Felonies

August 4, 2013

Bradley Manning Found Not Guilty of Aiding the Enemy, Guilty of Lesser Charges

by Law Offices of David L. Freidberg, P.C.

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.

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

August 1, 2013

Blast from the Past: Lessons Learned from the Chandra Levy Case

by Law Offices of David L. Freidberg, P.C.

Facing a Chicago murder charge can carry significant consequences.

It has been over a decade since the disappearance of 24-year-old Washington, D.C. intern Chandra Levy, but the case is back in the national spotlight as questions continue to swirl concerning the guilt of Ingmar Guandique, the Salvadorian illegal immigrant convicted of killing Levy in 2010.

The Chandra Levy case, which captured national attention due to its mystery, intrigue, and political ties, is back in court due to the fact that defense attorneys for Ingmar Guandique have called into question the testimony of a star prosecution witness, Armando Morales. Numerous hearings have been held on the matter but, until now, the proceedings were kept secret due to concerns for Morales safety. On July 29, 2013, however, D.C. Superior Court Judge Gerald Fisher ordered the release of the transcripts of these previously confidential hearings. While it is unclear how much new information these documents will contain, they should be available by the end of the week.

Ingmar Guandique was charged with the death of Chandra Levy in 2009, seven years after Levy’s remains were found in a Washington, D.C. area park. Guandique, then 20 years old, was already in jail for attacking two women in the very same park where Chandra Levy’s body was found. From the start, he adamantly denied murdering Chandra Levy. During his trial, the prosecution presented the crucial testimony of Armando Morales, Guandrique’s one time cell mate, also a convicted felon and gang member, who told the jury that Guandique confessed to him to killing Chandra Levy.

Guandrique’s defense attorneys state that the unsealed documents will reveal Morales made contradictory statements at trial. For instance, Morales testified at trial that he had never come forward to law enforcement before as he did not trust them. However, the defense recently learned Morales had discussed three murders with law enforcement officers and informed them of drugs and weapons dealings occurring in the prison in which he was housed.

Guandrique’s defense team plans to request a new trial based on this previously undiscovered information affecting Morales’ credibility. The motion will likely be filed in October or November of this year.

Here are a few points to take away from the Ingmar Guandrique Case:

A conviction does not have to be final–with a strong, dedicated defense team a guilty verdict is not irreversible, even in a high-profile Chicago murder case. An experienced defense attorney will continue to fight for your case and diligently search for new evidence that might warrant a new trial.
Witness credibility is crucial—in so many cases like Guandrique’s, witness testimony is one of, if not the deciding factor of, an individual’s guilt. Given the potential for witnesses to lie or be less than fully honest – particularly jail house informants like Morales – it is absolutely critical for your defense attorney to test the credibility of the prosecution’s witnesses. This is accomplished through thorough discovery, extensive preparation, and effective cross-examination.
Wrongful convictions do happen—although Guandrique’s defense team still faces an uphill battle in proving he deserves a new trial, his case does serve to highlight the fact that wrongful convictions can occur; and do in fact occur more often than we would like to believe. Wrongful convictions are frequently a result of poor lawyering, such as an attorney’s failure to fully investigate and prepare his client’s defense. This makes it imperative to obtain the representation of a skilled, experienced, and dedicated defense attorney.

July 25, 2013

Chicago Gun News – New Illinois Concealed Carry Law Enacted by Legislature

by Law Offices of David L. Freidberg, P.C.

By now almost everyone has heard about the Chicago unlawful use of weapon statute revisions. These are also referred to as Chicago gun charges.

After a protracted legal battle, Illinois has adopted legislation to permit individuals to carry a concealed gun, but the permits likely will not be issued until 2014. Illinois takes its place as the final state in the nation to approve a law to allow citizens to carry a concealed gun, but it has not been a smooth process and it may not be over yet.

The current process began in December of 2012, when the United States Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit ruled that Illinois’ ban on concealed carry was unconstitutional in response to a challenge to the State’s unlawful use of a weapon statute by gun rights advocate Mary Shepard. Pursuant to the holding of the 7th Circuit, the Illinois Legislature had until June 9, 2013 to enact legislation that permitted people to carry concealed guns. The Legislature was granted a one month extension and the Senate and House drafted and approved legislation, which subsequently was significantly modified by Governor Pat Quinn’s amendatory veto. However, with a Senate vote of 41-17 and a House vote of 77-31, the Legislature attained the three-fifths majority necessary to override the veto and enact the law.

The Legislature was under intense pressure to come up with some type of acceptable law before the deadline had past due to the uncertainty of what would happen with no regulation in place. Concealed carry supporters claimed that they would be able to carry concealed any type of gun anywhere without any restrictions. Gun control advocates claimed it would be up to local governments to craft and implement restrictions, which could be very strict. The Legislature attempted to reach a compromise with the legislation that was passed, allowing a very permissive process for gun owners to be able to obtain a permit to carry a concealed gun while enacting prohibitions about where these guns could be taken. Locations where concealed carry is not allowed include schools, parks, libraries, and buses and trains that are part of the mass transit system.While the Legislature was wrangling with language and restrictions on a person’s right to carry a concealed gun, Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan filed a request with the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals for a rehearing en banc, specifically asking that the entire 7th Circuit reconsider the decision. The 7th Circuit rejected Attorney General Madigan’s request and Ms. Madigan did not appeal the decision to the United States Supreme Court.

Under the law passed by the Legislature, the Illinois State Police have 180 days to organize a program to process applications for concealed carry permits and an additional 90 days in which to get all application forms processed. In order to obtain a permit, an applicant must:

Possess a Firearm Owner’s Identification card;
Have passed a background check;
Have undergone a gun-safety training program of at least sixteen (16) hours; and
Paid a fee of $150.00.

Although the State of Illinois now has enacted legislation that dictates the provisions for being permitted to carry a concealed gun and this law is far less restrictive than similar laws in other states, including New York where law enforcement personnel have the discretion to deny permits, gun rights advocates are not happy yet. These advocates believe that the nine (9) months that it will take for the first applicants to obtain their carry permits is a continuation of the unconstitutional ban on carrying concealed guns. Therefore, Mary Shepard, whose lawsuit was the impetus behind the Illinois concealed carry law, has gone back to federal court to force an immediate issuance of the permits. Some local governments are in agreement with this position and have announced that they will not prosecute those local citizens who are discovered with a concealed gun. Attorney General Lisa Madigan has filed a motion to dismiss Ms. Shepard’s case as moot because the requisite legislation has been enacted. Now, it is a matter of waiting to see whether the courts will give Illinois law enforcement a little time to get an effective system in place. This will greatly affect those facing Chicago gun charges.
Continue reading

July 17, 2013

Chicago Arrest News – What to do When a Loved One Has Been Arrested in Chicago

by Law Offices of David L. Freidberg, P.C.

It is always a shock to hear about a friend or family member who has been arrested. While we assume that our friend will be treated as “innocent until proven guilty”, this is not necessarily the reality in every situation. Many times, police officers and detectives alike will take advantage of a person’s lack of experience with the criminal justice system, which could lead to the inadvertent disclosure of incriminating information. Moreover, they also regularly fail to inform people as to the full scope of their rights, including their right to have an attorney present during various stages of the legal process (i.e. during interrogation and police line-up, etc.). If you find out that someone you love has been arrested, it is crucial to consider the following steps to help them protect their legal rights:

Obtain as much information as possible. The first thing you need to do is to find out where your loved one is being held. If he or she doesn’t know, then contact your local police department to see if they can help you locate them. When you speak with your loved one, find out what the charges are but do not allow them to tell you what happened. Your phone conversation could be recorded and held against your loved one later on.
Encourage your loved one to remain silent and to request an attorney. Don’t let your loved one make any statements or submit to any tests without the presence of an experienced Chicago criminal defense attorney. Also, it is important to advise the police officer or detective to not speak with your loved one until his or her attorney is present.
Take detailed notes. Be sure to write everything down, including the time that you were informed of your love one’s arrest and thereafter. This will not only help you keep things straight during this stressful time, it will also help your loved one’s attorney get the facts and start working on your defense.
Find a competent criminal defense attorney. As soon as you find out that your loved one has been arrested, it is crucial to find an experienced criminal defense attorney to help protect their legal rights. Do not hire the first attorney that comes along. Make sure that the attorney with whom you meet is familiar with the criminal justice system and, who knows the judges and applicable court of your jurisdiction. Having this level of familiarity can make a huge difference in your case.
Post bond. In most cases, a criminal judge will determine the appropriate amount of bail following your loved one’s arrest. Specifically, bail guarantees that your loved one will appear in all court proceedings following his or her release from jail. Jail bonds are available to cover the bail amount, get your loved one out of jail, and enable them to seek immediate legal representation.
Be wary of any deals that are offered, including those that seem too good to be true. Many times, various people involved in the interrogation process will attempt to make promises in order to influence your loved one to talk. However, it is crucial to realize that these individuals may not actually possess the requisite authority for their promises to hold any weight. With this in mind, do not accept any plea bargains or promises until an attorney has become involved in your case. He or she will certainly be able to “see through” these unfair police tactics and guide you accordingly. Continue reading