Joey Jackson Law PLLC

Call Now To Schedule A Case Evaluation
833-JOEYJACKSON | 833-563-9522

5 Penn Plaza, 23rd Floor
New York, NY 10001

Premier Legal Representation For New York's Unions

Our Clients Trust Us For Favorable Results

At JOEY JACKSON LAW, PLLC., we have been successfully defending clients in the Bronx, Queens, Brooklyn and Manhattan for more than 25 years. While we do not guarantee the outcome of your case, we do guarantee we will work our hardest to defend your rights to the fullest extent. Here is a list of some of our case results and trial victories.

Murder And Homicide

E.R. (Suffolk County)

DWI Murder case under a theory of “Depraved Indifference,” after the defendant killed 3 teenagers in a car crash, while heading home on New Year’s Day. Defendant acquitted of Murder, thereby being spared a life sentence.

G.C. (Queens)

Defendant acquitted of Attempted Murder and all related charges, stemming from a bar room brawl, in which the victim was stabbed within an inch of his life.

D.M. (Brooklyn)

Defendant acquitted of Attempted Murder and all related charges, after shooting another man multiple times in Self-Defense.

D.B. (Bronx)

The defendant was acquitted of Murder, and Manslaughter conviction reversed after the Trial Judge refused to permit the jury to consider Self-Defense.

People v. Brown

Mr. Brown was charged with murder in connection with the shooting death of his daughter’s boyfriend, after they had a dispute in the lobby of his residence. Mr. Brown fired a single shot in Self-Defense after his daughter’s boyfriend angrily approached him while swinging his fists at Mr. Brown and grabbing for his gun. Despite these facts, the Judge would not permit Mr. Jackson to argue that Mr. Brown acted in Self-Defense. The Jury found Mr. Brown not guilty of Murder but still convicted him of Manslaughter. In speaking with the Jury, Mr. Jackson realized they were troubled that the judge would not allow them to consider that Mr. Brown was defending himself. On appeal, the Appellate Court reversed Mr. Brown’s conviction, ruling that the Jury should have been permitted to consider that Mr. Brown was defending himself.

People v. D. Moore

The client was charged with Attempted Murder in a case involving a love triangle. A woman with whom he was romantically involved, was also in an intimate relationship with someone else. After leaving a Diner with her, the other man followed them in his truck. It escalated into a high-speed chase in which the other man forced them off the road, and aggressively jumped out of his truck to confront Mr. Moore. Believing himself to be in serious danger, Mr. Moore shot the man in the face and the chest. Despite that, he was arrested and prosecuted. Mr. Jackson was able to successfully argue that Mr. Moore acted in Self Defense. The first jury ended in a mistrial, with jurors split over whether Mr. Moore acted legally in shooting his attacker. The second time around, Mr. Jackson was able to obtain a not guilty verdict, and the case was dismissed.


People v. J.J.

The client was charged with killing an elderly woman in an early morning car crash– while driving drunk. She was killed upon impact after being struck by his truck. When the police responded, they noticed that my client had the odor of alcohol on his breath, slurred speech, and watery and bloodshot eyes. He was also observed to be unsteady on his feet after being asked to exit his vehicle. Accordingly, he was arrested and prosecuted for Vehicular Manslaughter. Mr. Jackson was able to successfully argue that his client was not the cause of the accident. As such, the focus was placed upon the weather, the road conditions, the dangerous nature of the area where the accident occurred, and the manner in which the woman was driving her car. Additionally, Mr. Jackson was able to provide the jury with alternative explanations as to his client’s alleged visual signs of purported impairment and intoxication. At that hour of the morning, it would not be unusual for a person’s eyes to be red and watery, especially if he didn’t get a good night’s sleep. Further, a person can, and may, in fact, have an odor of alcohol on their breath — without actually being drunk. And as to his lack of balance, the impact of the crash would certainly lead to disorientation. Following a multiweek trial, the jury returned a Not Guilty verdict, completely clearing the client of Vehicular Manslaughter.

People v. LS

The defendant was charged With Driving While Ability Impaired by Drugs in Suffolk County, after crashing into a fence on his way home from a party. When the police arrived, the defendant was fast asleep in his car. Police smelled marijuana and asked him if he was smoking — which the defendant admitted. He then gave a urine sample, which revealed that he had five (5) different drugs in his system. The Prosecutor refused to reduce the charges, arguing that he could have killed someone or himself. They pressed the Judge to hold him accountable, and not reward him for being lucky enough to not to have killed himself nor anyone else. Nonetheless, since rehabilitation is a central tenet in the law, Mr. Jackson was able to persuade the Prosecutor to dismiss these serious charges. He did so by arguing that his client should be permitted to enter drug treatment to cure his addiction, perform community service, and check back with the Court to ensure he met his obligations.

People v. Jeffries

Acquitted by a Manhattan Supreme Court jury of DWI despite blowing a .18 on the breathalyzer and police testimony regarding alleged intoxication.

People v. Santana

Acquitted by a Bronx Criminal Court jury of DWI despite being involved in a collision and having the police and eyewitnesses attest to his alleged intoxication.

Trial Victories

People v. China

Acquitted by a Queens Supreme Court jury of Attempted Murder despite the victim’s DNA recovered on his knife, and numerous witnesses asserting he was responsible.

People v. Stephens

Acquitted by the Court of Stalking and Aggravated Harassment despite a detailed email trail to the alleged victim.

People v. Sanata

Trial Order of Dismissal where client accused of filing a false report with the police.

People v. Thomas

The client was accused of excessive force in the beating of an inmate. Mr. Jackson demonstrated that the client was justified in the Use of Force he applied by showing that the inmate was not complying with the procedure when told to face the wall to be searched after coming back from Rec. Time. Mr. Jackson played the videotape from the jail which demonstrated that the inmate was not complying with the procedure of facing forward while being searched and had turned his head and proceeded to spit on client. The client, according to his training applied the Use of Force necessary to make the inmate comply. At the conclusion of the trial, the client was found not guilty and was able to return to work.