Stobbs Law Office

The word “significant” has a different meaning to different people. It would be easy for me to list ten cases where my client was acquitted or the charges dismissed and claim that case was “significant” because of the result. In actuality, some of the most “significant” cases I handled were significant because of how the outcome impacted me personally or how the outcome made a difference to my client. The following contested cases are the most significant to me because from a personal standpoint they impacted me, or because of the effect my hard work had on my client’s life.

1. U.S.A. v. Blade
2. U.S.A. v. Thomas
3. U.S.A. v. Hector Solares
4. Griffen v. Bowsersox
5. U.S.A. v. Glen Hopkins
6. U.S.A. v. Norberto Laurel
7. U.S.A. v. Nikkie Kerins

8. U.S.A. v. Rodrigo-Rodriguez
9. U.S.A. v. Kolb
10. U.S.A. v. Banegas-Fernandez
11. U.S.A. v. Singh
12. U.S.A. v. Wabash
13. U.S.A. v. Akumu

U.S.A. v. Blade
Presiding Judge: N/A
Approximate dates of representation: 1994
Brief summary: Mr. Blade’s case was significant, because this was my first “victory” in the federal system. I was appointed to represent Mr. Blade while still working at my Dad’s office and because of my youth and inexperience was not given any “real” cases to defend. Mr. Blade was charged with a probation revocation and I diligently researched each and every angle available and was able to prevail at the Hearing on the Motion to Revoke Probation. There was no judge or opposing counsel, but the significance of Mr. Blade’s case was that for the first time I saw that I had a unique talent regarding my ability to represent a criminal defendant, and through hard work to get a good result. My success in Mr. Blade’s case convinced me that because of my fluency in Spanish and talent in presenting a case to a fact finder that I could be successful if I devoted myself to federal criminal law. Shortly after representing Mr. Blade I made the very difficult decision to leave my Dad’s office and strike out on my own, which is the most significant thing I have done as an attorney.

Back to top
U.S.A. v. Thomas, No. 95-40003
Presiding Judge: Paul E. Riley
Approximate dates of representation
Click here to read a brief summary.
Brief summary: While on my own for approximately six months I had a smattering of success, but I was becoming frustrated and having self doubts as to whether or not I had made the right decision leaving the comfort of my Dad’s office. Assistant U.S. Attorney Tom Leggans had a very strong case against all of the Defendants, and my client was alleged to be the “ring leader.” Mr. Thomas’ case was “significant” because this is the case where I met Burt Shostak, who represented a co-defendant. Burt Shostak is a nationally renowned criminal defense attorney who was essentially representing his client pro bono. Each morning, Burt and I arrived nearly two hours before the trial started and in the three weeks that the trial lasted Burt and I spoke every morning before trial and every evening after trial. Burt taught me what it meant to fight even when the odds seemed insurmountable. After I gave my closing argument in Thomas, Judge Paul E. Riley, Assistant U.S. Attorney Tom Leggans, and Burt Shostak all complimented me on the fine job I did and Thomas was the springboard to most of the success I have enjoyed as an attorney.

Back to top
U.S.A. v. Hector Solares, No. 94-30064
Presiding Judge: William D. Stiehl
Approximate dates of representation: 12/94 - 8/95
Brief summary: Prior to this jury trial I had been co-counsel with Assistant Federal Public Defender Phil Kavanaugh in two other federal jury trials which resulted in acquittals, and this was the first “Not Guilty” verdict I received while representing a Defendant on my own. Assistant U.S. Attorney Mike Quinley, who was my trial advocacy teacher in law school was my adversary and Mr. Solares was the only one of the four co-defendants to be found “Not Guilty” by the jury. I had not been on my own for very long and discovery in Mr. Solares’ case consumed two or three banker’s boxes, yet I was able to devote the time necessary to master the discovery and convince the jury after a six week trial that the Government had not proved Mr. Solares guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. After the verdict, Mr. Quinley told me that he was proud of me, and that I had done a good job for my client. This sentiment was echoed by Judge Stiehl and this case gave me a great deal of confidence in my abilities as a trial lawyer.

Back to top
Griffen v. Bowsersox, No. 96-3678
Presiding Judge: Carol E. Jackson
Approximate dates of representation: 7/96 - 9/97
Brief summary: I was appointed with Jerry Sims, to represent Milton Griffen who was sentenced to death for murdering an innocent victim. The Missouri Attorney General’s office, represented by Michael Spillane, prevailed and Mr. Griffen was put to death. This case gave me a profound respect for what the ultimate penalty is in our society, and the protections we as Americans enjoy as a result of due process. It is very powerful to actually represent someone on death row, whose life is literally in your hands. Mr. Griffen’s case taught me the effect law has on society and the value of life. I worked extraordinarily hard for Mr. Griffen, and part of my work included going to the victim’s family and this was the most powerful experience I have had as an attorney, and while Mr. Griffen was ultimately put to death for his actions, he was afforded every bit of protection afforded by the due process clause of the Constitution.

Back to top
U.S.A. v. Glen Hopkins, No. 94-40011
Presiding Judge: Paul E. Riley
Approximate dates of representation: 7/96 - 9/97
Brief summary: This case was significant to me, because it is where all of my skills began coming together. Glen Hopkins was acquitted by a jury after approximately 40 witnesses testified on behalf of the Government. I was so sure of my client’s innocence and was able to effectively prove to the jury that all 40 of these witnesses were lying to obtain a Rule 35 Downward Departure, or that they had faulty memories. My client was unable to leave the courtroom after the verdict because he was crying so much. Mr. Coleman, who is deceased, told me that he was sure of his evidence but that my defense created some doubts in his own mind as to my client’s guilt. Mr. Hopkins remains a productive member of society and every few years we speak, and it is with great pride that I was able to help this wonderful gentleman. It was an extraordinarily difficult case, but I was fortunately able to convince the jury that the Government had not proven my client guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Back to top
U.S.A. v. Norberto Laurel, Dist. No. 92-40004, Appeal No. 97-4205
Presiding Judge: James L. Foreman/Seventh Circuit
Approximate dates of representation: 8/97 - 7/98
Brief summary: The appeal was based on a conditional plea under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11. Assistant U.S. Attorney Ralph Friederich agreed to dismiss the Indictment against Mr. Laurel after the Seventh Circuit entered an order affirming U.S. District Court Judge Foreman’s ruling denying my Motion to Dismiss the Indictment for a double jeopardy violation. I thought the Seventh Circuit’s decision was wrong, so I prepared a Petition for Rehearing En Banc and before the Seventh Circuit ruled on this Motion the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Illinois dismissed its indictment against my client. Because of this Mr. Laurel’s sentence was effectively cut in half and he was released from the Bureau of Prison shortly after the Southern District of Illinois Indictment was dismissed.

Back to top
U.S.A. v. Nikkie Kerins, No. 98-30136
Presiding Judge: G. Patrick Murphy
Approximate dates of representation: 2/99
Brief summary: During the week preceding the President Day Holiday, I learned that Rod Irvin, a newly appointed attorney to the Criminal Justice Act Panel had grave reservations about entering into a cooperating Plea Agreement with the Government where his client, Nikkie Kerins, was going to be required to plead guilty to an Offense Level 38 which would have produced a sentence of approximately 18 years. Nikkie had never been in any “real” trouble before, was almost murdered while assisting Government agents and gave a “confession” while she was high on drugs. The Government was attempting to use Nikkie’s post arrest statement to ratchet up her Offense Level and Mr. Irvin did not know how to proceed. I called him and offered my services on a pro bono basis, worked through the President Day weekend and prepared a sentencing memorandum. After a contested sentencing, we were victorious and Nikkie was sentenced to the mandatory minimum five year sentence and eventually a Rule 35 was filed on her behalf so that she received the sentence she deserved. But for me, Nikkie would have been sentenced to an excessive amount of time and Chief Judge G. Patrick Murphy was complimentary to me for the amount of work I did in such a short period of time. I believe Nikkie is now out of jail, drug free, and I believe a productive member of society and it is gratifying to know that my efforts truly made a difference in her life and after her sentencing she cried because of the outcome and no words can express the feeling of pride that I felt when I saw the effect my hard work had on her. I have a great deal of respect for Rod Irvin who was not afraid to call me and say that he needed help.

Back to top
U.S.A. v. Rodrigo-Rodriguez, Dist. No. 95-22, Appeal No. 96-1292
Presiding Judge: Jean C. Hamilton/Eighth Circuit
Approximate dates of representation: 6/95 - 6/96
Brief summary: I tried this case solely for sentencing purposes, meaning that each question I asked dealt with a different aspect of sentencing which is an extraordinarily difficult task for any trial attorney to attempt to do. Assistant U.S. Attorney John Ware and I could not reach an agreement as to relevant conduct and I was concerned that because other co-defendants were going to trial, my client’s sentence could be greatly increased if he entered a “straight-up plea” and did not go to trial. I knew that I risked losing three points for Acceptance of Responsibility by going to trial, and at sentencing Chief Judge Jean C. Hamilton sided with the Government as to what she felt Mr. Rodriguez’ relevant conduct was. I was successful on appeal where I used the Sentencing Memorandum I prepared as a basis to show why we should prevail. Mr. Rodriguez was re-sentenced to a sentence which he would have pleaded guilty to originally, and this was significant for him because I was able to use my “expertise” in federal criminal law to go to trial, lose but ultimately win on appeal.

Back to top
U.S.A. v. Kolb, No. 00-40047-JPG.
Presiding Judge: J. Phil Gilbert
Approximate dates of representation: 10/99 - 1/01
Brief summary: Mr. Kolb is housed at the maximum facility prison located in Marion, Illinois, and he was charged by the United States with possessing weapons. Assistant U.S. Attorney Jim Cutchin and I were in a two day trial before the Honorable J. Phil Gilbert and on January 18, 2001, the jury returned a verdict of “Guilty” on Count 1 and “Not Guilty” on Count 2. There were three or four related cases with similar facts and Mr. Kolb was the only Defendant who was acquitted on any Count and this case was significant because it reaffirmed to me the value of the jury process in our country. Mr. Kolb requested and was given a fair and impartial trial and I was proud to be able to be of assistance to him and I believe it confirmed to Mr. Kolb that even prisoners at the maximum facility in Marion will be treated fairly.

Back to top
U.S.A. v. Banegas-Fernandez, No. 99-30174-GPM.
Presiding Judge: G. Patrick Murphy
Approximate dates of representation: 8/99 - 3/00
Brief summary: Mr. Banegas was charged with possession of a false green card and social security card and would have been a routine case. However, Mr. Banegas was a native Honduran who entered the United States illegally, while literally walking from Honduras to the United States. After hurricane Mitch ravished Honduras in 1999, he was granted Temporary Permanent Status, meaning that at the time he was indicted, Mr. Banegas was technically in the United States “legally.” Assistant U.S. Attorney Robert L. Garrison and I fought very hard over the impact that Mr. Banegas’ Temporary Permanent Status would have on the case and Chief Judge G. Patrick Murphy had a very long Hearing and I believe appreciated the unique argument I was making in my Motion to Dismiss Indictment and Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss Indictment. Mr. Banegas told me that I was the only person who had ever fought for him and it was very significant for him to see that I was taking my job so seriously to ensure that he received a just and fair trial, which he did.

Back to top
U.S.A. v. Singh, No. 04-40047-JPG
Presiding Judge: J. Phil Gilbert
Approximate dates of representation: 8/04 - 3/05
Brief Summary: Mr. Singh is a truck driver who was born in India and resided in California. While driving a load of tomatoes—and 50 kilograms of cocaine—from California to the East Coast he was stopped in the Southern District of Illinois. Mr. Singh was denied bond and was ordered detained by the U.S. Magistrate. After the detention hearing, Mr. Singh hired an attorney from Texas who immediately began negotiating with the Government for a cooperating plea agreement. Mr. Singh hired California attorney Tony Capozzi who in turn hired me as local counsel. The first thing we did was to file a Motion to Reconsider Bond, and fortunately we were successful and Mr. Singh was released on pre-trial bond. We then filed a Motion to Suppress the traffic stop and at the hearing Mr. Capozzi and I used the videotape of the traffic stop in such a way that we were able to show that the Trooper had lied in several portions of his police report. Judge Gilbert agreed with our position and suppressed the evidence seized during the traffic stop.

Back to top
U.S.A. v. Wabash, No. 05-CR-40029-JPG
Presiding Judge: J. Phil Gilbert
Appoximate dates of representation:05/05 - 08/06
Brief Summary: In my opinion the Environmental Protection Agency decided to make an example out of a Farm Services Company for alleged pesticide drift. Ultimately, myself and co-counsel were able to have the case dismissed because we were able to convince Judge Gilbert that the Statute under which Wabash was charged was vague. About a week before the Statute of Limitations was going to run, the U.S. Attorney’s Office filed criminal charges against Wabash and two of its employees. This was the first time in the United States that anyone had ever been charged with violating the Aatrex and Bicep II Magnum label. After working on Wabash for the better part of a year we put together a Motion to Dismiss which the Government responded to. After a Hearing U.S. District Court Judge Gilbert entered an Order dismissing the case due to the vagueness of the Statue at issue. This is a case which was hard fought by myself and the other two defense attorneys. Fortunately Wabash and the other Defendants had attorneys who were willing to put forth the effort to ensure a positive outcome. Since it was a first of its kind in the United States to be charged everything was new including the arguments we made to have the Statute declared unconstitutional.

Back to top
U.S.A. v. Akumu, No. 05-CR-30157-MJR
Presiding Judge: Michael Reagan
Lead Counsel: Steve Wiliams
Approximate dates of representation:08/06
Brief Summary: Another first of its kind case in the Southern District of Illinois, USA v. Akumu, I volunteered my time and effort to help Assistant Federal Public Defender Steve Willams represent an individual charged with making terrorist threats against the United States. Mr. Akumu is a Kenyan native who on an earlier occasion in Texas had threatened to blow up a plane flying to Africa and made the same type of threats against the Arch and Adams Mark Hotel, which are located in downtown St. Louis. While mentally fit to stand trial, Mr. Akumu had a great deal of mental problems. Steve Williams was able to show the jury that the threats made against the Arch and Adams Mark were not credible due to the fact that the Government had not taken the terrorist threats in Texas seriously. Our theory was that Mr. Akumu was nothing more than a troubled young man, not a terrorist and as such should be acquitted. After a four day trial, the jury was convinced that Mr. Akumu was not guilty and they returned a not guilty verdict, which is a big accomplishment, especially in today’s world.

Back to top

Significant Cases: