Verdicts and Settlements

*In a 2006 jury trial in Superior Court, Cumberland County (N.J.), attorney Louis Charles Shapiro defended a client against a charge of third-degree criminal coercion. The client was charged with tampering with a witness against him in a previously dismissed weapons case. The trial resulted in a hung jury, and a mistrial was declared. Prior to re-trial, the prosecutor offered, and the client accepted, a plea to a disorderly persons offense consisting of fines only.

*In a 2006 case in Superior Court, Cumberland County (N.J.) handled by Louis Charles Shapiro, a client had been indicted for second-degree burglary, third degree weapons offenses and third-degree terroristic threats. If he had been convicted, the client was exposed to an extended term of 10-20 years due to his prior criminal history. Mr. Shapiro represented this client at trial, and the jury found the client not guilty on all charges.

*In a bifurcated (two-phase) case in Superior Court, Cumberland County (N.J.), also in 2006, Mr. Shapiro was successful in getting his client acquitted by a jury of third-degree burglary. As a result, the State offered Mr. Shapiro's client a resolution to a fourth-degree "time served" sentence on a criminal trespass charge instead of trying the remaining burglary count in the case.

*In another 2006 case in Superior Court, Cumberland County (N.J.), a jury found Mr. Shapiro's client not guilty on second-degree ("strong-arm") robbery and third-degree aggravated assault, and acquitted the client on all lesser-included charges. With that result, Mr. Shapiro spared his client an extended term sentence of between 10-20 years due to a prior criminal record.

*In 2007, in Superior Court, Cumberland County (N.J.), attorney Louis Charles Shapiro represented a client charged with first-degree armed robbery and third-degree weapons possession offenses. Because of the client's prior record, the client faced a possible life sentence on an extended term if convicted on the first-degree armed robbery charge. After a trial, the jury found Mr. Shapiro's client not guilty on first-degree armed robbery, and acquitted him on the weapons offenses as well. He was found guilty on a disorderly persons offense of shoplifting and sentenced to time already served.

*In 2008, attorney Louis Charles Shapiro represented a client charged with second-degree ("strong-arm") robbery and third-degree theft in Superior Court, Cumberland County (N.J.). Due to the client's past criminal record, the client faced an extended term of between 10-20 years in state prison if convicted on the most serious charge. At trial, however, the jury found Mr. Shapiro's client not guilty on all charges.

*In a 2009 trial before a Family Court Judge (sitting without a jury), Mr. Shapiro successfully defended a juvenile charged with sex offenses allegedly committed against another child. The client faced adjudication, potential juvenile custody and being placed on the juvenile equivalent of Megan's Law. After the close of the State's case, Mr. Shapiro moved for judgment of acquittal, which was granted by the trial court judge, and the case was dismissed.

*In a 2010 civil trial which lasted approximately three days before a Superior Court Judge in Atlantic County (N.J.), sitting without a jury, Mr. Shapiro was successful in achieving a verdict on behalf of a client ordering the ejectment of relatives and others without a proper claim of title from a home belonging to the client's mother, allowing the client and her mother to return to the home.

*In 2011, attorney Louis Charles Shapiro successfully defended a client in two separate trials before two separate juries in Superior Court, Cumberland County (N.J.). In the first six-week jury trial, Mr. Shapiro's client was charged with first-degree murder and other serious offenses. Although the jury found the client guilty of two weapons possession offenses (possession without a permit and possession by a convicted person) after deliberations, the jury found Mr. Shapiro's client not guilty of first degree murder, all other homicide charges, not guilty of aggravated assault (pointing a firearm) and not guilty of possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose.

*In a second, separate three-week jury trial later in 2011, also in Superior Court, Cumberland County (N.J.) arising out of a separate incident, the same client represented by Mr. Shapiro was charged with first-degree attempted murder, aggravated assault counts of various degrees, and weapons possession offenses. Upon Mr. Shapiro's motion for judgment of acquittal made at the close of the State's evidence, the trial court judge dismissed the count for first-degree attempted murder. The jury later found the client not guilty of all remaining charges against him, at which point the prosecution dismissed the last remaining charge of possession of a firearm by a convicted person.

*In a 2011 civil jury trial in the Philadelphia County (Pa.) Court of Common Pleas, Mr. Shapiro represented a client who tripped and fell on snow and ice. After an approximately three-day trial, the jury rendered an award of $100,000, which was reduced thirty (30) percent by the plaintiff's own comparative negligence, resulting in a gross award of $70,000.

*In 2012, Mr. Shapiro represented a client in a divorce trial in Superior Court, Cumberland County (N.J.), in which the trial court (sitting without a jury) ruled in the client's favor on most major issues, ordering child support per the Child Support Guidelines, limited duration alimony, expanded visitation and the return of the pre-marital home to Mr. Shapiro's client, the husband in this divorce case.

*In 2012, Mr. Shapiro represented a law firm in the Philadelphia (Pa.) Court of Common Pleas in an action to collect legal fees for services rendered by the law firm to a former client. After opening statements and a full day of witness testimony before the jury, the case settled for the full amount of the receivable owed to the law firm, to be paid over time.

*Also in 2012, Mr. Shapiro represented a client in an employment case against a state government agency in Superior Court, Atlantic County (N.J.) who brought claims for age and race discrimination under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination and on other theories. The case was successfully settled in mediation for a gross amount in excess of $121,000.

*In 2014, Mr. Shapiro represented a family in a federal civil rights action in United States District Court for the District of New Jersey in Camden against the New Jersey Division of Youth and Family Services (now known as the Division of Child Protection and Permanency), and various individuals, including two case workers. In that case, the plaintiffs alleged that the two DYFS case workers (as well as other individuals who were later dismissed on summary judgment) entered their home without a proper basis in violation of their federal right to be protected against unlawful searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Mr. Shapiro succeeded in overcoming a summary judgment (an attempt at dismissal after a period of discovery and depositions) motion against the two DYFS case workers, and the court found that the case workers, under the circumstances presented in the case, were not entitled to qualified immunity. Prior to trial, the case resulted in a gross settlement of $150,000.

DISCLAIMER: The information contained on this website is provided as general information and is not intended to constitute legal advice or a legal opinion. Nothing on this website creates a lawyer-client relationship. With respect to the above-mentioned verdicts and settlements, such results recounted above should not create an expectation that a particular result can or will be achieved in your case. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes with respect to any future matter that we or any lawyer may be retained to handle. Each legal problem is unique and dependent upon the facts and circumstances, as well as on the constantly changing state of the law. Because of this, you should not in any way rely on the information contained in this website as legal advice, and you should consult with a competent attorney who is licensed to practice in your particular jurisdiction regarding any legal questions.