STATE vs. R: Client charged with burglary of an occupied dwelling, dealing in stolen property, grand theft, and defrauding a pawn broker. Victim testified that his custom-made golf clubs were stolen at around noon. They were pawned nearby within a few hours. The jury found attorney Bodiford's client NOT GUILTY of the burglary, and he was convicted of only dealing in stolen property. He avoided a 30-year mandatory sentence!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
STATE vs. M: The client was charged with attempted premeditated first-degree murder. The victim was shot at close range in the head, and actually lived. He testified with a bullet lodged in his skull! Through cross-examination, Mr. Bodiford was able to establish numerous fatal inconsistencies in the victim's and witnesses' stories. Mr. Bodiford's client was found NOT GUILTY of the attempted murder, and guilty only of attempted involuntary manslaughter. He went from looking at a life felony to only a third-degree felony!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
STATE vs. K: The client, a LAWYER and FORMER POLICE OFFICER, was charged with attempted murder of a law enforcement officer. At trial, the State tried to prove that the defendant had tried to shoot a SWAT officer outside of his home. The jury found Mr. Bodiford's client NOT GUILTY of the attempted murder, but guilty of criminal mischief for shooting the marked police car, thereby avoiding a life felony.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
STATE vs. B: The State charged Mr. B. with one count of second degree murder, and two counts of attempted second degree murder. Mr. Bodiford refused to waive his client's right to a speedy trial, and forced the State to drop all charges against Mr. B. The State had a recorded telephone call of Mr. B. allegedly admitting to the shooting, and still could not go forward. This is an example of the dedication of the firm to never relent, and to force the State into a corner. Mr. Bodiford vindicated his client by blasting the government, and was quoted by the Ft. Myers News Press saying that the entire case was a "shoddy investigation by the police and a sloppy prosecution by the State." His client is free and with his family.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
STATE vs. S: (Aggravated assault on a law enforcement officer, aggravated fleeing and eluding) Despite having numerous officers testify to a jury that Mr. S. had tried to run over an officer with a truck and then led them on a 95-mile per hour chase through Tampa, Mr. Bodiford convinced the jury that his client was NOT GUILTY on the assault charge. Even with overwhelming testimony about the chase - which occurred after the police SHOT Mr. S. 4 times - the jury could not decide on Mr. S.'s guilt, and hung. The result: Mr. S. was facing 30+ years on all counts, and ended up with a "time served" on the fleeing count - and a NOT GUILTY on the assault! His client is now free to file a civil rights violation case against the City of Tampa.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES vs. K: (Federal drug and firearm possession) On an extensive motion to suppress filed by Mr. Bodiford, District Judge Lazzara found that the Tampa Police Officers lied about Mr. K. giving consent to enter his apartment and search. Mr. Bodiford elected to have Mr. K. testify, and the judge found him to be more credible than the police - even with Mr. K.'s 35+-year criminal record! The evidence was suppressed, and the case was dismissed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
STATE vs. R: The client was accused of seriously beating his girlfriend, who had falsely accused him of beating her five times in the past. Mr. Concepción and his client remained determined to make the state prove these, once again, false accusations and set the case for trial. Despite photos of the injuries and the testimony of the arresting officer, Mr. Concepción was able to convince the jury to see through the State's case and use their common sense to realize that the victim was merely a scorned woman and that the events she described happened only in her mind on a night when she was severely intoxicated. After short deliberations the client was declared NOT GUILTY. Mr. Concepción was also able to secure a dismissal on her false accusations that the client had violated his injunction while out on bail.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
STATE vs. V: Mr. Concepción's client was charged with a number of cocaine trafficking charges. The evidence revolved around the identification testimony of a confidential informant ("CI") and the TPD detective who supposedly eyeballed the drug buy and followed the seller to figure out where he lived. The client's name was learned solely due to a driver's license photo and the CI's testimony that the guy in the photo was the same guy who sold the drugs. Mr. Concepción and his client remained ready for trial while the State refused to come down off its prison offer. After the jury was selected, the CI came in, took one look at the client, and told prosecutors that the man on trial was NOT the man he sold drugs to. Because of the client and the defense team's tenacity and desire to take the case to trial - and the willingness to put the State to the test - an innocent man was set free!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
STATE vs. W: Mr. Bodiford's client was charged with trafficking cocaine. His motion to suppress evidence was GRANTED. The officer did not see any traffic infractions and knew that the car was registered to an owner whose license was suspended. The officer could not see the driver to try to establish that he matched the owner before he pulled the car over. Judge Foster ruled that the traffic stop was illegal. CASE DISMISSED!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
STATE vs. M: Mr. Bodiford's client (a doctor) was charged with DUI. Mr. Bodiford's Motion to Suppress evidence was GRANTED. Judge Ober ruled that the traffic stop was illegal as the officer only saw the car leave the lane twice. CASE DISMISSED! |
