Articles Posted in Arrests

by

On March 20, the Illinois Supreme Court overturned the state’s controversial audio eavesdropping law on the grounds that it was unconstitutional. The court ruled that the eavesdropping law, which made it a felony to record and publish speech without the consent of all parties, was an overly broad restriction of the first amendment right of free speech.  If you or someone you know has been charged or convicted under the Illinois audio eavesdropping act, contact an Illinois criminal defense attorney immediately to discuss having your case dismissed and your record expunged.

Illinois Audio Eavesdropping Act

The Illinois audio eavesdropping act made it a felony to knowingly and intentionalchilds-ear-1032418-mly use a device to either listen to, or record, any part of a conversation, unless the recording was made with the consent of all parties. It also prohibited divulging the conversation in any manner. A first offense was a Class 4 felony, punishable by one to three years in prison. A second offense was a Class 3 felony, punishable by three to five years in prison. Both were also subject to imposition of up to a $25,000 fine.

Annabel Melongo and the Illinois Audio Eavesdropping Act

The case was brought before the Illinois Supreme Court in People of the State of Illinois vs. Annabel Melongo.  Ms. Melongo was charged in a Cook County trial court after she recorded a court employee and then published the recordings on her blog. Ms. Melongo failed to get the court employee’s permission prior to recording the conversation.

Ms. Melongo’s first trial ended in a mistrial, with the jury being unable to come to a decision. The prosecution retried the case, and in the second hearing Ms. Melongo argued that the eavesdropping act violated the First Amendment’s right of free speech. The trial court agreed and declared the statute unconstitutional, and the prosecutor appealed. Ms. Melongo spent 20 months in jail awaiting trial.

Illinois Audio Eavesdropping Act Declared Unconstitutional

The court ruled that the Illinois eavesdropping act violated the First Amendment right of free speech because it was too broad. The statute’s intent was to protect private conversations from being recorded and shared. If you meet with your attorney, for example, you shouldn’t have to worry that somebody is sitting outside the door with a cell phone in hand, recording the conversation with the intent of sharing it. You have an expectation of privacy because you are behind closed doors, in a private meeting with your attorney.

The court found that the statute, as written, made all conversations private, even those where a person would not have a reasonable expectation of privacy. For example, if you recorded a person talking loudly on his cell phone on the bus, a husband and wife arguing in a public park, or fans screaming at a Chicago Bulls game, you could be charged and convicted of violating the eavesdropping act – even though none of those people should expect that their conversations are private.

Because the court found the recording part of the eavesdropping act unconstitutional, it also found that the prohibition against sharing the conversation unconstitutional as well. Not only does this make sense from a legal standpoint – if you have the right to record, you should have the right to publish – it makes sense from a practical standpoint as well.

Consider that a newspaper reporter could attend a court hearing, take notes on the proceeding, and then publish an article on what he saw and heard, without the fear of arrest, conviction and jail time. But if that same reporter recorded the hearing, because he didn’t want to risk jotting anything down wrong, under the eavesdropping act he would face criminal prosecution. What is the difference between the two?  There is none, which is why the court declared the law unconstitutional. Continue reading

by

 Illinois’ concealed carry law, which passed the state legislature in July 2013, officially went into effect when the state police began sending out its first round of permits in late February. As of March 1, 2014, 5,000 license applications had been approved and were processed for mailing, and 46,000 applications had been received so far overall.

Illinois’ domestic violence laws prohibit an individual who is the subject of an order of protection (a restraining order) from possessing or acquiring a gun. The new concealed carry law prohibits those convicted of domestic violence – whether domestic battery, aggravated domestic battery or similar offense in another jurisdiction – from obtaining a concealed gun permit. But domestic violence advocates are worried that it doesn’t do enough to keep firearms out of the hands of perpetrators.

alone-867275-m

Section 15 of the concealed carry law allows police to object to the granting of a permit if the applicant has been arrested for any reason five or more times in the seven-year period preceding the application. An objection postpones the decision of whether to grant a permit for 90 days. During that time the police forward all prior arrest information to the Board, which will then decide whether or not to issue the permit.

Because those charged with domestic violence are often repeat offenders with a pattern of escalating abuse, advocates are concerned that the “five arrests in seven years” prohibition is insufficient to protect victims.  Many domestic violence victims file for restraining orders but then drop them out of fear, or don’t take the next step of pressing criminal charges. In other cases, perpetrators are never prosecuted, even when an arrest is made because the victim ultimately refuses to cooperate out of fear. This “loophole,” then, would allow otherwise violent perpetrators to get their hands on a concealed carry permit.

Objections to the Applications

Since the law went into effect, sheriff’s departments in Cook and Lake Counties had opposed 237 out of 14,369 concealed carry permit applications because of domestic violence and orders of protection. The Chicago Police Department objected to 86 out of 3,186 applications. They did not say if all of the objections based on domestic violence and orders of protection exceeded the five times in seven years threshold. An objection does not guarantee that the concealed carry permit will be denied.

But proponents of concealed carry believe the law is fair, arguing that an arrest isn’t the same as a conviction. Prosecutors may choose not to press charges, and jurors may acquit a defendant, because they believe the claim of domestic violence was false. Punishing an individual because he was falsely accused would be unfair and a violation of his or her rights.

Individuals whose applications are denied have the right to appeal to the Board and, if the permit is still denied, then to the courts. Because some believe the law offers a loophole that will put firearms in the hands of those they believe are dangerous, the area is rife with the possibility of denials based on less than that threshold, in the hopes that the applicant will not file an appeal if the Board denies the application.

The appeal process will no doubt involve rehashing and dissecting those prior arrests, with the police arguing that your arrest history marks you as a violent repeat offender, and that allowing you a concealed carry permit would be dangerous to the public. Continue reading

by

It’s a hot Chicago night, and you and some friends are outside, laughing and joking in an attempt to beat the summer heat. Two police officers approach and ask what’s going on. Not wanting trouble, you and your buddies turn and walk away. The officer repeats his question, a bit louder now, and the officers quickens their pace. Scared, you and your friends begin to run. The cops quickly follow, and when you’re detained they frisk everybody and find marijuana in your back pocket. Suddenly, what started as a fun night with friends ends with you in the back of a police cruiser, charged with possession of marijuana. chicago-police-176193-m

Unfortunately these types of stop and frisks are all too common, especially in Chicago’s high crime areas. If you’re arrested following a stop and frisk, you need an experienced criminal defense attorney to closely examine your case to determine whether the police’s actions were lawful.

Police Right to Stop and Frisk in Chicago

Police officers have the right to stop and question any person they encounter, provided they have a reasonable suspicion that the individual was engaged in criminal activity. This means the officer must be able to clearly explain why he believed criminal activity was happening; he cannot simply make a stop based on a hunch or intuition. These are known as Terry stops, after the United States Supreme Court case that authorized these investigatory stops.

The officer may perform a frisk (or protective pat down) only if he has reasonable grounds to believe the individual is armed. Even then, the pat down can only be of those areas on the body where a weapon could be hidden.

Just hanging out on the street corner is not generally enough to authorize the police to stop and question you. But in 2000 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Illinois v. Wardlow that the police can consider the individual’s behavior in context of the location when deciding whether there is reasonable suspicion to make a Terry stop. Suddenly, hanging out on the street in a known drug area became suspicious – bad news for the many law-abiding Chicago residents living in such areas.

Defending Against Chicago Stop and Frisk Arrest

There are many considerations that come in to play if you are arrested following a stop and frisk. Were you doing anything that could give rise to a reasonable suspicion that you were engaged in criminal activity? Were you in an area known for high criminal activity? Were you acting in a manner that made it appear you were engaged in criminal activity – pacing back and forth, looking at your watch repeatedly, or staying in the same location for a lengthy period of time?

Your behavior on the night of the arrest, as well as the location where it occurred, must be examined closely to determine if either of them could have given the police reasonable suspicion that you were committing – or about to commit – a crime. If the police lacked reasonable suspicion to stop you, the criminal case can be dismissed.

If the stop did rise to the level of reasonable suspicion (and even if it did not), the resulting frisk must also be closely examined to determine whether it exceeded the police’s authority. The police may only frisk on top of clothing, and they cannot pull out or manipulate anything they feel during the pat down unless it is reasonably clear from feel that it was a weapon or drugs. It would be hard for police to determine through a pat down that the small lump they felt in your pants pocket was marijuana. If we can show that the police’s discovery of evidence during a pat down exceeded their authority, the criminal case can be dismissed. Continue reading

by

Order of Protection – DISMISSED!

I am a criminal defense attorney, as you are most likely aware.  There is a subset of criminal law that melds into civil work – Petitions for an Order of Protection.  I used to shy away from these but over the past few years I’ve taken on many of these cases.

These cases are a different animal in many respects.  There are no State’s Attorneys, most of the Petitioners and Respondents are pro se, and the rules of evidence are loose and fast.  And the parties are almost always extremely emotional and demanding.

That having been said, I represented the Respondent last Monday in defense of a Petition.  The basic facts are that she dated the Petitioner for over a year, they planned to marry and for whatever reason, the wedding was cancelled by the Petitioner.  Then things fell apart disastrously.  Emails and texts were sent, police reports were filed, my client was arrested on more than one occasion as a result of the Petitioner’s false accusations.  She actually ended up with a misdemeanor criminal trespass to property!  That case went to trial and she was found not guilty.

I cannot tell you how much work went into this case.  My client was hysterical with how she was treated by the Petitioner and how much strife he caused in her life.  And truthfully, it was almost impossible for me to represent her as she was very demanding (understandably) with what she expected of my legal services.  I had to explain that it was a somewhat simple matter of defending the allegations in the Petition and that it wasn’t necessary to bring up other issues that weren’t related to those specific allegations.

We finally had the hearing last Monday.  And this is what I tell every client, criminal or civil: be calm in court, do not make any gestures, do not make any comments unless you are being questioned, and just stand there next to me and look at the judge.  People and some attorneys don’t understand that a judge is actually watching everything that goes on in her courtroom.  She notices how you dress, how you compose yourself and what you say.  I’ve lost trials based on how my client comports herself in court.

My client at her hearing did well.  She didn’t do anything to offend the court.  On the other hand, opposing counsel started yelling at her at one point when she didn’t answer a question the way he expected her to.  The judge lit into him like I’ve never seen.  At the end of the day, the judge found the Petitioner to be wholly unbelievable in his allegations and my client now has a clean record.  Justice prevailed.

The end all be all of this blog is that as an attorney, I not only have to be concerned with the facts of a case and my defense, but also how I prepare my client for a trial or a hearing.  You can’t just go over the case with someone and expect that they’ll understand how to comport themselves in court.  A simple shake of the head or sudden outburst, no matter how honest, can be devastating for the defense.  I always explain to them that they are going to hear things that are hurtful and often untrue.  Their response is to do nothing, just stand calmly at my side and let me do my job.  9 times out of 10, it works out in our favor. Continue reading

by

Have you or someone you know been arrested in Chicago?  It doesn’t matter if it’s a simple battery charge or a more serious charge of first degree murder.

Getting arrested can affect you in more ways than you can imagine.  Apparently, there are a few websites, such as mugshots.com, that post your mug shot online upon arrest.

While this initially doesn’t seem like a big deal, it is.  Let’s say someone is arrested and later released without having charges filed against them.  Your mug shot is now all over the internet for anyone to see.

This article lays out the issue:  http://www.digitaltrends.com/social-media/online-mugshots/

And let’s then go with the scenario that someone is charged and goes to trial and is found not guilty. Guess what? His or her mug shot is STILL online for anyone to see.  So, these people who were either not charged or found not guilty go about their daily lives and decide to obtain employment.  As we all know, employers now go online to check out potential employees.  What are they going to find?  Probably your Facebook and Twitter posts, which may or may not be innocuous, but also your MUG SHOT!  How are you going to explain that one?

If you want to remove your mug shot, guess what now?  You have to pay upwards of $100 PER SITE to have it removed.  And how can you be sure that once you pay this fee, the site will actually remove it?  You can’t.

Again, you have to be careful in life on how you comport yourself.  There are consequences that can be long-lasting. Continue reading

by

By now most of you have heard of these Chicago sexual assault charge allegations regarding Maine West High School in Des Plaines, Illinois.

According to reports, during a September 2010 campus run for the soccer team, four soccer players have said that they were sexually assaulted during a hazing ritual.  As of August 26, 2013, a fifth member of that soccer team has now filed a lawsuit in the Cook County Circuit Court.  More lawsuits are expected.  images

According to ABC 7 News, the attorney for the latest victim, Tony Romanucci has stated:  “It’s unfortunate now that Maine West has become the national poster child for hazing, sexual abuse and scandal regarding sports in the United States.”

Romanucci says Maine Township administrators have known about hazing at Maine West for several years but did nothing to stop it. The lawsuit names the district, principal, and fired soccer coaches Michael Divincenzo and Emilio Rodriguez. Divincenzo faces criminal charges of battery, hazing and failure to report abuse.

“Had enforcement been completed and done in 2008, we wouldn’t be here today,” Romanucci said.

These allegations a reminiscent of the 2011 scandal and charges filed against longtime assistant coach Jerry Sandusky.  Sandusky was charged with criminal sexual assault of at least eight underage boys on or near university property, and alleged actions by some university officials to shove under the rug these incidents.

In each of these cases, the higher-ups within the school system knew or should have known of these alleged attacks but did nothing to thwart them.  The fact that hazing has occurred for a number of years and become part of the educational system does not make it right or status quo.  High schools and universities exist to nurture and educate the young members of our society.  Additionally, they are there to protect them, not to punish and humiliate them.  Continue reading

by

Have you ever been stopped by the Chicago Police for no apparent reason and are now facing Chicago drug charges?  You can most likely relate to the following recent story out of New York City.

Following a $14,000 March, 2013 settlement to a Brooklyn man who claimed he was illegally stopped and frisked pursuant to the controversial “stop, question and frisk” policy in effect by New York City—a federal judge ruled on August 12th that the policy was both unconstitutional as well as racially discriminatory. As noted in the decision handed down by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin, (Floyd v. City of New York), the complaints that have been received by several Chicago drug defendants regarding the policy have merit as well.  Specifically, a year before the lawsuit and Judge Scheindlin’s decision, the New York City Council introduced legislation known as the Community Safety Act. This legislation first established an independent inspector general to review current police policy and practice regarding the stop and frisk issue. Secondly, the Act enforced a current anti-profiling law and expanded the categories of those protected from such profiling. chicago-police-176193-m  This has everything to do with violations of the 4th Amendment of the United States Constitution regarding search and seizure.

New York City Council and Mayor Bloomberg Carry on the Battle

Following the above-mentioned lawsuit, the City Council voted on the Community Safety Act in June. While the Act passed through the Council nearly unanimously, Mayor Bloomberg vetoed the legislation in July, stating “This is a fight to defend your life and your kids’ lives…” Bloomberg has been vocal in stating that any extra departmental oversight prevents officers from effectively doing their jobs and places New York citizens in harm’s way. Many citizens of New York would disagree with the Mayor’s assessment. Keeshan Harley, an 18-year old young black man from Brooklyn has been stopped by the NYPD almost 150 times “without proper cause or fair reasoning,” under the NYPD stop and frisk policy.

Stop and Frisk Comes to a Halt

Apparently, many New Yorkers side with the City Council as on August 22nd, the era of unchecked stop-and-frisks by the NYPD ended when Bloomberg’s veto was overridden. Bloomberg vows to keep fighting the issue, claiming the Act a “dangerous piece of legislation.” Bloomberg’s opinion may have merit as well—those bent on committing crimes in New York City seem to have gotten the “memo” loud and clear following the Council’s decision. One police source claimed he would start carrying his gun again and that once the number of stops decreased the number of crimes would skyrocket. With police officers under threat of a lawsuit any time a suspect could potentially claim profiling, it is believed that good officers will simply “look the other way,” rather than risk their jobs and their pensions.

How the New York Stop and Frisk Could Affect Chicago

A Bronx police officer commented “Welcome to Chicago,” following the NY Council’s veto, insinuating that the crime rate of New York City would soon reach that of Chicago once police officers stopped taking advantage of “stop, question and frisk.” A spokesman for the Chicago Police Department responded to the barb, saying “We don’t engage in racial profiling.” Adam Collins went on to say that there was significantly less crime, fewer shootings and fewer murders in 2012 than any other year since 1965—and without imposing on citizen’s rights. Chicago does have a version of stop and frisk known as “contact cards.”

This allows police to stop an individual, ask for name, phone number and the disclosure of any tattoos however the officer may not make physical contact without probable cause. Nevertheless, Chicago police are not completely exempt from racial profiling. Four interns for Rainbow Push have accused Chicago police of racial profiling as the four young black men, ranging from 19-21, were stopped and handcuffed as they were walking toward a bus stop. One of the young men attends Chicago State University and is seeking a degree in criminal justice. The young men suspect the police were looking for guns—although no weapons were found during a pat-down. Police officials defend the actions of the officers stating the area is well-known for gang violence and that one of the young men refused to remove his hands from his pockets when asked.  Continue reading

by

Quite often, unfortunately, defendants facing Chicago drug charges or Chicago violent crimes charges feel the need to boast of the exploits.

As most of us are aware, people confess to many things on Facebook. Secret loves, bad habits, hidden longings; it appears that nowadays, nothing is too private or personal to appear on social media. While some may consider such confessions to be tacky—or at the very least, in poor taste—a Florida man recently went a step further by posting a photograph of the young wife he had just murdered, along with a confession—of sorts. While most Americans are long-past the point of being shocked by the daily news, this latest bid for attention has startled even the most cynical.chain-863724-m

Derek Medina, a South Miami resident, could possibly have benefitted from taking his own website a bit more seriously. That website, called EmotionalWriter.com, markets Medina’s self-help books on effective communication and marriage counseling tips.  A little over a week ago, Medina was apparently engaged in a verbal dispute with his 26-year old wife, Jennifer Alfonso. According to Medina, he pointed a gun at his wife, at which point she walked away, returning minutes later to inform her husband she was leaving. Medina then confronted his wife who reacted by “punching” him. Medina once again pointed his firearm at his wife, who responded by grabbing a kitchen knife. As Medina attempted to take the knife from Alfonso, she once again began hitting him, at which point he fired multiple shots from close range directly into her body.

Medina then took photos of his wife’s dead body and wrote a note which stated “I’m going to prison or death sentence for killing my wife love you guys miss you guys take care Facebook people you will see me in the news my wife was punching me and I am not going to stand anymore with the abuse so I did what I did I hope u understand me.”  The photo and the note were then posted on Medina’s Facebook account. The image was online for approximately five hours before Facebook employees removed the photo and disabled both Medina’s FB page as well as his wife’s. Even more bizarre, the couple’s ten-year old daughter was in the house at the time, although she was reported to be “unharmed.”

If you wonder why on earth anyone would post photos of their murdered wife it is likely you are not alone. Psychologists attribute this need to (over) share with the poster’s need to feel important or powerful. Unfortunately, Medina is not alone in his quest for attention. A 2011 rape of a 15-year-old girl was discovered after the four teens allegedly responsible shared a photo of her online and through text messages. Again in 2011, a Pennsylvania teen pled guilty to raping an inebriated 15-year-old girl then posted a message on Facebook asking for a hit man to kill the girl.  As a result of these types of stories, Facebook has been used to catch those Floridians suspected of illicit behavior with increasing regularity, becoming a tool for identifying criminal behavior and catching those responsible for crimes ranging from theft to poaching.

Of course, criminals have been publicly confessing long before Facebook came into being. Jailhouse confessions and barroom braggarts are rife in the world of criminal defense. Social media has simply given those people a different kind of platform, allowing them to share their misdeeds and brag about being bad. While millions of people use social media in a totally healthy manner every day, for others the ability to communicate with others without seeing or hearing them makes it harder to remember that actions come with consequences. In fact, following his Facebook posting, Derek Medina drove to see his family, telling them what he had done, then turned himself in to the police. Medina is currently being held without bond under preliminary charges of first degree murder. Continue reading

by

Having been charged with Chicago armed robbery, you are aware that this is one of the most serious types of charges you can face.  In fact, probation is not even an option.

According to the FBI, a man in Park Ridge, Illinois, armed with a hammer, proceeded to rob a bank, getting away with an undisclosed amount of cash. It was noted by those at the scene that the robber appeared extremely nervous and agitated during the crime, luckily however, no one was injured. The man has not yet been apprehended, however when he is caught, he will likely be charged with armed robbery. It is worth noting that, in light of the above story, anyone considering committing the crime of robbery should remember that sometimes others fight back when they perceive a credible threat to their safety.  For instance, a 62-year old Chicago shop owner defended his store and his brother-in-law who was in the shop, by swinging a baseball bat at two robbers as one of them opened fire. The shop owner and one of the gunmen suffered gunshot wounds and the robbers—who fled the shop—were later identified through surveillance video. One suspect was apprehended and is currently being held on charges of armed robbery and attempted murder. The shop owner is expected to make a full recovery. police-line-970702-m

Chicago Armed Robbery is considered a violent crime, involving the use of force or the threat of force. The circumstances surrounding the crime will have considerable bearing on the charges, as well as the eventual sentence. If the robbery was perpetrated on an elderly or disabled person or if serious bodily injury occurred in the commission of the crime, the charges will increase accordingly.  Armed robbery occurs when a deadly weapon is used or when the person being robbed was threatened with the weapon. Prior robbery convictions or even a history of unrelated criminal charges can make the sentencing more severe. If you were on probation or parole when you were arrested for armed robbery, the felony charges may be escalated to a higher class. In some cases your criminal defense attorney might be able to negotiate your charges down to a lesser offense.

Although many people believe robbery is one of the most-often committed crimes, in fact it is down the list at number five, following larceny-theft, burglary, motor vehicle theft and aggravated assault. If you have taken part in an armed robbery, be aware that the charges are very serious and that there is a very narrow window of time between your arrest and the prosecutor’s decision to file charges against you. Those with an experienced criminal defense attorney by their side stand the best chance of avoiding criminal charges. The consequences of an armed robbery conviction can include:

·      A permanent criminal record

·      The necessity of submitting to random drug testing

·      Restitution

·      Steep fines

·      Jail or prison time

·      The inability to obtain a student loan after your prison sentence has ended

·      The inability to obtain a job, work with children, obtain a professional license, run for public office or own a firearm once your prison sentence has ended

·      A negative impact on your ability to obtain employment

Your Chicago criminal defense attorney will assess your individual situation thoroughly then determine the best course of action. Some potential defenses include:

·      Failure to read the Miranda rights to you

·      An illegal search or seizure

·      Your alibi for the time of the robbery

·      A claim of mistaken identity

·      The lack of intent to commit the crime charged

Continue reading

by

            Recently, Bradley Manning, the 25-year old private who released over 750,000 pages of classified U.S. military documents and videos to the website WikiLeaks, was found not guilty of aiding the enemy – the most serious of the 21 counts he faced.  Specifically, Manning faced possible life imprisonment had he been convicted on this charge.  Manning was also found not guilty of unauthorized possession of information relating to national defense.  Bradley Manning

Manning was, however, found guilty of most of the remaining charges lobbed against him, including six espionage charges, five theft charges, computer fraud, and other military infractions.  The judge, Judge Col. Denise Lind, also accepted two guilty pleas Manning had previously entered to two lesser charges.  For all the various convictions, Manning faces over 130 years in prison.  There is, however, no minimum sentence the judge must impose.  Manning will return to court on Wednesday to begin his sentencing hearing.

 Considered the largest leak in U.S. history of highly classified government materials, Manning (since 2010) admittedly provided battlefield reports, diplomatic cables, and other confidential materials, including battlefield videos, to the disclosure portal, WikiLeaks.  WikiLeaks published much of the material on its website, as did a number of major news sources.  Some of the most infamous leaked material includes a video of a 2007 Bagdad airstrike which WikiLeaks dubbed “Collateral Murder.”   As a result, Manning was arrested in 2010 and ultimately charged with 22 counts, including espionage and the capital offense of aiding the enemy.

 While Manning has awaited trial the past 3 years, the world has furiously debated whether his actions were that of a whistleblower or a traitor to his country.  Manning himself has stated that he released the documents and videos because they had concerned him and he wanted to show the public the true costs of war.  The prosecution, however, urged that Manning released the material to with an evil intent, knowing it would be seen by terrorists.  

 In light of the above, Manning’s high-profile conviction will have long-reaching implications in the legal field.  Among them are:

 1.     Precedent setting— the Manning case is a precedent setting one.  Manning was convicted under the Espionage Act for his leaks to the media, despite a lack of evidence that he had the intent to harm the United States.  Some see this as a scary precedent for the handling of future secret sharers.  On the other hand, his acquittal on the count of aiding the enemy serves to narrow the reach of that crime.  Traditionally, the capital crime of aiding the enemy has been used to punish those who directly turn over secret material to the enemy, such as occurred in World War II when POW’s provided information to the Japanese.  Legal analysts feared that if Manning were convicted on the charge of aiding the enemy for his actions, it would set dangerous new precedent because Manning did not directly place the secret material in the hands of the enemy. By rejecting the charge, Judge Lind appears to express a belief that the definition of the crime of aiding the enemy should not be expanded to encompass Manning’s behavior. 

 2.     Chilling effect on whistleblowers— despite being found innocent of aiding the enemy, Manning still faces over 130 years imprisonment for his actions and has already spent 3 years in confinement awaiting trial, including a harrowing 9 months in solitary confinement.  Manning’s arrest and conviction, along with the recent high profile charges against fellow secret sharer Edward Snowden, could potentially have a grave chilling effect on would be whistleblowers, secret sharing websites like WikiLeaks, and even major news media.  Continue reading

Contact Information
Chicago Office
70 W Madison St
#1450
Chicago, IL 60602
Phone: (312) 560-7100
DuPage Office
140 Butterfield Rd
#1500
Oakbrook Terrace, IL 60181
Skokie Office
5250 Old Orchard Rd
#300
Skokie, IL 60077

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2024, Law Offices of David L. Freidberg, P.C.
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design