Potential Sentence-364 days in Cook County Jail
Wigell Law Group Result: NOT GUILTY AT TRIAL
Client was charged with battery. Specifically, the complaining witness (CW) accused our client of pushing him down and causing injury to his back at the tire garage they both were employed at. Client hired Wigell Law Group (WLG) to represent him.
While reviewing and investigating a case, no matter what the charges may be, the attorneys at WLG conduct a detailed analysis of every aspect. This detailed analysis also entails developing theories of defense that can be presented at trial.
After interviewing the client which was corroborated the manager’s testimony, who witnessed the altercation. Attorney DiQuattro employing Wigell Law Group Holistic Strategies developed a theory of defense. This theory of defense entailed the client did not possess the requisite intent to commit a battery coupled with a theory of self defense. This was based upon the client airing the truck tire during the course of the alleged altercation.
WLG prepared the case for trial. This diligent preparation also included several separate intensive trial preparation sessions with each the client and the manager. These trial preparation sessions were critical to ensure that both witnesses were prepared to testify and were able to withstand cross-examination by the prosecutor.
A bench trial commenced at the Markham Courthouse. The state called the CW who testified that the client was the initial aggressor who pushed him down and battered him. Effective cross-examination revealed inconsistencies in his testimony and cast doubt on his credibility.
WCD called the client’s manager as a defense witness. The manager testified that he witnessed the CW instigate the argument with the client. Additionally he further testified the client pushed the complaining witness away while he was airing the truck tire. He further testified to the procedures of airing truck tires and the safety hazards that disruptions to that process can cause.
Further, the manager was able to successfully withstand the State’s cross-examination which attempted to cast doubt on his credibility and attempted to show a bias against the complaining witness. The manager was able to successfully withstand the State’s cross-examination due to Attorney DiQuattro’s numerous preparation sessions with him.
Finally, the client testified in his own defense. The client testified that the CW was the aggressor. He further testified that the complaining witness, who was standing less than a foot away, was screaming and waving his arms at him while he was in the process as of airing a truck tire. He testified that he pushed the CW away not only because he was fearful that the CW was going to hit him, but because of the safety hazard that the CW was posing while the client was pumping air in the truck tire. This safety hazard posed by the CW could have caused the tire to explode with the potential of injuring everyone in its vicinity.
The State then attempted to cast doubt on both the client and the manager’s testimony by recalling the complaining witness as a rebuttal witness. The complaining witness essentially contradicted his earlier testimony and further cast doubt on his own credibility.
After hearing closing arguments, the court without hesitation found the client NOT GUILTY of battery. The court’s reasoning was that it found the defense’s witnesses more credible than the CW. The court further found the client was justified in pushing the CW away. This was not only because he was acting in self defense because of the CW placed him under the fear of bodily harm by waving his arms and screaming at the client, but that he lacked the requisite intent to commit a battery. The court further reasoned because he was performing a highly hazardous job duty while pumping air into the truck tire, he was justified in pushing the CW away to avoid a potential explosion that could have caused serious injury to not only both of them, but to other employees who were in the vicinity.
Client was grateful for WLG’s and Attorney DiQuattro’s hard work and zealous advocacy at trial that resulted in the NOT GUILTY verdict.