Articles Posted in Sex Crimes

by

An Illinois Court of Appeals reversed the conviction of an Illinois man on charges of criminal sexual abuse, finding that evidence of other sex crimes allegedly perpetrated by the defendant was inadmissible. Without that evidence, there was an insufficient basis for upholding the conviction.

People v. Puccini

The defendant, Leonard Puccini, was charged with criminal sexual abuse after allegedly spanking the bare bottom of a 12-year-old boy for his own sexual gratification. At trial, the court admitted evidence in the form of witness testimony from two older bofile000704919536ys (now adults), both of whom alleged that Puccini sexually abused them in the 1990s (though he had not pulled their pants down and spanked them).

Illinois law allows evidence of prior charges or accusations of criminal sexual abuse to be admitted at trial to show the defendant’s propensity for committing sex crimes. Evidence of other alleged bad acts is admissible only if the probative value of the evidence – meaning that the evidence will assist the jury in its determination – outweighs any potentially negative effect. The fear is that evidence of prior bad acts will sway the jury to render a guilty verdict based not on the evidence in the case, but because it paints a picture of the defendant as an overall bad person. Just because a defendant committed a prior similar act does not mean he committed the act for which he is currently charged, which is why the court must carefully consider whether the evidence will unfairly sway the jury to find the defendant guilty.

When weighing the probative value of evidence, the court must consider:

  • The proximity in time to the charged offense;
  • The degree of similarity to the charged offense; and
  • Other relevant facts and circumstances.

On appeal, Puccini’s attorney argued that the negative effect of the two witnesses’ testimony outweighed any potential benefit. No charges were brought against Puccini for the prior alleged crimes, and they allegedly occurred almost 20 years prior. In addition, the acts were not similar. The witnesses testified that, following the abuse, which allegedly involved Puccini touching their private parts, he then masturbated, thus fulfilling the “for his own sexual gratification” element of sexual abuse.

The testimony of the young boy in the present case was inconsistent on whether Puccini masturbated following the spanking. Statements he made to the police differed from what he said at trial, and his testimony that Puccini went into another room to sexually gratify himself after the spanking was not credible. The boy testified he only heard “tapping noises” in another room, and although he initially told police he thought Puccini had an erection, he admitted that he never turned around to look at Puccini after the spanking.

The Appellate Court noted that the trial court, in rendering its decision, relied solely on the testimony of the two adult males in determining Puccini’s actions were for his own sexual gratification. Yet the earlier crimes, if committed, were worse than the crime for which Puccini was currently on trial, causing the Appellate Court to rule that the prejudicial effect of the witnesses’ testimony outweighed any probative value.

Without the testimony of the two witnesses, the Appellate Court found that there was not enough evidence to support Puccini’s conviction. In this instance, the defendant cannot be retried – double jeopardy prohibits a defendant from being tried again in order for the prosecution to provide evidence it failed to produce in the first trial.  Continue reading

by

A Chicago woman was arrested for her role in the alleged sexual assault of a Chicago man at gunpoint. The defendant and her friend picked up the man in their car as he walked down a Chicago street and proceeded to assault him.

Male Rape Victimsfile0002062790027

Sexual assault of a man can – and does – happen. Rape is traditionally an underreported crime, even more so for men than women. But the most recent statistics indicate that 38 percent of sexual assaults occur against men by women. Other studies estimate that 1 in 10 adult males will be the victim of a sexual assault.

The word “rape” typically elicits an image of a man forcing a woman to engage in unwanted sexual intercourse. But Illinois sexual assault laws are gender neutral. Criminal sexual assault requires penetration by any object. If the woman causes the male to penetrate her, whether forcibly or through threat of force (for example, at gunpoint, which was alleged in this case), or if she uses any object to penetrate his anus (including fingers), that constitutes penetration under the law.

Criminal sexual abuse requires an act of sexual conduct by force or threat of force (again, at gunpoint would qualify). “Sexual conduct” includes touching of sexual parts. In this case, forcing the alleged victim to fondle the woman’s breasts constitutes an act of sexual conduct that could result in a charge of sexual abuse.

Defense Against Sexual Assault

Defending a charge of sexual assault against a male is no different than defending a charge of sexual assault against a female. In the above case, as in the majority of sexual assault cases, there were no eyewitnesses other than the three parties involved. Therefore, the case comes down to “he said-she said.”

Some sexual assault claims are fabricated in an attempt to retaliate against the alleged offender for some perceived transgression, or else stem from a sense of regret that the sexual conduct occurred. This is especially true in cases that begin consensually. In such cases, a careful review of the circumstances leading up to the alleged crime is necessary to determine whether the crime was fabricated as an attempt to save face, or to retaliate against the alleged perpetrator.

In the case mentioned above, where the victim willingly entered the defendant’s vehicle, it is possible the man originally intended to purchase sex. An investigation into his criminal background could reveal prior arrests and/or charges of solicitation or attempted solicitation. This, in turn, could support a defense that, after the parties engaged in consensual sex, the defendant committed an attempted robbery, and the man retaliated by filing the sexual assault claim.  Continue reading

by

A Chicago police sergeant was relieved of his duties after being charged with one count each of predatory criminal sexual assault and aggravated criminal sexual abuse of a 9-year-old girl. The alleged victim is the daughter of the sergeant’s co-worker, and defense attorneys claim that the nature of the relationship between the accused and the alleged victim’s mother will make clear why allegations were made.

2236707066_b19320bca1

False Allegations of Child Sex Abuse

The defendant’s attorneys have not yet elaborated on the nature of their client’s relationship with the victim’s mother. We can assume, however, that the defense will attempt to prove that she is, in some way, a jilted lover – that the two either had a prior romantic relationship that the defendant ended, or that he previously rebuffed her advances – or a disgruntled employee, and is retaliating with false allegations of sexual abuse.

It may seem impossible that anyone would make false allegations of sexual assault as retaliation. Punishments for a sexual assault conviction are serious, involving lengthy prison sentences and sex offender registration requirements. Even the charges themselves, whether they are ultimately dropped or if the case ends in acquittal, carry a stigma that can forever damage the accused’s professional and personal reputation. Somebody would have to carry a huge grudge to falsely accuse another person of sexual assault.

Unfortunately, false allegations of sexual assault are not uncommon. They arise far too frequently in hotly contested child custody cases, as a way to ensure that custody is not awarded to the father. If the child is young, she is susceptible to being coached or having false memories of abuse planted. They will often repeat the false story because they want to please the mother (or whichever party is coaching them).

In a case of false allegations, there are two victims – the accused, and the child who is put in the middle. In these cases, the defense attorney must walk a fine line between zealously defending his client and not causing further harm to the child. In this particular case, there are two children who may have been coached – the alleged victim and her brother, who was the first to witness the alleged abuse and notify his mother.

In cases such as these, where there appears to be some type of bad blood between the accused and the child victim’s parent, it is imperative for the defense attorney to not only have a clear understanding of the relationship between the two adults, but to also explore the mother’s background to determine whether there is a pattern of false allegations of any kind against former lovers or co-workers.

An independent evaluation of the alleged victim by a child psychologist trained in treating not only victims of child sexual abuse, but also those who have been coached to make false allegations, is also vital, especially if the statement the alleged victim made to the authorities was done so in the presence of her mother. A review of the victim’s statement to police, along with a viewing of any tape recording made of the interview, is also necessary, in order to see if the mother was present and coached the child in any way.

Continue reading

by

A Buffalo Grove woman reported being awoken in her bed at 4 in the morning to a strange man straddling her in what police are calling an attempted sexual assault.  The woman allegedly fought the man off, and he escaped through a patio door. No arrests have yet to be made.

3319200049_b9b38b67f7

Defense Against Illinois Attempted Sexual Assault

While there is currently no suspect in the case and no charges have been filed, this case is an excellent example of many issues that arise in home invasion and sexual assault cases, and illustrates the importance of hiring an experienced Chicago sex crimes attorney. An acquittal in a case like this depends on the criminal defense attorney’s ability to show the jury how the prosecution’s evidence does not rise to the level of reasonable doubt.

Chicago sexual assault attorney David L. Freidberg has more than 17 years of experience handling all types of sex crimes cases, and knows what it takes to win an acquittal or achieve a reduction in charges. Issues that David L. Freidberg and his team of forensic experts would examine in an attempt to pick apart the prosecution’s case include:

Identification of suspect. The woman was awakened from a deep sleep at 4 in the morning. Groggy from sleep and seeing the alleged assailant in the dark make any identification from a police lineup questionable, as she only had a brief, darkened view of him. Her description of him to the police was extremely generic, with no real identifying characteristics that could distinguish him from any other white male of similar age and build.

Lack of forced entry. The suspect allegedly escaped through an open patio door; there were seemingly no signs of forced entry. The lack of forced entry raises doubts that this was a home invasion. Perhaps the alleged victim had invited the man in to her home earlier that evening, and then changed her mind and kicked him out because she has a boyfriend, fiancé or husband and felt guilty or got caught. Claiming home invasion and attempted sexual assault was a means to avoid their anger.

Earlier home invasion in the neighborhood. Police reported that a similar home invasion (minus the attempted sexual assault) occurred a month ago in the same condominium complex. It is possible that this was the work of the same individual, and perhaps he was upping his game. Or, going along with the scenario that the alleged victim was trying to save face, it could be that she was aware of the prior home invasion and tacked that on to her story of attempted sexual assault, thinking it would make her story sound more believable.

Lack of physical evidence. Because there was no sexual assault, there is likely no DNA evidence that can tie any future suspect to the attack. Even if a DNA sample can link the suspect, the presence of DNA in the form of semen only proves that sexual intercourse happened. It does not prove the sex was non-consensual.

David L. Freidberg would thoroughly examine the evidence to see if these and any other issues could be raised to cast doubt on the victim’s story and the prosecution’s ability to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.  Continue reading

by

Elgin police are asking local legislators to enact legislation that would make it easier to arrest individuals convicted of Illinois sex crimes who fail to comply with sex offender registration requirements. Illinois law requires all registered sex offenders to notify local law enforcement within three days of moving. But Elgin police complain that a 2013 Illinois Appellate Court decision makes their job harder and requires the utilization of too many resources in order to enforce the registration requirements. They are asking local legislators to create a new law that would in effect overturn the Appellate Court’s decision.

Illinois Sex Offender Registration Requirements

Illinois residents convicted of a sex crime must register as a sex offender:

  • Every year for 10 years for a ‘regular’ sex crime;
  • Every 90 days for life, if you are adjudicated sexually dangerous or sexually violent;
  • Every year for life if you are classified as a sexual predator; or
  • Every 90 days for the remainder of the registration period if you are convicted of violating the registration requirement.

In addition, registered sex offenders must notify local law enforcement of their residence within three days of moving. Law enforcement is required to verify each registrant’s address at least once per year.

Failure to comply with the registration requirements is a Class 3 felony for the first offense; additional offenses become Class 2 felonies.

People v. Robinson – Increasing the Burden of Proof in Sex Offender Registration Cases

In People v. Robinson, the defendant was convicted by the trial court for failing to inform law enforcement of a change in his address. Defendant appealed, arguing that the prosecution had only shown that he was not present at the address he had listed on his sex offender registration, and not that he had established a new fixed residence for more than five days, as the statute required.

The Illinois Appellate Court agreed with the defendant and reversed the trial court’s decision. In its ruling, the court stated that a conviction for failure to register under the sex offender registration law required that the defendant have a change of address AND that he lived at the new address for more than five days. The police did not fulfill its “affirmative obligation to investigate the charge,” instead assuming that because the defendant had apparently not resided at the registered address, he was residing somewhere else.

Elgin police claim that being required to prove that a registered sex offender has been living someplace other than his registered address for more than five days is burdensome. They cited one case where they expended 25 man hours to conduct surveillance and record-checking to determine where the registrant was living.

But given that a conviction for failing to comply with registration requirements may impose additional prison time and increase the burden of registration, the amount of resources expended by police in order to prove a registered sex offender has moved is a small inconvenience for them to pay. Continue reading

by

A Will County, Illinois man whose conviction on charges of predatory sexual assault was overturned by the Illinois Appellate Court, lost on his bid to have the re-trial on those same charges dismissed due to concerns that the prosecution violated his right against double jeopardy.

Double Jeopardy in Illinois Sexual Assault Case

In People v. Ventsias, the defendant was convicted of one count of predatory sexual assault of a child and sentenced to 11 years in prison; he was acquitted on one count of aggravated criminal sexual abuse. The Illinois Appellate Court reversed the conviction due to a finding of juror bias, and ordered the defendant to stand trial again on the predatory sexual assault charge only.

Prior to the start of the new trial in 2012, the defendant agreed to a plea agreement whereby he would plead guilty to the charge of aggravated criminal sexual abuse – the charge which the jury had initially acquitted him of committing – in exchange for the prosecution not pursuing the predatory sexual assault charge.

Following the defendant’s entry of the guilty plea, the prosecution moved to vacate the plea due to concerns raised by the trial court that the plea may have been invalid due to double jeopardy concerns. Namely, the court was not convinced that Ventsias could waive his right to plead guilty to aggravated criminal sexual abuse, since he had already been acquitted.

The prosecution then moved for a second trial on the charge of predatory sexual assault of a child. Ventsias objected and filed a motion to dismiss, claiming that double jeopardy attached due to the prosecution’s prior agreement to no longer pursue the charge.

When Double Jeopardy Attaches in Illinois Criminal Cases

In a previous blog I discussed a recent United States Supreme Court case, Martinez v. Illinois, in which the court ruled an Illinois defendant could not be retried because double jeopardy attached. In that case, the prosecution refused to participate in the trial, and the trial court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the dismissal, citing the long-held rule that “jeopardy attaches when the jury is sworn in.”

Like Martinez, the jury in People v. Ventsias was sworn in. Why, then, did double jeopardy not attach to Ventsias, when it did in Martinez?

Because there are exceptions to when double jeopardy attaches.

If the defendant’s conviction is overturned on appeal, the prosecution is generally free to re-prosecute the case. This is because, unless the reversal was due to insufficient evidence proving guilt, the reversal is usually due to some error made during the trial, whether the admission of inadmissible evidence or some other violation of criminal procedure that interfered with the defendant’s ability to obtain a fair trial. In these cases, although technically the defendant is being retried for the same crime, the first trial is considered null and void because the parties involved did not play by the rules.

In Ventsias, the defendant’s acquittal was overturned on appeal due to juror bias, and not because the appellate court found insufficient evidence of his guilt. So although the jury had been sworn in, double jeopardy did not attach.

Ventsias argued that double jeopardy attached when the prosecution agreed not to re-file the predatory criminal sexual assault charges. Therefore, even though the plea agreement was dismissed, according to Ventsias the prosecution could not re-try him for predatory criminal sexual assault.

The appellate court dismissed Ventsias argument, stating that the basis for the plea agreement was unconstitutional. According to the court, double jeopardy is a right so fundamental to our criminal justice system, that a defendant cannot waive it. Therefore, because his waiver was unconstitutional, the prosecution was not bound by its earlier agreement to not re-prosecute Ventsias for predatory criminal sexual assault.

It remains to be seen whether the defendant will appeal the court’s decision, and whether, if accepted, the Illinois Supreme Court would rule on whether a defendant can waive his right to double jeopardy.

Criminal laws are in place to protect the rights of the accused. While the state cannot infringe upon those rights, the defendant should have the right to waive them if, pursuant to his attorney’s advice, it is in his best interest to do so.

In this case, a conviction on a charge of aggravated sexual abuse carries a maximum prison term of seven years – four years less than what Ventsias had been sentenced to under the predatory sexual assault charge. So it was in Ventsias’ best interest to waive his double jeopardy protection and plead guilty to the lesser charge, even if he had already been acquitted. It does not seem right that the court can take that away from a defendant.  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 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 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

A new bill introduced in the Illinois legislature would extend the statute of limitations in some rape cases. Senate Bill 2609 seeks to change when the statute of limitations in rape cases begins to run. Current law provides that the statute of limitations in rape cases begins to run on the date the alleged rape occurred, if the alleged victim reported it to police within three years. If you are being investigated for, or have been charged with, committing rape, contact an experienced sexual assault attorney immediately.  depressed-girl-1030147-m

Proposed Changes to Illinois Sexual Assault Statute of Limitations

If the new law is enacted, the statute of limitations would begin to run on the date the police processed DNA evidence from the rape kit. The new law is in response to a case in which the alleged victim submitted to a DNA rape kit. By the time the police processed it, the 10-year statute of limitations had expired, and the prosecution was unable to file charges against the alleged rapist. The bill’s sponsor argues that victims should not be denied justice due to police mistakes, whether caused by a lack of competency or a backlog of cases.

Effect of Statute of Limitations Extension in Illinois Rape Cases

If SB 2609 passes, it will likely have little effect on the prosecution of rape cases. The case that spurred on the new law is no doubt a one-time case of severe police ineptitude not likely to be repeated, even if the police do have a backlog of rape kits to process. Even though opponents of the law say it does not give the police incentive to process DNA rape kits, since they know charges can be filed no matter how much time has passed between the date the alleged rape occurred and the date they final process the kit, the embarrassment over this case should keep them honest.

Passage of SB 2609 will have no effect on how the Chicago Law Offices of David L. Freidberg, P.C., will defend against sex crimes cases. Rape kits and DNA evidence are not the bombshell evidence the prosecution and media would have you believe. The rape kit only confirms whether the alleged victim and alleged rapist had sexual intercourse. If the DNA results from the rape kit show that the alleged rapist did not have sex with the alleged victim, then the charges will be dropped. And if the DNA results show that the two did have sex? Well, that’s all it shows.

Evidence of sexual intercourse is just that – proof that two people had sex. It is not evidence that a rape occurred. If the sex was consensual and no protection was used, of course the rape kit would find the alleged rapist’s DNA on the alleged victim. If it shows scratches, abrasions or other marks on or inside the victim, that still is not evidence that a sexual assault occurred.

David L. Freidberg has an arsenal of forensic experts who can examine the results of a DNA rape kit to determine whether there’s any possibility that the sample was improperly tested or not large enough for an accurate result. They can also testify to any number of harmless, non-assault reasons why marks or abrasions on the victim could have occurred, either during consensual sex or during the victim’s normal daily activities. 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 © 2025, Law Offices of David L. Freidberg, P.C.
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design