Client was alleged to have shaken and thrown his infant child causing multiple fractures and retinal hemorrhaging. Client gave videotaped statement admitting the offense and faced the Class X non-probationable charge of Aggravated Battery of a Child with a minimum prison sentence of 6-30 years with no possibility of probation. After Mr. Miller filed motions requesting that the county pay for a medical expert and that the client’s statement be inadmissible, the State agreed to reduce the charge and client was sentenced to probation and county time on a reduced felony.
Client was charged with a Class X felony with a mandatory minimum sentence of 6-30 years of prison without the possibility of probation for possessing multiple substances in large quantities at Summer Camp Music Festival. Attorney was able to convince the state to dismiss the Class X Felony and allow client to plead to a reduced charge with probation.
Client was in the airport. The state alleged that after being escorted off the plane that he battered several police officers and tried to disarm another officer. Client was arrested on multiple counts of Aggravated Battery to a Police Officer and Resisting Arrest. Prior to being indicted by a grand jury, attorney was able to convince the prosecution to file misdemeanor charges and ultimately allow the client to avoid jail and a criminal conviction entirely.
Client’s employer accused client of stealing a semi-truck. Attorney Miller argued that client never had the intent to steal the vehicle and that the case should not be criminal in nature as it was a dispute over unpaid wages where client simply refused to drive the truck back until he was paid back wages he was owed.
Our client was accused of attacking another person and breaking several ribs of the alleged victim. The evidence at trial included photos of a boot imprint on the chest of the alleged victim. The jury found our client not guilty.
Client was arrested after cannabis was found in the console of the vehicle he was driving. Jury trial was held where the police officer testified our client admitted the drugs found in the vehicle were his. Jury found our client not guilty.
Client was accused of striking and resisting a police officer after the officer stopped to check on the client when his vehicle was parked in the middle of a busy street during a heavy rain storm.
Client was an 18-year-old high school student accused of engaging in sexual relations with a junior high school student and was reported by the parents of the younger girl. Client was found not guilty at jury trial.
Client was charged with a Class X felony drug offense where the bond was originally set at $1 million with ten percent to apply. We filed a Motion to Reduce our client’s bond, and a hearing was held on the matter. After a hearing that lasted almost two hours, the bond was reduced and our client was able to post bond on the case.
A client was charged with a Class X Felony Possession With Intent to Distribute a Controlled Substance (a non-probationable felony). The prosecutor was asking for 18 years in prison. We had his charge reduced, and he was given probation in the middle of a hearing on a Motion to Suppress Evidence that we conducted.
Client was accused of placing drugs in his mouth and swallowing them.
Aggravated Battery of Police Officer where prosecutor had three police witnesses and police allege that our client purposefully scratched an officer breaking the skin. Client faced 3-7 years in DOC.
Client was involved in a fight at a local high school. The affirmative defense of self-defense was asserted at trial.
Client was accused of making threats and intimidating a person who was a witness in a relative’s criminal case.
Client was accused of yelling in such an unreasonable manner as to alarm and disturb his ex girlfriend. Case was argued on freedom of speech grounds and whether the communication was protected by the 1st Amendment.
Client was accused of stealing appliances from his sister and brother-in-law.
Client was accused of knowingly running from police during the execution of a search warrant.
$14,500.00 was seized pursuant to the execution of a search warrant. Probable Cause to seize money was not found after Bench Trial was held.
During a client’s second DUI arrest, he blew over .08 BAC and was involved in minor accident in a parking lot. We were able to negotiate with the State and convince them to amend his DUI to Reckless Driving with Court Supervision, thereby keeping him from having his license revoked and losing his job.
As the jury was waiting to be called in for selection, the case was dismissed on the prosecutor’s motion after we were able to keep certain evidence from being admitted at trial as a result of arguing a Motion In Limine immediately prior to trial.
Client’s Summary Suspension was rescinded after it was demonstrated that the officer did not follow the proper procedures when administering the Breathalyzer to the client.
Client was accused of punching a police officer in the back.
Clients were stopped by retail store employees with items in their purses which had not been paid for.
Client found not guilty at Jury Trial of Domestic Battery of his girlfriend and not guilty of Battery of his girlfriend’s son. The client had allegedly choked his girlfriend till she blacked out and threw her son over the porch. Self-defense was asserted on the client’s behalf. His girlfriend and her son testified against the defendant at trial. The jury found client not guilty of all charges.
Client was accused by his father of breaking a window at the father’s house. Client had blood on his hand and blood was all over the broken window and window frame.
Client was pulled over on a motorcycle late at night for failing to signal. Client failed all field sobriety tests on video. Demonstrated and argued the tests were faulty and client was not so impaired he couldn’t drive with ordinary care.
Client was pulled over for speeding late at night. He had open needle marks on his arm and syringes in his car and on his person which tested positive for drugs. Officer testified that client failed all field sobriety tests. State had to prove client was intoxicated by a drug to the degree he was incapable of driving safely. We demonstrated that the client did drive safely and that the State did not prove any drugs were in the client’s system.
After the State reviewed the contents of a Motion in Limine seeking to bar certain evidence from being admissible at trial and to bar the State from making impermissible arguments at trial, the State dismissed the client’s DUI charge.
Motion to Suppress evidence was filed after client was searched because he was standing on the porch of a house the police were executing a search warrant on, and cannabis was found on his person. Judge granted a Motion to Suppress Evidence finding that the search was unconstitutional based on research Mr. Miller provided in support of his motion.
State moved to dismiss a Peoria DUI after attorney Miller won the hearing on the Petition to Rescind Summary Suspension alleging the Illinois State Police had insufficient probable cause to arrest the defendant for DUI at a roadside safety check.
On the morning of jury trial prior to jury selection the State agreed to dismiss the DUI and rescind the summary suspension after agreeing with Mr. Miller that the State would lose if the matter were to actually proceed to trial.
Attorney filed a Petition to Rescind Summary Suspension asserting that police did not have legal grounds for seizure of the defendant or probable cause to arrest. Judge granted the petition and State subsequently dismissed charges based on court’s finding that police had not legally seized the defendant.
After conducting legal research, Mr. Miller drafted and filed a Petition to Rescind Summary Suspension and a Motion to Quash Arrest and Suppress Evidence based on there being insufficient probable cause to arrest for DUI. After the Court heard evidence at the hearing on the Petition to Rescind and Motion to Quash, the Court granted the motions, resulting in the dismissal of the DUI charges.
The client was charged with obtaining services through deception and then pushing the owner of the nail spa she was accused of trying to steal services from. Mr. Miller successfully argued that the client did not steal having her nails done in that the client paid for having her eyebrows waxed and would pay for her nails if they had been done in a satisfactory manner or would have been redone. Mr. Miller successfully argued that the client did not push the owner of the nail spa and that her touching of the owner was not in an insulting or provoking manner.
Client was charged with throwing an iron stove grate and hitting the alleged victim in the forehead, causing an injury that required five stitches. Mr. Miller argued that his client was acting in self-defense, that the victim was the aggressor, and that his client could use an object to defend himself.
Client was accused of shooting a warning shot at other hunters. Mr. Miller demonstrated at trial that the State could not prove that the defendant actually shot at the alleged victims thereby placing them at risk of bodily harm as required by the charge.
Client was driving his girlfriend’s vehicle and was arrested for driving on a suspended license. Police searched the vehicle and found cannabis in the vehicle. Mr. Miller argued that the client had no knowledge of the contents of the vehicle and the State could not eliminate the possibility that the cannabis was someone else’s even though the client admitted to smoking cannabis.
Client was accused of dropping a baggie of cannabis when officers had him step out of his vehicle at a roadblock in order to search the vehicle. Evidence at trial included multiple officers testifying our client dropped the baggie of cannabis to the ground as soon as he stepped from his vehicle. The judge found our client not guilty.
Client was an at-home daycare worker. A child alleged that the client struck the child in the face. Client, after being interrogated, admitted to police that they struck the child. Filed motion to suppress confession alleging confession was coerced. Motion was granted and the client was found not guilty at bench trial.
Client was the passenger in a vehicle which was stopped for a traffic violation. The officer noticed a pill bottle at the client’s feet and opened the pill bottle which contained cannabis. Upon further search, the officer found a hitter pipe under the client’s seat. Mr. Miller argued that the State did not eliminate the possibility that the items were the driver’s.
Co-defendants were accused of verbally threatening their neighbor while her boyfriend, an off-duty police officer, was present. Mr. Miller argued that swearing was constitutionally protected free speech and that the State’s witnesses were not credible. Motion was granted and Not Guilty finding was entered.
Client was accused of refusing to leave a bar in Downtown Peoria. Evidence included a police officer’s testimony that he saw a bouncer from the bar push our client out of the front door of the bar and onto the sidewalk. The judge found our client not guilty.
Client was accused of damaging the car of the alleged victim with her own vehicle. Evidence at trial included the alleged victim testifying she heard a loud screeching sound as our client pulled her vehicle away from the vehicle of the alleged victim. The two had been arguing over a mutual boyfriend. Evidence also included photographs of the damaged allegedly done by our client. The judge found our client not guilty.
Client was accused of purposefully ramming another vehicle with her car and throwing a brick at the alleged victim’s car. Mr. Miller argued that the State did not provide sufficient evidence to link damage to the victim’s vehicle to his client and that the police failed to do a complete investigation.
Client was accused of attacking another person at a local park after trying to keep the child of the alleged victim from fighting with her own child. Evidence at trial included photographs of various injuries sustained by the alleged victim. The judge found our client not guilty.
Client was accused of breaking a necklace worn by the host of a house party she was attending. Evidence at trial included scratch marks on the alleged victim near where the necklace was worn. The jury found our client not guilty.
Client was accused of burning down the house of an ex-girlfriend and faced up to seven years in prison. We were able to obtain a sentence of probation for our client.
Attorney Miller represented father in divorce who had moved to Pennsylvania and was seeking to have custody of the parties’ child and permission to move the child from Illinois to Pennsylvania. Child had resided with the mother during the course of the parties’ separation. After full custody trial, custody was granted to father and father was allowed to take son to Pennsylvania.
Attorney Miller represented mother who shared 50/50 time and shared decision making authority with the child’s father. Father filed a removal petition seeking to move the minor to Missouri. Mother ultimately was awarded full decision making authority and father’s time was modified to every other weekend with no time during the week. Father’s child support obligation was ultimately increased.
Attorney Miller represented father who had been delinquent in making maintenance payments and the other party was attempting to have him held in contempt. In response, Mr. Miller filed a petition on behalf of his client alleging the other party had not fulfilled their financial obligation under court order to the marital home. After hearing, the client was determined not to owe any amount of money to the other party.
Client had previous attorney who had order entered determining that a child support arrearage existed but not as to exact amount. Prior attorney never set the matter for hearing and attorney Miller was hired several years later as the opposing party was claiming they did not owe the amount that the client indicated they did. After hearing it was determined that the opposing party owed the client over $6,000.00, which was more than the amount the client believed they were owed.
Client was alleged to have abused the parties’ daughter. After full hearing, the Order of Protection was dismissed by the judge. Ultimately, client was awarded 50/50 time with the parties child in spite of the fact client was not in the country legally.
Client was alleged to have physically abused the parties’ children. Order of Protection was dismissed after attorney Miller provided the other party with evidence that the other party had physically stricken the children and had not adequately supervised the children on several occasions. After litigation but prior to trial, client ended up with 50/50 parenting time.
Opposing party filed a petition to restrict client’s parenting time. Client had 50/50 parenting time. Opposing party alleged that client was a physical and mental danger to parties’ minor child because father attempted to discipline the child for inappropriate use of electronic devices and hide the existence of an electronic device from client. Child refused to see client and opposing party assisted child and withheld parenting time. Attorney filed contempt petition against opposing party alleging opposing party violated court orders in regards to client’s parenting time, refusing to inform client of any and all electronic devices that the child used, as per court order, and failing to monitor the child’s use of electronic devices as previously ordered by the court. Opposing party had a psychologist testify at trial that client’s actions endangered the mental health of the child. Psychologist was not found to be credible by the court after attorney Miller’s cross examination. Opposing party’s petition to restrict parenting time was denied by the court after trial and client’s contempt petition was granted with a 30 day jail sentence being imposed on the opposing party, opposing party was ordered to make sure parenting time occurred and was responsible for reimbursing the client some of his attorney’s fees.
Client was indicated by DCFS as neglecting his son. Son had previously been bitten by a dog while in client’s care. Son later received extensive scratches on his back from a large dog while in client’s care. DCFS indicated client stating that he was neglectful of the care of his son and did not provide adequate supervision, thereby placing his son in danger of physical harm resulting in cuts, scrapes and abrasions. After full hearing where attorney Miller cross examined the mother of the child who was the one who filed the complaint with DCFS, the DCFS investigator, medical doctor who examined the child and having the client and the owner of the dog testify, DCFS returned a ruling overturning their original finding and client was no longer indicated for abuse of his child.