Criminal Attorney Bradford Cohen was hired to attempt to resolve his DUI successfully. The Officer pulled up next to the car, placed his overheads on, shined a spot light in the car and saw the Defendant passed out behind the wheel. The Officer then exited the car, knocked on his window and opened his car door. At that time he did not suspect the Defendant of DUI, and his concerns for his safety were alleviated. He then told the Defendant to pull into a strip mall at least 100-150 feet away. The Officer then called the DUI task force, and ultimately the Defendant was arrested for DUI.
Result:
Criminal Lawyer Bradford Cohen filed a Motion to Suppress based on the custody issue after all the officer's concerns were alleviated. The Motion was GRANTED and the arrest was ruled to be unlawful.
Case: State of Florida v. J.B.
Criminal Case: Driving while Under the Influence (DUI) causing property damage; Reckless Driving; Several Traffic Infractions
Facts:
Defendant hired Fort Lauderdale Criminal Lawyer Bradford Cohen days after the incident took place. Essentially, the allegations were that the Defendant was racing a motorcycle lost control and hit a power relay box, knockingout the power to approximately 2 miles of area. When the Police arrived there was conflicting testimony about how many people were standing next to the vehicle, some said up to 15 some said just 2. One of the Police Officers said that the Defendant made a statement he overheard "shit I was going to fast." One of the other Officers testified that the statement was in response to the Officer asking the Defendant questions. They continued to ask the Defendant questions, and then conducted a DUI investigation. The Defendant refused all excersises and the breathalyzer. The lead Officer testified that it was "too dark" on the scene to read the Defendant his Miranda rights. One witness allegedly saw an individual in a red shirt and black shorts get out of the vehicle. Upon research of his back ground turns out the witness had 1 prior possession of marijuana and 1 pending possession. There was an extreme amount of conflicting testimony, unreliable testimony and testimony that was completely different the the deposition. Criminal lawyer Bradford Cohen filed a Motion to Suppress, essentially saying the arrest was not valid and the statements were taken in violation of State and Federal laws.
Result: Motion to Suppress was GRANTED due to the unreliable and conflicting testimony of the Officers, Case was DISMISSED completely.
Case: State of Florida v. R.M.
Criminal Charge: Trafficking in Oxy. over 28 grams
Facts:
Criminal Attorney Bradford Cohen was hired by the Defendant a week after his arrest. Defendant was pulled over due to erradict driving. Upon stopping the vehicle the Officer's noticed pill bottles in the center console searched further. The Officers found additional pills and evidence that the Defendant was attempting to sell the pills, along with over 6g in cash in the Defendant. He was arrested and charged with Trafficking that carried a 25 year minimum mandatory prison sentence. Essentially if the Defendant were to take a plea on the case the lowest permittable sentence that court could give would be 25 years Florida State Prison.
Result:
Due to some issues in the case and some negotiating on behalf of the Defendant, Criminal Attorney Bradford Cohen was able to negotiate, No jail, No House Arrest and No Prison Sentence and the Defendant was NOT ADJUDICATED so he was NOT A CONVICTED FELON after sentencing and he maintained all his rights.
Case: United States of America v. S.M.A.
Charge: Tax Evasion Matter; Federal Bond Hearing
Facts:
Federal Criminal Lawyer Bradford Cohen was hired on this Federal Matter within hours of the Defendants arrest. He immediately spoke to the client and realized that the Assistant US Attorney would be requesting a no bond hold or Pretrial Detention. Due to that fact he organized the information including citizenship, and family members to best represent the client at the pretrial detention hearing. It was important as the Defendant was not an American citizen, the government was arguing that he did not have close ties to South Florida or America, and he refused to surrender after he knew of the indictment.
Result:
The case is still pending. All of the Defendant's co-defendants did not get a bond. Defendant was GRANTED a $100,000.00 dollar bond, even though he was not a US Citizen and other issue concerning his situation.
Case: State of Florida v. T.K.
Criminal Charges: Lewd and Lascivious, contributing to the delinquency of a minor, computer exploitation
Facts:
Our client was a native of New York and was allegedly using his computer for intimate discussions with someone he believed to be under the age of 18 years old. This went on for sometime and the conversations were quite explicit. The individual in Broward County was in reality a Broward Sheriffs Deputy. Fort Lauderdale Criminal Lawyer Bradford Cohen was hired soon after his arrest. Defendant scored 26 months prison according to his score-sheet.
Result:
Defendant's charges were reduced to all 3rd Degree felonies. He received a non-prison sentence and did not have to register as a sex offender.
Case: State of Florida vs. J.V.
Criminal Charges: Robbery with a Firearm (10-20-Life)
Facts:
Our client was accused of essentially robbing an individual who was attempting to buy marijuana from our client. Criminal Lawyer Bradford Cohen was hired after another lawyer worked on the case for a year. The last offer to the previous criminal attorney was a jail sentence. The "victim" had several witnesses to the alleged crime, who under the scrutiny of deposition turned out to be less then credible. There was additional evidence that was also presented to the State of Florida, mitigating his alleged crime.
Result:
3 days before trial, our client was offered and accepted a misdemeanor and a withhold of adjudication with not jail time whatsoever.
Case: State of Florida v. R.B.
Charge: Violation of Community Control (4th Violation)
Facts:
Fort Lauderdale Criminal Lawyer Bradford Cohen made no promises when taking on this 4th Violation of Community Control. The Defendant was on Community Control on two cases, stemming from Burglaries. The only guarantee Florida Criminal Lawyer Bradford Cohen made was that he would work diligently and quickly to try and resolve these issues. The violation of community control was for Driving on a Suspended license. At a previous hearing the Judge warned him to get a good license and not drive on a suspended license as it would violate the terms of his release. The Defendant was pulled over after a zealous community control officer watched him get into his vehicle to leave work.
Result:
After pulling the records of how the stop was made, his work records, the driving records and other extrinsic evidence, Criminal Lawyer Bradford Cohen was able to show that he was eligible for a hardship license and could have gotten one if he simply went to the DMV. After hearing the argument, the state agreed to REINSTATE his community control, even though it was his 4th violation.
Case: State of Florida v. R.C.
Charge: Driving Under the Influence, Possession of Cocaine, Possession of Paraphernalia
Facts:
This Fort Lauderdale Criminal Case was originally filed as a felony offense for possession of cocaine and other criminal misdemeanors. The client was allegedly coming from a local bar when he was stopped heading West on Oakland Park Blvd. The report reflected that he was heading east, which was an error. The Broward Deputy stopped the client and made the observation that he was under the influence of alcohol. During the exercises portion of the DUI, the Deputy asked the client, "have you been eating powdered donuts? because you have a white substance all over your nose." He continued with his investigation and arrested the client for the above mentioned criminal offenses. He requested the client to submit to a breath test. The client agreed to submit to the breath test and the results were .131 and .135 respectively. Florida Criminal Defense Lawyer Bradford Cohen was retained and immediately called case filing department of the Broward State Attorney's Office. He requested that the cocaine be lab tested before filing the charges (as the drug was only tested on the scene) the lab drug test came back negative. The cocaine charges were immediately dropped and the State of Florida only proceeded on the DUI charge. In regards to the criminal charge of DUI, Bradford first attacked the breath results in a Motion to Suppress, which was GRANTED, the breath results were thrown out, then Bradford attacked the statements made by the Deputy and Defendant regarding the cocaine, as it was never charged. The Motion was GRANTED and the mere mention of cocaine of inference to it thereof was thrown out as well.
Result:
Defendant was offered a traffic ticket infraction which he accepted in a negotiated plea. He had no license suspension, no interlock, no immobilization, no community service hours, and no points on his DL.
Case: State of Florida v. W.M.
Charge: Trespass
Facts:
The criminal law office of Bradford Cohen was representing a very well known "graffiti artist" who was stopped by South Florida Police by some railroad tracks with another artist. The Police Officers say that they smelled like paint and then decided to illegally search our clients vehicle where they found a box of spray cans and other items related to his craft. They examined the train yard and could not find any fresh areas of paint. They noted that paint was found on the hands of both individuals. They made an arrest for trespassing. Criminal Lawyer Bradford Cohen filed a Motion to Suppress all evidence obtained due to the illegal stop, search and questioning of his client.
Result:
Before the Motion to Suppress could be heard the Broward County State Attorney's Office DISMISSED all criminal charges against the client.
Case: State of Florida vs. R.I.
Charge: Drug Trafficking
Facts:
Criminal Defendant was entering a concert series cruise in a large camper. The drug dog allegedly hit on the camper and the occupants of the camper were ordered out of the vehicle and a search was conducted where several illegal substances were found including large amounts of Marijuana, cocaine, ecstacy, hallucinogenics and various pills. The Defendant in the matter was arrested and charged with all of the illegal substances in the vehicle. Criminal Defense Lawyer Bradford Cohen was hired the day after the Defendant was arrested.
Result:
After discussing the case with case filing and providing the relevant case law, they agreed that the search was bad and they could not proceed with any certainty of a conviction. CASE NO INFO (Case was declined by the State Attorney and essentially dismissed)
Case: Federal Criminal Case United States v. M.F.
Charge: Mail Fraud, Wire Fraud
Federal Bond Hearing
Facts:
When Federal Criminal Attorney Bradford Cohen was first approached by the Defendant, he had already begun to co-operate with teh Federal authorities. Defendant was charged in a Federal Criminal case consisting of a multi-defendant Mail Fraud and Wire Fraud scheme. The Federal case revolved around selling vacation rentals and time shares. Defendant had over 10 convictions in the past, one for escape. He had a record from 1990 to 2008 including Federal Crimes. His parents although American citizens, were both from Germany and he had been out of the country on multiple occasions in the past 5 years. He had family in Germany and outside the U.S. The property that was subject of seizure, was the only property he owned in the US. The Government allowed a self surrender and set a bond hearing for the same day at first appearance.
Result:
After negotiating with the Government, they agreed to a $50,000.00 personal surety bond and his father putting up the equity in his home. The Judge did not want to go along with the recommendation, Federal Criminal Lawyer Bradford Cohen, was able to persuade the Judge to accept the negotiation and the Defendant was released the same day from Federal custody.