SUCCESSFUL CASES:
Read about how Mr. Dodds successfully protected a client from prosecution and acheived a "not-guilty" verdict.

• CASE 1: UNLAWFUL USE OF WEAPONS
• CASE 2: CLASS X - UNLAWFUL DELIVERY OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE
• CASE 3: UNLAWFUL USE OF WEAPONS

DODDS LAW OFFICE
terrydodds@doddslawoffice.com
624 N. Main St.
Bloomington, Illinois (IL) 61701 Phone: (309) 829-9300
Fax: (309) 820-1019
Click here for map

Case 2: Class X - Unlawful Delivery of a Controlled Substance

Recently, Mr. Dodds successfully defended a client accused of delivery of a controlled substance within 1000 feet of a protected area. The stakes were high and had the client been convicted, the sentencing judge would have had no choice, but to sentence her to the Illinois Department of Corrections because the crime the she was accused of committing was a Class X Felony (non-probationable, with a sentence ranging from six years to thirty years in the Department of Corrections). In other words, the judge would have had no discretion to give her probation.

The State's entire case was based solely on the testimony of the confidential source (informant) that the police had solicited to help them and an audio recording (wire) that was utilized during the alleged drug transaction. Through testimony elicited by witnesses, Mr. Dodds was able to establish that this was the only evidence and that there were flaws in the evidence that the State did have. During the course of the trial it was established that the confidential source utilized by the State had 10 prior felony convictions ranging from theft to dope dealing. The audio recording showed that neither the confidential source nor the unidentified female ever identified the female by her name.

Mr. Dodds argued to the jury that cases were like structures or foundations of buildings; some weak and frail, and others strong like brick. He suggested to them that his job ordinarily was to chip away at the State's case or make enough holes in the foundation so that the weaknesses of the case were revealed enough to show reasonable doubt. He pleaded with them, however, that it wasn't even necessary for him to do so in this particular case because the case was so weak and that it had no foundation whatsoever. He pointed out to the jury that the foundation of this case was solely based on the allegations of Confidential Source who was a 10 time convicted felon solely interested in fabricating lies to help himself out of a jam.

Of course, no case is identical, and sometimes the lone testimony of a Confidential Source is evidence enough to gain a conviction; but ordinarily something else will be needed. Without some additional evidence, such as photographs showing the defendant coming or going, buy-money tying the defendant to the transaction, mail linking the defendant to the residence, possession of other narcotics when arrested, a co-defendant willing to testify (or turn state's evidence as it is often referred), a confession, or other such evidence linking the defendant to the transaction, it may be hard for the State to overcome their burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Cases like these illustrate why it is so imperative that an attorney with a trained legal eye skilled at eliciting helpful testimony with an ability to present a strong argument to a jury chosen by him and the client is so terribly important.

> Contact the Dodds Law Office for a free 30 minute consultation!