Articles Posted in Violent Crimes

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

A Chicago man was recently charged with attempted murder for allegedly stabbing another man in the chest. Based on the bare facts, it seems like a slam dunk case. The stabbing took place in a bar, in full-view of dozens of witnesses who, along with the victim and a third-party who was involved in the argument, can presumably identify the defendant as the suspect. But by examining all the facts surrounding the stabbing, a good criminal defense can be crafted that may result in outright acquittal or a reduction in charges.

Criminal Defense to Attempted Murder

In any attempted murder charge, the first step is to determine whether the defendant can plead the affirmative defense that he acted in self-defense. An affirmative defense means that the burden of proof is on the defendant (normally, the burden of proof in criminal cases is on the prosecution) to prove the facts that justify his defense. In a claim of self-defense, it is up to the defendant to prove that he was justified in using deadly force; it is not up to the prosecution to disprove that deadly force was justified (although most prosecutors will make that part of their case).

Under Illinois law, a defendant will be found to have justifiably used force and acted in self-defense if he can prove that he “reasonably believed” that force was necessary to defend himself or someone else against the victim’s use of force. However, force that is likely to cause death or great bodily harm – such as a stabbing in the chest – is justified only if the defendant reasonably believed that he was himself in danger of death or great bodily harm from the victim.

To prove a self-defense charge, a criminal defense attorney would examine all of the circumstances that led up to the stabbing, including statements by the victim, defendant and any eyewitnesses, to determine whether any of the facts would support a claim of self-defense. Facts that may support a self-defense claim may include:

  • Whether the victim made any threats to the defendant that would have made him reasonably believe that either he or his companion was in imminent danger;
  • Whether the victim had a weapon;
  • Whether the victim made any gestures that a reasonable person would have felt were of a threatening nature and indicative of a threat of bodily harm (such as reaching for a weapon);
  • Whether the defendant and the victim had a history that would have caused the defendant to have a reasonable belief of imminent harm; or
  • Whether the victim’s injuries were likely to cause death or great bodily harm, or if they were just minor wounds made to sound more deadly by describing them as “stab wounds to the chest.”

The presence of these or any other factor that would have caused a reasonable person to be placed in imminent fear of injury or death would result in a finding of self-defense, leading to an outright acquittal.

Chicago Aggravated Battery Charge

If, after a review of all the facts, it does not appear that a claim of self-defense can be sustained, a skilled defense attorney would seek a reduction of charges. In this case, an examination of the facts may show that while the defendant did in fact stab the victim, the charge should be aggravated battery, not attempted murder.

Aggravated battery occurs when the defendant inflicts great bodily harm to a third-party. The difference between aggravated battery and attempted murder is that in aggravated battery, the defendant did not intend to kill the victim; instead, he only intended to harm him or, perhaps, attempted only to scare him by brandishing the knife (which would be aggravated assault) and the stabbing was an accident. If an examination of the facts showed that the defendant never intended to kill the victim – or even that he never intended to stab him – then the charges could be reduced to aggravated battery, which involves much less prison time than a conviction on attempted murder.   Continue reading

by

About 100 Illinois inmates who were sentenced to life in prison for murders they committed as youths will have the opportunity to have their sentences re-visited thanks to a 2012 Illinois Supreme Court decision.

Illinois Supreme Court Rules Life in Prison for Juvenile Murder Offenders Unconstitutional

Before People v. Williams, Illinois provided mandatory life sentences without the possibility of parole for all defendants convicted of murder. The mandatory minimum applied whether the murder was convicted by hardened criminal with prior arrests for violent crimes, or a first-time youth offender. The defendant was not allowed to offer evidence detailing his upbringing, the circumstances that led to commission of the crime, whether he had been the victim of trauma or abuse, his education, or any other information that would tend to prove why life without the possibility of parole was too harsh.

That changed in People v. Williams, in which the court ruled that mandatory life sentences without parole for juveniles who committed murder violated the constitutional ban against cruel and unusual punishment. The Williams decision took its cue from the U.S. Supreme Court case Miller v. Alabama, which made the same ruling in 2012, stating that when dealing with juvenile murder defendants, the court must “take into account how children are different, and how those differences counsel against irrevocably sentencing them to a lifetime in prison.”

Illinois’ ban will apply retroactively. This means not only will future juvenile murder offenders be afforded the opportunity to provide evidence showing why a mandatory life sentence is too severe of a punishment, but those already serving life sentences for murders convicted when they were youths will have the right to have their sentences revisited.

Illinois Mandatory Minimum Sentencing

Certain crimes committed in Illinois – including murder, rape and aggravated assault – impose mandatory minimum sentences. First degree murder, for example, has a mandatory sentence of imprisonment for the defendant’s natural life. This does not include any additional time imposed for aggravating factors. Second degree murder carries a minimum of 4-20 years. The judge has little discretion when determining the type and length of the sentence. The judge can consider mitigating factors, which could provide a slight reduction in the length of the sentence, but for the most part the judge’s hands are tied.

In crimes that do not impose mandatory minimum sentences, the judge is responsible for determining the type and length of the sentence, which can run the gamut from probation to imprisonment. The judge’s sentencing decision is heavily influenced by prosecution and defense attorney arguments, including any mitigating factors the defense attorney can show that necessitate a reduction in sentence.

While the Williams decision is good news for the hundreds of Illinois inmates who were sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole for crimes committed as juveniles, mandatory sentencing highlights the importance of hiring an experienced Chicago criminal defense attorney who understands the need to begin mounting an aggressive defense immediately.

Because the judge’s hands are bound by the law, the real defense in mandatory minimum cases begins when charges are filed. The charges filed lie in the hands of the prosecution. That is why you need a criminal defense attorney who not only understands the law and can build a successful defense, but who is also a skilled negotiator who can work with the prosecution to get the charges reduced to one without a mandatory minimum sentence.  Continue reading

by

A Cook County man was recently arrested and charged with two counts of aggravated domestic battery for allegedly hitting a woman in the head with a bookcase and attempting to strangle her. If you are thinking that this is your average, everyday case of domestic violence, you are wrong. That’s because the alleged victim in this case was the defendant’s 53-year-old mother.

Chicago Domestic Violence Law

The Illinois domestic violence laws are incredibly broad. Not only do they include a wide variety of criminal offenses – assault, battery and harassment to name a few – but a wide variety of victims as well. No doubt when you imagine the typical domestic dispute, you think of a male/female couple, with the male as the perpetrator and the female as the victim. (Although, as I have discussed before, men can be victims of domestic violence as well). So you are probably wondering how it is possible for a grown man to be charged with committing domestic violence against his mother.

Under Illinois law, a crime can be classified as a domestic dispute if it was carried out against any family or household member. A family or household member may include:

  • family members related by blood or adoption (including step-children);
  • spouses or former spouses;
  • a current of former boyfriend/girlfriend, including same-sex partners;
  • disabled individuals and their personal assistants;
  • roommates or former roommates; and
  • individuals with a child in common.

Illinois Aggravated Domestic Battery

In this case, the defendant was charged with aggravated domestic battery. The crime of domestic battery is the same as battery committed against a non-family or household member; the only difference is who the act is committed against.

In Illinois, a person commits battery if he or she knowingly causes bodily harm or makes physical contact of an insulting or provoking nature to another person. A battery is elevated to aggravated based on the type of injury or the status of the victim (for example, a battery becomes aggravated if the victim was disabled), but it is unclear from this case where the aggravating factor came into play.

The punishment for domestic and non-domestic battery is the same. Both are Class A misdemeanors punishable by less than one year in prison and up to a $2,500 fine. A conviction of domestic battery, however, may carry federal criminal penalties if the crime involved the possession, transportation, shipment or receival of firearms or ammunition. Additionally, while a defendant can receive supervision for a battery charge, which is not a conviction and can be expunged from his or her record, the same is not the case with regard to domestic battery. A conviction for domestic battery is just that, a conviction, which can never be expunged.

Defense against Illinois Domestic Battery

Would the defense of a domestic battery charge be any different than a regular battery charge?

Not at all. As in any other charge of battery, an attorney would look at all the facts and circumstances to mount the best possible criminal defense. In this case, the alleged battery occurred while the mother was attempting to stop her son from allegedly abusing the mother’s dog. The defense would include looking at whether:

  • the defendant was protecting himself from being attacked by the dog;
  • the mother, in her attempt to stop the alleged attack on the dog, committed a battery against her son first, causing the son to act in self-defense;
  • the injuries sustained by the mother could have been accidentally inflicted by the son as he protected himself from the dog; or
  • the mother could have sustained the injuries herself trying to get to her dog, and blamed them on her son when police arrived because of a prior argument.

Regardless of the type of battery, an experienced legal professional will examine all of the evidence to seek a dismissal or reduction of charges.  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

Illinois law enforcement began issuing permits earlier this year under the state’s new concealed carry law, and already it appears that law enforcement is singling out Cook County residents with any type of domestic violence history.

Police Objection to Illinois Concealed Carry Permit

The Illinois concealed carry law grants law enforcement the right to object to the issuance of a concealed carry permit if they have a “reasonable suspicion” that the applicant is a danger to himself or others, or is a threat to public safety.

When the application review process began on January 5 of this year, the Cook County Sheriff’s Department opposed 217, or 1%, of those submitted because the applicants had a history of domestic violence or were the subject of protection order; that number has since risen to 581, or 2.5% of all applications received to date. Gun crimes were the next highest reason for objections, with 378.  An objection does not guarantee that the concealed carry permit will be denied; instead, it grants the police up to 90 days to submit information to the Concealed Carry Licensing Review board supporting their objection.

The report notes that there is crossover amongst the objection categories, as some applicants had arrests for more than one crime, prompting the objection. Thus it is unclear whether any of the 581 objected applicants had convictions or charges for other crimes, such as drug crimes or assaults, which would have bolstered law enforcement’s objection. But with domestic violence being the highest objectionable category, it appears that individuals with these histories are being targeted. This is especially troubling when the basis of the objection was an order of protection.

Illinois Orders of Protection Not Evidence of Crime

Orders of protection can be obtained in criminal court in conjunction with a criminal charge of domestic violence. But they are most often obtained in civil court. A petition for an order of protection can be filed even if there is no arrest for domestic violence. While domestic violence is a serious issue, the protection order process is unfortunately abused, sometimes for personal gain, and other times for retaliation.

If your partner or ex-partner tries to get an order of protection against you, you may decide against fighting it, instead choosing to distance yourself from the situation. But given the potential rights that can be taken away if the order is issued, this is the wrong mindset.

If an order of protection is issued against you, it could negatively impact your ability to get custody of your children. You may have to list it on future job and housing applications. You will also need to include it on the application for a concealed carry permit, and in just the short time the licenses have been available, law enforcement has been trying to keep guns out of the hands of anybody who has any type of domestic violence in their past, even a non-criminal order of protection. 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 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

My 22 year old client, with no criminal background, was charged with Armed Robbery and Aggravated Battery.  This case carried a mandatory 21 year sentence if convicted because there was an allegation that a firearm was used during the offense.

bank-robbery-3-325802-m

My client was charged along with another co-defendant after they allegedly robbed a pizza delivery guy.  Even though my client did not possess the weapon, because he was “involved” the state’s attorney was attempting to use the law of accountability to charge him with the same crime as the co-defendant.  The law of accountability states that a defendant must engage in a common criminal design or agreement, any acts in furtherance of that common design committed by one party are considered to be the acts of all parties.

And I tell all of my clients, even if I believe they have a difficult case, you never know what will happen when an officer or civilian victim testifies.  In this case, the officer’s sworn report stated that my client actually took possession of the pizzas, after his co-defendant held a gun to the victim’s head, and ran into a neighboring house.  There were also allegations that not only was a gun held to the victim’s head, but that three other masked individuals were involved who attacked the victim, causing bodily harm.  At trial the victim made no mention of my client possessing a firearm or taking possession of the pizzas.  A motion was made after the state’s attorneys rested their case for a directed finding of not guilty.  The judge heard arguments from both sides and determined that my client could not be found guilty and found my client NOT GUILTY!  And my scared client did not even have to testify.  720 ILCS 5/18-2

Continue reading

by

One of the worst crimes you can be charged with in Chicago is criminal sexual assault, or rape.  Not only does it create a stigma against the person charged, but often results in lengthy prison sentences and lifetime registration as a sex offender.

You may have read in the Chicago Sun Times about the case regarding Carl Chatman.   Mr. Chatman was charged with criminal sexual assault, or rape, by a woman in Chicago.  Mr. Chatman was not only convicted of the charges but sentenced to thirty years in the Illinois Department of Corrections as a result.  Another notable case regarding Edward Szymczak would have had a similar result if he had remained in Chicago for his trial.

Fortunately the prosecutors eventually reviewed the evidence in Chatman’s case and his rape conviction was thrown out, and he was released from prison after 11 years in custody.  Eleven years in custody for a crime Chatman did not commit.  At the same time, prosecutors said they were reviewing the woman’s earlier allegations of rape against Szymczak but had not yet reached a conclusion.

These cases bring up the issue of the accusers and their statements.  How is it that someone can cry rape falsely, an innocent person is charged with a crime, his reputation is ruined and he is sent to prison?  All because someone made a false claim.  And nothing happens to the accuser.

It is an abomination of justice.  The State of Illinois is currently reviewing these practices and possibly deciding what, if anything, an accuser can face.  Many people believe that the accuser should face the same penalties as the accused.  If the accused is facing up to thirty years in prison, so should the accused, that is how serious this is. 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