Chicago Criminal Lawyer Blog

April 24, 2015

Anything You Say – or Don’t Say – Can and Will Be Used Against You in Court

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

The 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination is one of the most well-known rights in criminal defense, right up there with the right against unlawful search and seizure and the requirement that police read suspects the Miranda warnings. Yet a criminal suspect doesn’t always have “the right to remain silent”, and not have that silence used against him in court.

Salinas v. Texas Requires Affirmative Claim of Right to Remain Silent

In Salinas v. Texas, the defendant was questioned in regard to a murder investigation. The defendant was not under police custody, thus he had not yet been read his Miranda warnings, which inform criminal suspects that they have the right to remain silent, and that any statements given can and will be used against them in court. The defendant voluntarily answered the officer’s questions in regard to the murder, until the officer asked whether a ballistics test would confirm that shells found at the crime scene matched the defendant’s shotgun. At this line of questioning the defendant simply stopped talking.

At trial the prosecution introduced the defendant’s silence as proof of guilt. Because the defendant had willingly spoken with police, the prosecution argued that the defendant’s refusal to answer that specific question was indicative of guilt. The defendant argued that using his silence as evidence of guilt violated his 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination. The trial court disagreed, and defendant was convicted. His appeals took the case to the United States Supreme Court.

The court affirmed the defendant’s conviction, ruling that the right to remain silent is an affirmative right. This means that in order for the right to apply – and for evidence of silence to not be used against the suspect in court – the defendant must say, “I am invoking my right to remain silent”, or similar words to that effect. Refusing to answer police questions is insufficient to invoke the right.

There are only two instances where the defendant’s failure to speak cannot be used against him. The first is where he is in police custody and has not been read his Miranda rights. The court said that such a circumstance is so coercive that the defendant need not affirmatively invoke the privilege because his statements cannot be considered voluntary.

The second is during trial, where the defendant has an “absolute right” not to take the stand, for whatever reason. The jury is not permitted to take the defendant’s failure to testify on his own behalf as evidence of guilt, nor can the prosecution suggest that the defendant’s failure to take the stand is proof of guilt.

The Supreme Court refused to accept the defendant’s argument that invocation of the 5th amendment right to remain silent should be assumed when a suspect refuses to answer police questions that would imply guilt. The court stated that while this may be the most probable reason for the person’s silence, it is not necessarily the only reason – his reason for not answering could be to protect somebody, to come up with a lie, or any other number of reasons. The purpose of the right to remain silent, the court stated, is not to protect all of the defendant’s statements, but only those that would tend to incriminate himself. Is it the defendant’s burden, the court stated, to invoke the privilege, and not for the prosecution to figure out the reason for the silence.

April 22, 2015

New Crime Bill Would Extend Statute of Limitations for Some Chicago Crimes

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

Legislation introduced by Illinois State Senator Michael Hastings (D-Tinley Park) would extend the statute of limitations for armed robbery, home invasion, kidnapping or aggravated kidnapping if these crimes were committed during the course of a sex crime.

Illinois Statute of Limitations

Statutes of limitation are imposed to encourage people to come forward and report crimes close to the time they allegedly occurred. Waiting years to report a crime has serious ramifications, as illustrated by the recent spate of accusations against comedian and television star Bill Cosby – any physical evidence that may have existed at the time to corroborate (or not corroborate, depending on the circumstances) is long gone, turning the case into nothing more than spew of he said/she said accusations that do nothing to promote justice, and everything to destroy the reputation of the accused and the accuser (depending on whose side of the story is believed).

Statutes of limitation place time limits on how long the prosecution to file charges. The statute of limitations begins to run on the date the crime was allegedly committed. If the prosecutor fails to file charges against the accused before the statute of limitation expires, charges can never be brought, even if the very next day the accused admits to having committed the crime.

Statutes of limitation vary depending on the crime. In Illinois, the statute of limitation for sexual assault is 10 years, provided the victim reported the crime to the police within three years of when it happened. The statute of limitations for armed robbery, home invasion, aggravated kidnapping and kidnapping are three years.

But if passed the new law, which the Senate unanimously approved last week, would extend the statute of limitations for these crimes to 10 years, if they were committed during the course of a criminal sexual assault, aggravated criminal sexual assault or aggravated criminal sexual abuse. The goal is for consistency in the prosecution of sexual assault crimes. Under current law, the possibility exists for a person to break into a home, sexually assault the victim, and later be arrested and convicted of sexual assault but not home invasion, based solely on when the attacker was arrested.

But the legislation raises questions about whether, in order to have the extended statute of limitations apply, the victim must report the armed robbery, home invasion or kidnapping within three years, or whether she must only report the sexual assault, and can tack on the additional crime later. Under the first scenario, she would report to the police within three years of the alleged rape that she was attacked during a home invasion, thus granting the 10 year statute of limitations for both crimes.

Under the latter scenario, the victim reports the rape within three years. Four years after the rape, she reports to police that the rape occurred during the course of a kidnapping which she did not mention earlier, because she was taken from a known drug dealer’s house, and she did not want it to get back to her family or employer that she had a drug problem. Will the fact that she reported the rape within three years allow the additional charge of kidnapping to be brought against her accuser, even though the three year statute of limitations that normally applies to kidnapping has expired, or must she have reported them both within the three year statute of limitation period? This is hopefully a question that the state House will take up during their deliberations as to whether or not to pass the law.

April 17, 2015

Plea Bargains in Chicago Criminal Cases

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

A criminal defense attorney’s goal is to obtain the best possible outcome for his client. Ideally, this would be a dismissal of all charges prior to trial or, barring that, an acquittal. But in some cases, the best course of action is to enter into a plea agreement.

Reasons for Accepting Chicago Plea Bargain

There are many reasons to accept a plea agreement offered by a prosecutor. And it is not only those defendants who are guilty of committing the charged crime that accept a plea; defendants who are completely innocent often accept plea deals as well. Here are some of the common reasons a defendant may accept a plea agreement.

Promise of reduced sentence. Prosecutors often offer a reduced sentence if the defendant will plead guilty. Most crimes have a range of sentencing possibilities, so a prosecution may offer the lower end of that range in exchange for a guilty plea, as opposed to seeking the maximum sentence if the defendant is convicted at trial. In cases where the penalty is lifetime imprisonment, such as a murder charge, the sentence reduction may be to allow for the possibility of parole.

Conviction of a lesser charge. Sometimes a plea agreement includes reducing the charges that were filed – from aggravated kidnapping to kidnapping, for example. Pleading guilty to a lesser charge results in reduced jail time and may decrease potentially negative consequences, for example the requirement to register as a sex offender following conviction for certain sex crimes.

Guaranteed outcome versus uncertainty of trial. Although it is possible for a judge not to agree to the prosecutor’s recommendation regarding sentencing in a plea agreement, the majority of the time the sentence promised in exchange for a plea is what is handed down. Accepting a plea agreement gives you a guaranteed outcome, as to both the crime you will be convicted of and the sentence. Going to trial offers no guarantees, either to whether the jury will convict or acquit or to the sentence the judge will order upon conviction.

Want the whole thing to go away. Contrary to what is portrayed on popular television crime procedurals, where the time between the commission of the crime and the jury’s verdict is a matter of weeks, most criminal cases are not over that quickly. Trials can be delayed or postponed due to witness unavailability, attorney and court schedules, or the need to acquire more evidence. Sometimes it can take months from the time the defendant is first arrested to when the prosecution files charges. Rather than live under the specter or a criminal trial looming at some point in the future, many defendants will agree to enter a plea just to put an end to it, serve their sentence and get on with their lives.

Consequences of Pleading Guilty

Even though accepting a plea agreement is sometimes the best option, it doesn’t meant that it is without consequences. Whenever you accept the prosecution’s plea agreement, you must carefully weigh the pros and cons. A plea agreement requires that you plead guilty, which can have long-lasting consequences. It may impact where you live, your employment, perhaps even future custody or rights to your children. A decision to accept or not accept a plea agreement should not be made until you and your defense attorney have thoroughly discussed your case.

April 15, 2015

Mistrials in Chicago Criminal Cases

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

Criminal defense trials, whether fictionalized accounts on television or in the movies or the real life versions, usually end in one of three ways – a guilty verdict, a non-guilty verdict or a mistrial. The first two are self-explanatory. But what exactly constitutes a mistrial?

Reasons for Chicago Mistrials

A mistrial results in the trial ending without a verdict, and either the prosecutor or defense attorney can make a motion for mistrial. In some cases, the judge will enter the order for mistrial without a request from either side. If the judge grants the motion for mistrial, the trial is over. If he denies it, the trial continues, and the defendant can appeal the decision if the jury enters a guilty verdict. There are a number of reasons why a mistrial may be granted, including:

Hung jury: Probably the most well-known reason for a mistrial. A hung jury occurs when all 12 members of the jury cannot agree on a verdict, and no amount of further deliberations will change anybody’s mind. The judge usually orders the mistrial on his own in these situations, as opposed to the prosecution or defense filing a motion.

Juror misconduct: Either side may request a mistrial if there is evidence of juror misconduct. This may include discussing the case with other jurors before deliberations begin, using evidence not admitted at trial to influence their decision, discussing the case with non-jurors or having contact with any of the parties associated with the trial outside of the courtroom.

Death: A mistrial can be declared if a juror (if there are no alternates) or attorney dies during trial.

Tainted jury pool: If a juror lies during voir dire – the pre-trial phase where the prosecutor and defense attorney question the potential jurors prior to jury selection – the jury pool can be considered tainted and may be grounds for a mistrial. Lies or omissions by a juror that could cause a mistrial include failure to disclose a relationship (personal or otherwise) with any parties to the case, including witnesses; having been a victim of the crime the defendant is accused of committing, or; having already formed an opinion regarding the defendant’s guilt or innocence.

Prejudice to the defendant: If something occurs at trial that is so prejudicial to the defendant that he can no longer receive a fair trial, and a judge’s admonition to the jury to not consider that information is not enough to erase it, a mistrial can be declared. Actions that can cause such prejudice include improper remarks made by the prosecutor during his opening statement, or a witness testifying to highly inflammable, but irrelevant, acts by the defendant.

If a criminal case ends in a mistrial, the prosecutor may be able to retry the case. Whether or not this is possible depends on the reasons for the declaration of trial, and whether a retrial would violate the defendant’s right against double jeopardy, that is, the right to not be tried a second time for his alleged crimes. Whether double jeopardy attaches to prevent retrial is a complicated legal analysis that is generally taken up on appeal. In general, however, any case that ends in a hung jury can usually be retried.

April 10, 2015

ACLU Report Finds Chicago Leads Nation in Stop and Frisks

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

A startling new report released by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) found that Chicago police conduct more stop and frisks than any other police department in the nation. In 2014, the Chicago police conducted more than 250,000 stop and frisks that did not result in arrest, making the possibility very real that a vast number of them were unreasonable searches and seizures.

Stop and Frisk in Chicago

The ACLU report indicates that 93 out of every 1,000 Chicagoans were stopped by a Chicago police officer in 2014. More alarming than their frequent use are the targets – 72% of all stops were of African-Americans, even though African-Americans comprise only 32% of the city’s population. They are more likely to be stopped in predominantly white neighborhoods as well. In the Near North District, which has only a 9.1% African-American population, they made up 57% of all stops.

I have discussed stop and frisks frequently on this blog, as they are one of the prime areas of police abuse and at the root of most unreasonable search and seizures. Under the 1968 U.S. Supreme Court Case Terry v. Ohio, the court ruled that law enforcement may stop any person on the street, provided the officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has either committed, is in the process of committing, or is about to commit, a crime. Once the stop is complete, the officer may frisk the person only if he believes the person is dangerous or has a weapon.

While the courts over the years have carved out narrow exceptions regarding what constitutes “reasonable suspicion” – for example, loitering on a street corner does not generally rise to the level of suspicion necessary to justify a frisk, but officers can take into consideration the area when determining whether a person may be engaged in criminal activity – the rules are clear. While a person can be stopped for any reason, he cannot be frisked because he’s black walking through a white area. He cannot be frisked because he “looks” dangerous. He cannot be frisked because a crime was just committed in the immediate area, unless the person stopped matches the description of the suspect.

“Contact cards” filled out by police following such stops show that police are abusing their right to stop individuals. Chicago police officers complete contact cards for every stop that did not result in an arrest or charge, noting information about the person and the reason stopped. Information pulled from the cards shows that police are stopping individuals for dubious, if not completely unwarranted, purposes. And the fact that the cards are not completed if the stop did not lead to arrest or charges makes it impossible to accurately determine how many stops are of innocent Chicagoans.

The completed contact cards that were reviewed during the ACLU’s study show that many Chicago police officers have a poor understanding of what they are legally allowed to do during stop and frisk. This reinforces the fact that if you are stopped and subsequently arrested by police, even if they find illegal contraband during a frisk, you should not answer any question or make any statement until you have a lawyer by your side. Law enforcement is required to follow specific procedures in regard to search and seizures, and failure to adhere to those procedures can result in evidence against you being inadmissible at trial. But confess to committing a crime, even when the results of the frisk are later deemed inadmissible, and you will severely hinder the defense attorney’s ability to get the charges against you dismissed or win an acquittal at trial.

April 8, 2015

Cook County Home Invasion

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

An Indian Head Park man was arrested and charged with home invasion after allegedly gaining access to the victim’s home by impersonating a police officer and assaulting the man.

Home Invasion: Separate Offense from Residential Burglary

While home invasion and residential burglary have similar elements – both involve unlawfully gaining entry into the home of another – they are two distinct crimes. Home invasion has the added element of unlawful entry of another person’s home knowing that at least one person is present in the home at the time of the invasion, or gaining entry by falsely representing himself to be someone else, with the intent to cause injury to the resident.

Like burglary, home invasion is a specific intent crime. The intent required for the crime applies to several different elements. In order to gain a conviction, the prosecution must prove that the defendant knowingly:

Entered another person’s home;
Entered the home knowing that one or more people were present, and;
Intended to cause harm.

In defending against a specific intent crime such as home invasion, the defense strategy is to raise as much doubt as possible regarding whether the defendant had the necessary intent for each element of the crime. The defense would therefore examine all of the circumstances surrounding the case to find any evidence that would tend to disprove intent. Such evidence may include:

Whether the home subject to the invasion was in the vicinity of the defendant’s home. If so, we would want to examine whether the defendant was intoxicated or under the influence of drugs, so that perhaps he mistakenly believed he was entering his own home, which is not a far stretch given some of today’s cookie cutter houses. If the defendant believed, even mistakenly due to his drunken state, that he entered his own home, his assault of the homeowner could not be considered intentional, since he would have believed he was protecting himself from a burglar.

Whether the defendant and the alleged victim knew each other and had any prior altercations. Is there any evidence to suggest that the two had had a verbal or physical altercation earlier that evening, and the fight continued in the victim’s home?

Whether the alleged victim assaulted the defendant first, prompting the defendant to retaliate in self-defense. The victim alleged that the defendant claimed he was a police officer to gain entry into the home. An examination of the victim’s history may show that he had outstanding warrants for his arrest, or past run-ins with law enforcement, so that his first reaction was to assault the “officer.”

Whether the defendant actually entered the home. If the assault is true, it cannot be a home invasion if the defendant did not knowingly enter the home. The defense would need to examine whether the initial assault took place on the front step of the victim’s home, and the defendant was pulled inside the home during the ensuing altercation. This would result in the charges being reduced, most likely to battery.

April 3, 2015

Attempted Kidnapping Caught on Camera in Washington

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

If you watch the news or use social media, you no doubt heard about a pair of Washington state siblings who thwarted a potential kidnapping of their 22-month-old brother. The attempted kidnapping – which was caught on camera and shows the kidnapper running away with the boy in his arms, the siblings running close behind – is every parent’s worst nightmare and reinforces the idea of “stranger danger.” But kidnapping encompasses much more than that.

Illinois Kidnapping Laws

In Illinois, a person commits the crime of kidnapping if he knowingly:

And secretly confines another against his will;
Carries a person from one place to another, by force or threat of force, with the intent to secretly confine her against her will, or;
Tricks or entices a person to accompany him to another location with the intent to secretly confine the person against his will.

I will discuss each crime separately, to provide a better understanding of the types of actions that can constitute kidnapping under Illinois laws.

Secretly confine against one’s will

This form of kidnapping does not require that the victim be moved to another location or even be snatched off the street. The victim must only be confined against her will. The confinement can occur in any public or private place – even the victim’s own home. The location itself, or how the victim got there, is irrelevant to whether the crime was committed. The victim must have only had a reasonable belief that she was unable to leave.

Carry a person from one place to another

This is the most commonly thought of kidnapping scenario, the unknown assailant attacking a person on the street, or removing a child from his home in the middle of the night, and moving him to a secret location to be held for ransom. The movement does not need to be very far to fall into this category of kidnapping. A victim can be pushed into the kidnapper’s car and driven a block away to an abandoned building, and it would constitute a kidnapping.

Using tricks or enticement to move a person

Again, the typical scenario that comes to mind is the stranger in the car who tells the child, “Come with me and I’ll show you my puppy.” In this form of kidnapping, the victim willingly goes with the kidnapper, but under false pretenses.

The ‘knowingly’ requirement

Kidnapping is a specific intent crime, which means that the kidnapper must have known he was holding the victim against her will. If the kidnapper had a reasonable belief that the victim consented to being held, or consented to accompany him to a third location, then he failed to commit an essential element of the crime and cannot be convicted.

April 2, 2015

Illinois Supreme Court Orders New Trial Due to Ineffective Counsel

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

A Cook County man’s conviction for first-degree murder was overturned, and a new hearing ordered, after the Illinois Supreme Court ruled that his defense attorney provided ineffective counsel for failure to object to testimony regarding the defendant’s confession.

Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

Watch any crime procedural on television or in the movies and you’ll no doubt witness repeated cries of, “Your honor, I object!” from attorneys on both sides. While they add dramatic flair to the movies, objections serve an extremely important part of criminal trials. Just like in a basketball game, where the referees call fouls when players violate the rules, objections serve as the attorney’s way of ensuring that the rules of criminal procedure are followed.

In basketball, if the ref fails to call a foul, there’s a lot of grumbling by players, coaches and fans, and maybe the team loses the game over a couple of lousy calls. But in a criminal trial, the defense attorney’s failure to object can result in conviction and imprisonment.

This is what happened to the defendant in People v. Simpson. The defendant was convicted of first-degree murder in the beating death of a man. The conviction was based in large part on videotaped statements of a third party, who told police that he was near the murder scene and that the defendant confessed to committing the crime. At trial, the witness said he remembered talking to the police about the defendant’s statements, but he could not remember what he told them. In fact, when the prosecution would ask him to confirm specific statements he made to the police, the witness could not confirm that he had made them.

Statements made by a witness out of court, which are inconsistent with his current testimony and which were not subject to cross-examination when made, are generally inadmissible at trial as hearsay. That is because attorneys on both sides have the right to cross-examine a witness, and a statement made out of court is not subject to cross-examination. But prior inconsistent statements are admissible if:

The statement is inconsistent with testimony at trial;
The witness is subject to cross-examination, and;
The statement describes an event the witness had personal knowledge about.

In this case, the witness’s statements did not describe an event he had personal knowledge of, and the Illinois Supreme Court made clear that the “personal knowledge” requirement refers to the crime itself, and not personal knowledge of the defendant’s statements, which is what the prosecution argued.

Yet despite the fact that the witness’s testimony was clearly inadmissible under the prior inconsistent statement rule, the defendant’s attorney failed to object. It is the duty of the defense attorney to object to the admission of evidence – the judge makes no objections, he simply rules on them. Failure to object means the evidence is admitted. In this case, the witness’s testimony was instrumental in the defendant’s conviction.

The defendant appealed his conviction, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel. In order to prove this, the defendant must prove on appeal that the attorney’s representation “fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.”

In overturning the defendant’s conviction, the court noted that it could determine no strategic reason for the defense attorney to have wanted the statements admitted. The court also noted that while other testimony tended to show the defendant’s guilt, the testimony in question was a supposed confession, which generally carries more weight with jurors than other testimony (particularly in this case, where one of the prosecution witnesses had failed to identify the defendant at trial). Without its admission, the court stated that there was a reasonable probability that the jury would have acquitted the defendant. As a result, the conviction was overturned and defendant was granted a new trial.

March 27, 2015

DuPage County Man Charged with Possession of Child Pornography

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

A Wheaton man was arrested in late January and charged with four counts of possession of child pornography. A forensic examination of the defendant’s home computer, which was seized following the issuance of a search warrant, uncovered evidence of child pornography that had been downloaded to, and distributed from, the computer.

Defense of DuPage County Possession of Child Pornography

In Illinois, a defendant is guilty of possession of child pornography if he knowingly possesses any visual depiction of a child engaged in a sexual act. Possession of child pornography is a specific intent crime. If the defendant did not intend to have the pornography in his possession – if it was obtained without his knowledge – then he cannot be found guilty, as “knowingly” is a specific element of the crime.

In defending against a possession of child pornography case, it is extremely important to examine all of the facts to determine if any of the evidence raises the possibility that the defendant did not knowingly possess the photographs or other visual depictions. A forensic examination of the defendant’s computer by computer expert, independent of the police and prosecutor’s examination(s), would need to be conducted to help answer the following questions. A “yes” answer for any of them would raise reasonable doubt as to whether the defendant knowingly came into possession of child pornography:

Did a third-party have access to the defendant’s computer?
Were the pornographic images purposely downloaded, or were they unknowingly installed as part of an adware or malware attack?
Were the images installed via an e-mail attachment that was opened?
Were the images downloaded after clicking on a link in an e-mail?
Were the images obtained from a site that a reasonable person would have known had child pornography?

The police investigation also found that the images on the defendant’s computer were distributed. A person is guilty of distribution if he knowingly distributes, or offers to distribute, any visual depiction of a child engaged in any sexual act. Again, the defendant must have had knowledge that he was distributing pornographic images. It could not have been done on accident or through no fault of his own.

A complete examination of the defendant’s computer by an independent computer expert would need to be done to help answer the following questions:

Did anybody have access to the defendant’s computer at the time the photos were distributed?
Does anybody else know the defendant’s login and password for his computer and/or e-mail account?
Was the defendant’s e-mail system hacked?
Did the defendant’s computer contain any spam, malware, adware, or other virus laden program that sent the e-mails without his knowledge?

If the answer to any of these questions is yes, it would raise reasonable doubt that the defendant had the requisite knowledge to satisfy that specific element of the crime. The Law Offices of David L. Freidberg, P.C., has access to a team of independent computer experts who will thoroughly examine the defendant’s computer, as well as review the police and prosecution experts’ report, to determine if any evidence supports the theory that the defendant had no knowledge that the pornographic images were downloaded to, or distributed by, his computer.

March 26, 2015

2015 Changes to Illinois Criminal Laws

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

A number of changes and additions to Illinois’ criminal laws took effect on January 1. Some of the changes are procedural, while others modify or add crimes to the books. Here are some of the changes that will impact criminal defense work in Chicago.

“Skype” Search Warrants: Judges will now be allowed to authorize search warrants based on sworn testimony provided over electronic methods, such as Skype or FaceTime, that utilize both an audio and video component. The judge must be able to see and hear the officer or attorney requesting the search warrant in order to sign off on it. Defense attorneys will keep a close eye on how this new law works to determine if putting it into action violates a criminal defendant’s right against unreasonable search and seizure. The court is authorized under this new law to establish best practices and procedures, so there may be the opportunity for defense attorney concerns to be considered and made part of the process.

One possible upside for the issuance of these types of warrants is the potential for these proceedings to be recorded. This would be another tool for defense attorney’s to use at trial or on appeal to show that law enforcement exaggerated the evidence used to justify issuance of the warrant or the need for one to be issued in an emergency. Defense attorneys routinely review the information included in the warrant and the officer’s accompanying notes in support, but being able to see and hear the testimony given to the judge, and not just what was written in the warrant, could be extremely helpful.

Grooming: The current grooming law, which prohibits the use of the Internet to seduce or entice a child to commit a sex offense, has been expanded. Under the new law, a charge of grooming also includes the distribution of photographs depicting the child’s sex organs.

Controlled Substances: The drugs “25I-NBOMe,” “25B-NBOMe” and “25C-NBOMe”, which are marketed as an LSD substitute, are now included on the list of Schedule I controlled substances. The changes came after the drug was linked to at least 19 deaths across the country over a 16-month period.

Expungement and Sealing of Records: This law allows a person to petition the court and request that his criminal conviction for misdemeanor assault, aggravated assault, battery, or reckless conduct be sealed as soon as four years after the termination of the defendant’s sentence. The defendant must not have committed any crime since his sentence was completed.

Electronic monitoring. Under this new law, judges are permitted to order, as a condition of bail, a risk assessment evaluation and electronic monitoring through GPS for defendants charged with certain violent crimes, regardless of whether an order of protection has been issued against him.

Photo lineup procedures: The law makes extensive changes to how police conduct photographic lineups, which should hopefully minimize law enforcement bias in the process and help cut down on eyewitness misidentification.