Articles Posted in Felonies

by

Chicago job applicants with a felony or misdemeanor on their record will no longer be required to include their criminal history on job applications under the Job Opportunities for Qualified Applicants Act. Known as the “ban the box” measure, for the box on job applications that asks applicants to check whether they have ever been convicted of a crime, the new law is expected to be signed by the governor and go into effect January 1, 2015.

Illinois Employers Prohibited From Inquiring about Criminal History

The law prohibits employprisoners with more than 15 employees from asking potential employees on the job application whether they have a criminal history. Instead, employers may only ask about a potential employee’s criminal history at the job interview or when a conditional offer of employment is made, if there were no interviews. Employers are also prohibited from conducting background checks on potential employees until the interview or job offer phase.

The new law is a necessary protection for job applicants with a criminal history, especially those convicted of non-violent crimes or crimes when they were very young and immature. Many of these individuals never get past the application stage, despite being qualified for the job, simply because of the hiring committee’s prejudice against ex-inmates.

The law will let qualified individuals proceed to the interview phase, where they will have the opportunity to explain the circumstances that led to their conviction, address the company’s concerns about hiring an ex-prisoner, and prove to the hiring committee that they will be a hard-working, dedicated employee.  Studies show that employers who meet with an ex-prisoner are four times more likely to hire them. Without this law, these individuals may never be able to gain meaningful, gainful employment sufficient to support themselves and their family, resulting in higher recidivism rates.

Although definitely a step in the right direction, the law underscores the need for obtaining quality, experienced legal representation from the moment you are arrested and charged with any crime, whether a misdemeanor or felony. Conviction of any crime has consequences that extend beyond prison time, fines and/or probation – it can adversely affect your ability to obtain a job or acquire housing. And while the law prohibits employers from inquiring into your criminal history until the interview phase or when a job offer has been made, it does not prohibit a potential employer from refusing to hire you because of that criminal history.

The only sure way to avoid losing a potential job is to not have a criminal history – and that starts with hiring a tough criminal defense lawyer who can get the charges against you dropped and win an acquittal in court. You want an attorney who knows how to find and exploit the flaws in the prosecution’s case. You want an attorney who works with a team of private investigators and forensic and medical experts to cast doubt on the prosecution’s evidence. With 18 years of experience successfully defending clients against all types of misdemeanors and felonies, you want David L. Freidberg.  Continue reading

by

Newly discovered DNA evidence has cast serious doubt this week on the convictions of two Lake County men who were sentenced to prison for the commission of two different murders. Juan Rivera was convicted of the 1992 rape and murder of an 11-year-old girl, despite the fact that his DNA did not match semen taken from the victim’s body. Marvin Tyrone Williford was convicted in 2004 for beating and setting fire to a 39-year-old man in 2000; the victim died in 2002 from his wounds.

Blood evidence taken from the 2000 case has now been matched to semen taken from the 1992 case, indicating a strong likelihood that the same person committed both crimes. More importantly, two men appear to have been wrongly convicted and spent unnecessary years behind bars.

DNA Shows Innocent Illinois Defendants Sent to Prison

How could this happen?  dna-3-1037197-m

Sadly, it is an unfortunate fact of criminal law that far too often, innocent people are sent to prison for crimes they did not commit. Unreliable or lying witnesses, prosecutors who are more concerned with closing cases than serving justice, or ruthless police interrogation tactics can and do result in criminal convictions of innocent defendants. In some of these cases, DNA evidence later exonerates them, although not before these innocent men and women have spent many years of their life behind bars. Since 1989, 316 prison inmates have been exonerated after their conviction thanks to DNA evidence; the average number of years spent behind bars for those exonerated was 13.5.

The presence of DNA is not the smoking gun that crime shows like CSI and Law and Order would have you believe. Its presence at a crime scene does not prove that a crime was committed; rather, it proves that somebody was simply present at the crime scene. In rape cases, for example, DNA obtained from semen samples proves only that the parties had sexual intercourse, not that a rape occurred.

This is the tack that prosecutors in the 1992 rape and murder took when arguing their case to the jury. They knew that Rivera’s DNA did not match the semen sample taken from the victim. But instead of dismissing the charges, the prosecution argued that the victim – at age 11 – had engaged in consensual sexual intercourse with a third-party prior to the murder, which accounted for the unmatched semen sample. They instead relied on Rivera’s confession (that he later recanted), which was obtained following four days of police interrogation.

In other cases, prosecutors bent on closing cases can try to ignore the existence of DNA evidence that shows the defendant did not commit the crime, and focus on other flimsy evidence to try and bolster their case and win a conviction. Williford was convicted despite there being no physical evidence linking him to the crime – blood evidence found on the two-by-four did not match Williford’s DNA. Instead he was convicted based largely on eyewitness testimony that he wielded the two-by-four that was used to beat the victim.

This is why it is important to have a criminal defense attorney who has the tenacity to attack prosecutors who are bent on obtaining a conviction despite DNA evidence showing the defendant’s innocence. The Law Offices of David L. Freidberg is armed with a team of forensic experts who can help analyze DNA evidence to determine whether the prosecutor’s experts came to the right conclusion, and whether testing protocols were followed.  Continue reading

by

Illinois Supreme Court Decision Overturned in Double Jeopardy Case

The United States Supreme Court ruled unanimously this month that the Illinois Supreme Court “manifestly erred” when it ordered the retrial of a criminal defendant on charges of aggravated battery and mob action. The retrial, the Court found, would have violated the defendant’s right to be free from double jeopardy.

The rule against double jeopardy is one of the cornerstones of criminal defense. The United States and Illinois Constitutions both provide criminal defendants explicit protection against double jeopardy.

Section 10 of the Illinois Constitution states that “No person shall be . . .twice put in jeopardy for the same offense.” This means that once a criminal defendant has been acquitted (found not guilty) of a crime, he cannot be retried – even if evidence is later uncovered that affirms his guilt.

In Crist v. Bretz,the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that “jeopardy attaches when the jury is empaneled and sworn.” Because U.S. Supreme Court decisions regarding constitutional issues also apply to state laws, this rule applies to Illinois criminal cases,

It is a very clear rule that the Supreme Court has consistently applied time and again. Yet in Martinez, both the Illinois Appellate and Supreme Courts failed to get it right.

Martinez v. Illinois

In 2006, the defendant was arrested and charged with aggravated battery and mob action against two victims. After numerous continuances by the prosecution to try and locate the victims, who were the main witnesses, and delays due to Martinez and his defense attorney, the trial was eventually scheduled to begin in May 2010 (Martinez obviously waived his constitutional right to a speedy trial).

On the day of trial, the victims still could not be located. The trial judge refused to grant any more continuances, but offered to postpone the starting time of the trial to later in the day, and to issue subpoenas for their arrest. The prosecution denied both offers and indicated that it would not participate in the case. The jury was sworn in, and the prosecution refused to give opening statements or call any witnesses. The trial judge then granted the defendant’s motion for a directed finding of not guilty, which means the defense attorney requested that the defendant be acquitted since the prosecution, in failing to put on any evidence, had no case against him.

The prosecution appealed, and the defendant argued that double jeopardy applied. His argument was rejected by both the Illinois Appellate and Supreme Courts, who ruled that because the state had put on no evidence, he was in no real danger of ever being found guilty during the first trial.

Martinez then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which overturned the Illinois Supreme Court’s ruling based on his petition alone. The rule stated above – that double jeopardy attaches the moment the jury is sworn in – is so clear, the Court had no desire to hear oral arguments on the issue.

Double jeopardy does not apply in all cases. The defendant may be retried if there is a mistrial, or if the prosecution seeks a dismissal. In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court noted that in this case, the trial judge offered to dismiss the case, which would have allowed the prosecution to retry Martinez if the victims could be located. The prosecutor failed to take the court up on this offer. Continue reading

by

The Cook County Sheriff’s Office reports that 44% of individuals arrested and brought to Cook County jail for intake on May 22 self-reported as mentally ill. Even if we assume that arrestees self-report at a higher rate because they believe claiming mental illness will grant them leniency, it is still an alarming number, and highlights the importance of hiring an experienced criminal defense attorney if you or your loved one suffers from a mental illness and is arrested in Chicago or the surrounding suburbs.

Mental Illness Not a Criminal Defense in Illinois

Illinois defines mental illness as “a substantial disorder of thought, mood, or behavior which afflicted a person at the time of the commission of the offense and which impaired that person’s judgment, but not to the extent that he is unable to appreciate the wrongfulness of his behavior.” Contrary to what some may believe, a claim of mental illness is not the same as pleading insanity as a defense. The insanity defense requires that the defendant lack “substantial capacity to appreciate the criminality of his conduct.”

A person suffering from a mental illness – for example, someone with post-traumatic stress, a type of anxiety disorder – would understand that assaulting his neighbor with a baseball bat is wrong, even though at the moment he was unable to control it. A person suffering from insanity would not believe the attack was wrong and, if successful in pleading insanity, would be absolved of all responsibility.

Is a person suffering from some type of mental illness – whether anxiety disorder, schizophrenia, bipolar, or some other illness that, for whatever reason, can momentarily impair his judgment – or even a person suffering from cognitive disabilities, such as a person with Down’s syndrome, held to the same standard as a healthy defendant?

Yes and no.

Mental illness is not a total defense to a crime in Illinois, and so even if both the prosecution and defense agree that the defendant suffered from a mental illness that impaired his judgment, a jury can still find him guilty of a crime. However, defendants often raise it as a defense in court to be granted leniency. And in some cases, the jury or judge will take the defendant’s illness into consideration when reaching a verdict or handing down a sentence, including sending them to an alternate treatment program where they can receive services, rather than simply locking them up in prison.

Mental illness is generally not a driving force behind the commission of crimes. A recent study found that only 7.5% of crimes are committed over the course of symptoms of the defendant’s mental illness, and that 66% of those also committed crimes related to other factors, such as drug abuse, homelessness or being poor. But for individuals suffering from mental illness, an experienced criminal defense attorney is more important than ever. Continue reading

by

In a previous post I discussed the right of every Illinois criminal defendant to a speedy trial and touched on how in some cases, it may be to the defendant’s advantage to waive that right.  An arrest warrant issued earlier this month against a 41-year old Rolling Meadows, Illinois man on charges of second-degree sexual assault and false imprisonment is an excellent example of a time when waiver of that right may prove favorable to the defendant.

Advantage to Not Invoking Chicago Right to Speedy Trial

In 2012, a Rolling Meadows, Illinois man known by the street name “Joker” allegedly locked a then 16-year-old girl at a party, threatened to kill her if she screamed and then sexually assaulted her. After the defendant left the bathroom, the girl went home and slept; several hours later she told her mother what happened and went to the hospital for a rape examination. The defendant had distinctive tattoos that helped police eventually determine his identity.

So what is it about this case that would recommend that the defendant waive his right to a speedy trial?

It has been two years since the alleged crime occurred – and it could be even more before the defendant is arrested. In her statement to police just a few hours after the alleged attack, the girl stated that she could not remember all the details of the attack. Memories fade, so the more time that passes between the alleged attack and the criminal trial makes the girl’s testimony, which was weak to begin with, only weaker. The testimony of other potential witnesses, including the girls’ friends who helped her return home and the girl’s mother, will also suffer from the passage of time.

The passage of time may also impede the prosecution’s ability to convince the girl to cooperate and provide testimony. If the assault did in fact occur, she may not want to relive the incident by going through a trial, especially since an experienced sex crimes attorney would use her admission that she cannot remember all the details of that evening to poke holes in her testimony.

As far as the girl’s friends who were with her at the time of the incident, the prosecution may be unable to locate and secure their testimony for trial as well. They may have started over in a new city, enrolled in college, or started families – all things that could make them unwilling to cooperate. The circumstances surrounding the incident – accepting an invitation to a party with adult men they did not know – may also be embarrassing to them in their new lives and not something they would not willingly revisit. Already their memories are tainted with the passage of time – add hostility to the mix and you have a witness with the potential to react negatively in court, making her testimony all the more suspect.

In this case, where the alleged victim’s memory was already shaky within hours of the crime occurring, the passage of time can only help in the defense, and it would be more advantageous to not invoke the right to a speedy trial.  Continue reading

by

A Chicago man was charged in mid-May with felony aggravated assault, among other charges, for threatening to kill a police officer with an ice pick. Unfortunately for him, in Illinois assault of a police officer is immediately classified as an aggravated offense and carries stiffer penalties than if the crimes were committed against an ordinary citizen.

Illinois Assault Charges

Police in Riverside received a call about a “suspicious” man who was banging on the front door of a residence and repeatedly ringing the doorbell. An officer responded and approached the man, asking why he was banging on the door. According to police reports, he told police he would not show them his identification (although it is unclear if the officer had even requested it), and then allegedly reached into his pocket, pulled out an ice pick and threatened to kill the officer. The man fled the scene when the officer pulled his gun and ordered him to drop the ice pick. He struggled when police caught up with him, but was quickly subdued.

In Illinois a person commits assault if he knowingly “places another person in reasonable apprehension of receiving a battery” – or in everyday language, if the alleged victim had a reasonable fear that the defendant was about to cause him physical harm. Simple assault is a Class C misdemeanor punishable by less than 30 days in jail and a maximum fine of $1,500, or between 30 and 120 hours of community service if no jail time is imposed.

But the victim in this case was a police officer, and on January 1, 2011, the law­ was changed to impose stiffer penalties in Illinois assault and battery cases where a police officer is the victim.

Assault of Illinois Police Officer

In 2010 the Illinois legislature passed a law that imposed harsher penalties on individuals who committed assault or battery against an on-duty officer. When the law went into effect on January 1, 2011, simple assault was immediately upgraded to aggravated assault if the victim was a police officer. The assault did not have to be any more menacing for the charge to move up to aggravated – it just had to be committed against an officer of the law. With the upgraded charge came increased penalties: a Class 4 felony and up to three years imprisonment and/or a $25,000 fine.

But while the charge was reclassified and the penalties increased, mounting a defense against a charge of aggravated assault of a police officer is not much different than defending against a charge of simple assault against an ordinary citizen. Aggravated assault against a police officer occurs if the officer was assaulted:

  • While performing official duties;
  • To prevent performance of official duties; or
  • In retaliation for performing official duties.

Defenses against this charge could include whether the defendant was aware that the assaulted person was a police officer; for example, if the officer was dressed in plain clothes, if he didn’t identify himself on approach, or if he was in an unmarked police cruiser. If it was impossible for the defendant to have known the victim was a police officer, it may be possible to have the charge reduced to simple assault.

Whether the charge is reduced to simple assault or remains at aggravated, defense against the assault portion would be the same whether against a police officer or an ordinary citizen. The basis of an assault charge is whether the alleged victim could have reasonably feared being physically injured.

Whatever the circumstances and whomever the alleged victim, an attorney will scrutinize all of the evidence and witness testimony to get the aggravated assault charges against you reduced or dismissed entirely. Continue reading

by

A McHenry County, an Illinois judge sentenced Oliver Woodstock to 36 years in prison this week for three counts of sexual assault. A jury found Woodstock guilty in February on one count of sexual assault. He entered into a plea agreement with prosecutors in March; in exchange for prosecutors dropping five additional cases against him, Woodstock would plead guilty to two additional charges of sexual assault. Prosecutors also agreed not to file any more charges against Woodstock if they uncovered additional victims in video recordings seized from his home.

The Woodstock case is unusual in that the victims were all prostitutes whom Woodstock had paid for services prior to the assault.

Illinois Craigslist Rapist

Woodstock was originally charged with sexually assaulting eight women, each of whom he had met on Craigslist and other online dating sites, with the intent of paying them for sex. Woodstock did, in fact, pay the women. According to trial testimony, what began as a consensual encounter quickly turned ugly.

Two women testified to similar stories at trial. Woodstock picked them up and brought them to his home, where he immediately escorted them to his basement. The women testified that Woodstock threatened to report them to the police as prostitutes, and became violent before escorting them upstairs to his bedroom, where he videotaped the sexual assault. The women could be heard saying “No” on the video recordings, and repeatedly asked Woodstock to stop because he was scaring them. Woodstock could be heard telling the women that he didn’t have to stop because he “paid them.” He also threatened to “hunt them down,” as he had their license plate numbers, if they reported the assault to the police.

Withdrawal of Consent as Defense to Rape

The defense argued that the encounter was a business transaction. The woman was a prostitute who was paid for sex, and thus the encounter was consensual. Because consent is always a defense to rape, Woodstock did not in fact commit sexual assault. Instead – for whatever reason – the woman changed her mind at some point during the encounter and decided to claim it was rape.

In some cases though consent can be withdrawn. In Illinois, consent can even be withdrawn while the sexual act is being committed.

In this case, it was clear from video recordings that the woman had withdrawn her consent to the sexual encounter: she repeatedly asked him to stop, and she indicated that she was afraid of him. In addition, he repeatedly threatened to report the woman to the police for prostitution. (Though not raised in this case, the argument could be made whether that threat was one that should have been taken seriously. Had Woodstock reported the woman to the police for prostitution, he would be placing himself in jeopardy of being charged with solicitation as well).

Had the above been a single isolated incident, the defense may have been able to convince the jury that consent was not withdrawn, but that this was a case of “buyer’s remorse.” But the prosecution had eight different women who testified to similar stories – and because Woodstock had recorded the sexual encounters, it also had the evidence to back the women up. In this case it was the pattern of behavior the videos documented – violence, threats, and each woman asking him to stop – that helped sway the jury that although the encounter started off consensual, that consent was ultimately withdrawn, making the encounter a sexual assault. Continue reading

by

A Palatine man faces charges of first-degree murder and hiding a corpse in a 17-year-old homicide case. The alleged murderer, James Eaton, was arrested in early April after DNA evidence from a discarded cigarette linked him to the 1997 murder of 14-year-old Amber Creek, a ward of the state who had run away from the juvenile residential facility where she was living.  Illinois has no statute of limitations on murder, which is why Eaton can still be charged and potentially convicted of the 17-year-old crime.

Illinois Murder Investigations  revolver-704729-m

Eaton was charged with first-degree murder, which means that the prosecution will have to prove that he either intended to kill Amber Creek or knew that his actions would cause her death. There is also evidence that Amber was sexually assaulted prior to her death which, if proven, would be an aggravating factor that would result in a stiffer penalty if Eaton were to be convicted.

An Illinois murder conviction carries a mandatory minimum sentence of 20 years in prison; the existence of aggravating factors, such as if the murder was committed during the commission of another violent felony, such asrape, can add another 15 years to the sentence, or possibly result in the death penalty.

While murder is a serious charge no matter when it occurred, cold case murders raise a number of evidence and proof issues that an experienced attorney can use to poke holes in the prosecution’s case to raise reasonable doubt. An experienced attorney can work closely with forensic experts who are experienced in analyzing DNA evidence. DNA samples can deteriorate over time, and forensic experts can help determine if the DNA sample from the victim’s body allegedly linking her to the defendant was of sufficient quality and sample size to pinpoint the defendant as the murderer.

If the integrity of the DNA sample can be brought into question, an attorney’s team of private investigators would look into whether there was a possibility that the defendant and victim’s paths had crossed prior to death, which could provide an innocent explanation for his prints being on the bag – for example, since she had recently run away, he gave her (or she took from him) a bag to carry her belongings. Or perhaps eyewitnesses who had not come forward during the initial murder investigation have information showing that the victim was seen alive after her encounter with the defendant, which would decrease the likelihood that the defendant was the murderer.

Although the goal is to exonerate the defendant and get an outright dismissal of charges where possible, if it appears that the defendant did commit the crime, or that the prosecution’s evidence is so overwhelming as to make a conviction likely, a skilled attorney will work with prosecutors to get a reduction of the charges. While sex with a minor is a crime regardless of consent, a defense attorney can review the sexual assault law in effect in 1996 to determine if the sexual encounter could have been legal at that time, assuming consent on the victim’s part. He will also review the evidence to determine if there are any mitigating factors that could decrease any possible prison sentence or avoid imposition of the death penalty, such as was the murder intentional or could it have been manslaughter or possibly even self-defense. The defense attorney will use any piece of evidence that could raise reasonable doubt to help gain a dismissal or reduction in charges. Continue reading

by

A Chicago man who teaches GED and adult literacy classes to Cook County Jail inmates has been charged with custodial sexual misconduct for allegedly having sexual intercourse with a female detainee on two occasions this past January. Both the defendant and the detainee were over the age of 18. While there does not appear to be allegations that the sex was not consensual, Illinois law prohibits consent to intercourse as a defense in custodial situations. However, that does not mean that the defendant has no chance of having the case against him reduced or dismissed.

Custodial Sexual Misconduct in Illinois

Illinois law prohibits employees of any penal system or treatment and detention facility from engaging in any type of sexual conduct or penetration with a person who is in the custody of either facility. The law states that a prisoner or detainee is deemed incapable of consenting to the sexual conduct. Conviction under this statute is a Class 3 felony, which carries a possible penalty of 3-5 years in prison and up to a $25,000 fine.

Defense against Custodial Sexual Misconduct in Illinois

As already discussed, consent is not a defense to a charge of custodial sexual misconduct. But an experienced sex crimes attorney knows how to find the flaws in the prosecution’s case to get the charges reduced or dismissed.

Illinois law does allow as a defense to custodial sexual misconduct that the defendant “has no knowledge, and would have no reason to believe, that the person with whom he or she engaged in custodial sexual misconduct was a person in custody.” The class the defendant taught in this case had voluntary attendance, which means he likely did not have a class roster of inmates who would be in attendance. If the inmate came to class in civilian clothes and claimed that she was a Cook County jail employee, the defendant would have had no way to prove that she was lying, as he had no class list to check. An experienced criminal defense attorney would examine all of the circumstances, including the inmate’s actions, demeanor and clothing, to determine whether the defendant should have known she was an inmate.

It is also always a defense to any sexual assault charge that no sexual conduct took place, or in other words, that the alleged victim is lying. If none of the defendant’s DNA was found on the inmate, and if there was no other physical evidence indicating that any type of sexual conduct happened, the case would come down to he said/she said. In these cases, a criminal defense attorney would want to:

  • interview all potential witnesses;
  • interview anybody who knew the alleged victim, particularly prison employees who interacted with her on a daily basis;
  • review any of the alleged victim’s treatment or prison notes; and
  • review her criminal record, including the conviction that sent her to jail.

The purpose of this extensive review of the alleged victim’s background would be to see if she had made similar accusations against prison officials or others in a position of authority in the past; if she had a history of lying, or; if she had had any prior trouble with the defendant over attending the class. All of these could point to her having made up the story of sexual misconduct either to get back at the teacher for a prior slight – perhaps him rebuffing her advances – or as a pattern of past behavior. Proving that the alleged victim made the story up would result in an acquittal. Continue reading

by

Illinois Cook County Sheriff’s officers arrested a Minneapolis man in March after a traffic stop revealed that the man had 25 pounds of crystal methamphetamine in his vehicle. Officers pulled the vehicle over in Arlington Heights after observing it commit several traffic violations. The drugs were found after the driver consented to a police search; the driver was then arrested and charged with possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver. The arrest raises several issues that an experienced drug possession attorney would explore to determine whether the police exceeded their authority in the search, seizure and arrest. Such a violation of the defendant’s rights could help get the charges dismissed or reduced.

Stop, Search and Seizure of Vehicle

Illinois police are permitted to stop a vehicle if they have reasonable suspicion to believe that the driver has committed a traffic violation. In this case, an experienced attorney would review police reports to determine whether the police had reasonable suspicion to believe that the driver did in fact commit a traffic violation. The police report should reveal what prompted the officers to pull the vehicle over; if no valid reason is included in the report, it could indicate that the police acted on a “hunch,” which does not qualify as reasonable suspicion. Lacking a reasonable suspicion, the stop and everything that followed would be a violation of the defendant’s Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure, and may lead to outright dismissal of the charges.

Next comes the search. Police claim that the driver consented to the search. An attorney would again review the police report and discuss with the client how consent was given. There is a difference between if the officer asked, “Would you mind if I searched the vehicle?” or instead stated, “I’m going to need to search the vehicle.”

The first question implies that the driver had the right to refuse, which is the case in all police stops; there is no requirement that you answer the police officer’s questions, and you are always free to go on your way unless an arrest has been made.  An arrest is made when you do not feel that you have the right to leave the scene.

The second statement, however, does not give the driver any indication that he is free to refuse the search and continue on his way. Consent is not freely given if the defendant feels that he cannot refuse. The search may also have been unreasonable if the reason for the stop did not warrant the search; for example, pulling the driver over for a broken taillight would not normally necessitate the search of a vehicle. If consent was not freely given, then discovery of the methamphetamines would be illegal.  A motion to quash the arrest and suppress the evidence would be filed and the evidence would be deemed inadmissible in court, thus leading to an outright dismissal of the charges.

An attorney would also investigate to determine whether the police could prove that the drugs belonged to the driver. Was the car registered to him? If the driver borrowed a friend’s car and did not know it contained drugs, it may be possible to have the intent to deliver charge dismissed. If the car did belong to the driver, had he lent it to anybody recently who may have placed the drugs in the vehicle without his knowledge? If the drugs were planted by a third party, then the intent to deliver charge would have to be dismissed. Both of these scenarios would also negate the charge of intent to deliver.

Intent to Deliver in Illinois  penitentiary-3-434119-m

The defendant in this case was also charged with intent to deliver, which carries stiff penalties; a conviction for possession of more than 900 grams of methamphetamine with intent to deliver is a Class X felony, which carries a possible prison sentence of 15 to 60 years and a maximum fine of $500,000 the street value of the drugs, whichever is greater.

An attorney will examine all the evidence to determine if any of the defendant’s rights were violated. If the evidence suggests a guilty verdict, he will zealously negotiate with prosecutors and the judge for a reduced sentence, or seek to reduce the charges or prison time in exchange for helping in an investigation of a larger drug ring. 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