Chicago Criminal Lawyer Blog

November 21, 2014

Illinois Appellate Court Upholds Defendant’s Waiver of Miranda

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

The Illinois Appellate Court recently upheld the admissibility of statements the defendant made to police regarding the death of his wife, and affirmed his conviction for involuntary manslaughter. The court ruled that the defendant’s statements were admissible, even though they were made after he had invoked his right to speak with an attorney, finding that the defendant had voluntarily waived the rights.

People v. Stolberg: Right to Waive Miranda

I have talked before about the Miranda warnings, the rights law enforcement officers must read to every criminal suspect who is taken into custody. Every defendant has the right to remain silent and to speak with an attorney. Once a suspect invokes his Miranda rights, either by refusing to speak or requesting to speak with an attorney, all police questioning must stop. If police continue to question the suspect despite his invocation of his Miranda rights, any statements the defendant later makes are inadmissible.

The court in Stolberg, however, upheld an exception to law enforcement’s prohibition against continued questioning following a defendant’s invocation of Miranda. If a defendant “knowingly and intelligently” waives the right he has already invoked, the police may continue questioning.

In Stolberg, the defendant was questioned in connection with his wife’s death. During the initial interrogation he invoked his right to speak with an attorney, at which point the interrogation rightly ceased. As he awaited transfer to the Mundelein Police Department, the defendant asked why nobody was talking to him, at which point he was informed it was because he had invoked his right to an attorney, and officers were therefore legally prohibited from discussing the case with him any further.

The defendant then told the officers that if he could speak with his mother, he would talk to the police. After again being read his Miranda rights – and confirming that he could end the interview at any time by once again requesting to speak with an attorney – the defendant freely discussed the circumstances surrounding his wife’s death.

On appeal the defendant move to suppress his statements to police, arguing that they were inadmissible since had had initially requested an attorney. The court disagreed, ruling that based on all of the circumstances, the defendant had initiated further conversations with the police and had “knowingly and intelligently waived the right that he had invoked.” His statements to the police were therefore admissible, and his conviction for involuntary manslaughter was upheld.

While Stolberg shows that it is possible for police to continue to question a criminal suspect who has invoked his Miranda rights, the exception is quite limited. As the court makes clear, waiving the rights that had been invoked requires a knowing and intelligent waiver. In reaching its decision, the court relied in part on an earlier case, People v. Outlaw, where the defendant had similarly invoked his right to an attorney after police asked for his cooperation. He then asked police what “cooperation” would entail and, after receiving an explanation, agreed to cooperate and withdrew his request for an attorney.

In both cases, it was clear that the defendants had initiated further conversation with law enforcement after invoking their right to counsel, and they understood what continued cooperation with police would entail. A simple statement of, “Okay, I’ll talk to you,” would likely be insufficient to justify continued police questioning, unless other circumstances showed that the suspect clearly understood what he was doing by waiving his previously invoked rights.

November 19, 2014

Chicago Man Arrested for Shooting Girlfriend, Off-Duty Cop

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

A Chicago man was arrested last week after shooting his ex-girlfriend in the thigh; he also shot the girlfriend’s mother, who is a Chicago police officer, numerous times, and kidnapped his son. Charges are pending, but it is likely the man faces at minimum charges of attempted murder, aggravated assault with a weapon and kidnapping. When arrested, the defendant allegedly admitted to the shootings, asking police, “Did I kill her?” and saying, “I didn’t want this to happen, I didn’t want it to go this far.”

Defense when Defendant Admits to Crime

In all criminal defense cases, the defense attorney’s goal is to get the best possible result for his client. The ultimate goal is an outright acquittal, where the defendant is found not guilty and walks out of the courthouse a free man. Yet in some cases, all the available evidence points to the defendant’s guilt, so an acquittal is not a viable defense strategy. This does not mean, however, that the defendant has no options – and it is these cases where an experienced criminal defense attorney can make all the difference.

We will assume, for this discussion, that the defendant’s statements to the police upon his arrest were in fact made, and that they are a true admission of his guilt. That confession, coupled with both shooting victims likely being able to identify him as the shooter, the defendant and girlfriend’s son being found in his custody, and the gun and spent casings being found in his car – assume again they are a match for the weapon used – all point to his guilt, and would make it difficult to argue a case of mistaken identity, accidental misfiring or self-defense.

The goal of the criminal defense attorney in this case, then, would be to work to get all or some of the charges reduced or dropped. The kidnapping charge has the potential to be reduced to child endangerment or dropped entirely. Technically the defendant’s actions meet the definition of aggravated kidnapping – he transported his son (because he did not have visitation with his son at the time, he is considered to have kidnapped him) while armed with a firearm and while discharging a firearm that caused great bodily harm to another person.

However, a case could be made that at the moment of the kidnapping, the defendant was actually acting in the child’s best interest. The child’s mother and grandmother had just been shot – leaving him alone and frightened in the middle of a crime scene was potentially more dangerous than the defendant removing him from the scene. The fact that the boy was soon found unharmed at the home of another family member adds additional support to reducing or dropping that charge.

The defendant is also allegedly a Gangster Disciple, a notorious Chicago-area gang. The prosecution may be willing to enter into a plea agreement for a reduced sentence in the defendant were willing to testify against any other current gang members. The defendant may also qualify as a participant in Chicago’s Gang Intervention Probation or Gang Violence Reduction Strategy programs.

November 14, 2014

Chicago Man Violates Terms of Bond, Faces Additional Charges

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

A Chicago man out on bond was arrested last week and charged with unlawful possession of a weapon by a felon, cocaine possession and marijuana possession. The defendant was arrested after Sheriff’s Office personnel noticed crack cocaine on a plate on the defendant’s dining room floor; a subsequent search uncovered a fully loaded AK-47 and a .357 revolver and marijuana.

Search Incident to Electronic Monitoring Violation

Sheriff’s Office personnel came to the defendant’s home after his electronic monitoring device indicated that he was out past curfew. Upon arriving, Sheriff’s Office personnel determined that the defendant had had a legitimate reason for having left the residence. They then entered his home.

At this point you may be thinking, “Wait, don’t the police need a search warrant to enter a person’s home?” Under normal circumstances, you would be correct. Except in certain instances – such as when an officer has probable cause to suspect illegal activity – a police officer may not search a person or his home without first obtaining a search warrant from the court.

But in this case, the defendant was on electronic monitoring as part of his bond requirements for an unrelated drug possession charge. And in order to participate in electronic home monitoring, defendants must consent to allow Sheriff’s Office personnel entry into their home at any time. So when officers showed up at the defendant’s door, he had no choice but to let them in, or else risk being in violation of the terms of his release.

Now this does not mean that officers had the right to search his home. And in fact had they completed a search of his home, after determining that the defendant was authorized to have left the home, the drugs and gun paraphernalia they uncovered would likely be inadmissible in court. Unfortunately for the defendant, the crack cocaine was sitting right there, in plain view on the defendant’s dining room floor – and police officers do not need a warrant of any kind to make an arrest for illegal activity being conducted in plain view.

Once the defendant was arrested for possession of crack cocaine, the police were authorized to search the remainder of his home as a search incident to arrest. This doctrine permits law enforcement to conduct a search to make sure there are no weapons in the defendant’s immediate control that could be used to harm officers and to uncover additional evidence of illegal activity related to that already uncovered.

Chicago Conditions of Release

This case helps illustrate how an experienced defense attorney can skillfully negotiate anything from conditions of release to a plea deal with probation, but in the end that time and effort can be quickly undone if the defendant does not use common sense and stays out of trouble. This is particularly true when the defendant is release on electronic monitoring, where part of the conditions of release include consent for law enforcement officers to enter the defendant’s home at any time.

For this particular defendant, and many more like him, it is going to be that much harder for his criminal defense attorney to successfully negotiate a similar bond release, and bolsters the prosecution’s case for the initial drug charge. The criminal defense attorney and the defendant are a team working to achieve the best possible result, whether that is an outright dismissal of all charges, an acquittal, or a reduction in charges or reduced sentencing. But in order for the criminal defense attorney to be successful, the defendant must not do anything to jeopardize his defense.

November 12, 2014

Chicago Men Charged with Sexual Assault of Escorts

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

Two Chicago men have been charged with unlawful restraint, aggravated assault, aggravated robbery and aggravated criminal sexual assault with a weapon for allegedly luring escorts to vacant office buildings in an attempt to rape and rob them.

Sexual Assault of Escorts

Upon first hearing of this case, many people might think, “How could these women have been raped, when they were hired for sex?” (Although not all escorts provide sex to their clients, for this post we will assume these women intended to do just that).

In a prior post I discussed a similar case involving a McHenry County man convicted of raping prostitutes he connected with via Craigslist. So although these women went to the building with the intention of having sex with the defendants, under the law they may withdraw their consent at any time.

Whether consent was granted or withdrawn is difficult to prove in sexual assault cases, and always comes down to a he said-she said argument. It is particularly difficult to prove lack of consent in cases involve sex workers, since sex was the whole motivation for the defendant and alleged victim to meet. In these cases, the best defense would be to provide evidence showing that the alleged victims only claimed lack of consent because the encounter did not go as planned.

Assault of Chicago Escorts: Business Deal Gone Wrong

Encounters with prostitutes or escorts are a business deal, so the strongest defense (assuming forensic evidence proves that sexual intercourse took place) is to provide evidence of a business deal gone wrong, and the alleged victims fabricated or exaggerated the events in retaliation.

Like any business deal, the women likely quoted the defendants a price for their services. Upon arriving at the building and completing the transaction as planned, the defendants may not have been able to pay the quoted price. Or they may not have ever intended to pay. In either event, this would not constitute sexual assault – instead, it would be theft of services. However, a sex worker would not be able to press charges for such a crime, since prostitution itself is a crime. Their only recourse, then, would be to fabricate a claim of sexual assault, as well as all other charges as retaliation.

It is important in sexual assault cases which rest on consent, or lack thereof, to examine all of the evidence – forensic and eyewitness – as well as the circumstances that led to the meeting and details regarding the sexual intercourse, to determine whether it can be used to prove or disprove consent.

Defense in Case Involving Multiple Defendants

In cases involving multiple defendants, if the facts tend to show that a guilty verdict is likely, an experienced criminal defense attorney will work with his client and the prosecution to obtain a lesser sentence or to have charges reduced in exchange for cooperating with the prosecution.

In cases involving multiple defendants, it may be that one defendant instigated the crime, or that one did not actively participate, but was only an accomplice or unwilling participant. In these cases, the prosecution may be willing to cut a deal in exchange for testimony to convict the co-defendant. This is an especially attractive proposition to the prosecution in cases where lack of consent may be difficult to prove, such as in the case of a sex worker where the jury may believe she could not be raped since she sells sex for a living.

David L. Freidberg has worked with many Chicago prosecutors throughout his almost 20-year career to successfully negotiate a plea deal for his clients that save them substantial prison time. He will put these negotiation skills to work for you. Continue reading

November 7, 2014

Chicago Man Charged with Murder While Out on Bond for Sexual Assault

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

A Chicago man out on bond for a sexual assault charge was arrested recently for an unrelated murder. The defendant, who is accused of raping three girls last year along with eight other men, allegedly shot two men on Chicago’s west side; one of the men died at the scene, while the other suffered a gunshot wound to the arm.

Chicago Defense of Unrelated Crimes

This case is a criminal defense attorney’s nightmare – a client, out on bond, gets arrested for committing a second crime. And in this case, the second charge is worse than the first. But it does raise a variety of possible defense tactics, whether it is the same attorney representing the defendant on both charges, or if the defendant has one attorney for the sexual assault charge and one for the murder charge.

Of course, the typical defense against both crimes would be present here. Defense against the sexual assault charge would include:

Mistaken identity;
Lack of DNA evidence tying the defendant to the sexual assault;
Consensual sex, if DNA evidence is present;
The defendant was forced to participate in the sexual assault by the other participants, under threat of great bodily harm (committing a crime to prevent injury is not a true defense, but may result in a lesser sentence due to mitigating circumstances), or;
The victims fabricated the story in retaliation for some unknown slight, or because they were later embarrassed to have consented to sex group sex.

Defense against the murder charge would include:

Mistaken identity;
The defendant was not the one who fired the gun (this would require ballistics analysis by a team of forensic experts); or
The defendant fired in self-defense (if it can be proven he was the one who fired the gun).

But, assuming the prosecution has enough evidence to take both cases to trial, the two pending cases give the criminal defense attorney leverage in negotiations to enter into a plea agreement or to have the charges reduced.

The defendant is one of nine men allegedly involved in the 2013 rape of three women. In a gang rape, it is likely that one of the men was the ring leader; there may be one or more men who have committed prior sexual assaults that the police have not linked them too. If the defendant can help the prosecution bolster its case against other men involved in the rape, or if he has knowledge of any unsolved sexual assaults any of the defendants may have been involved in, the defense attorney may be able to strike a deal with the prosecution for a reduced sentence or a reduction in charges in either the murder case, sexual assault case, or both.

Likewise, the criminal defense attorney can leverage the defendant’s testimony in the murder case to seek a reduced sentence in either the sexual assault case, the murder case, or both. If the co-defendant in the murder case was actually the one who pulled the trigger, and the defendant is willing to testify to that, thus allowing the prosecution to gain a conviction on heightened charges, the prosecution may be willing to strike a deal.

It is always the goal of any criminal defense attorney to achieve an outright dismissal of charges, or to obtain an acquittal in court, for his client. But when the evidence shows that the defendant is likely to be convicted, an experienced criminal defense attorney knows when to use any leverage available to help his client win a reduction in charges or a reduced sentence.

November 5, 2014

Cook County Correctional Officer Arrested in Undercover Sting

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

A Cook County correctional officer was charged with theft for allegedly purchasing a watch he knew was stolen property. The arrest was the result of a joint operation by the Cook County Sheriff’s Office and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, part of the Sheriff’s Office’s continued effort to cut down on corruption and officer misconduct at the Cook County Jail.

Chicago Theft Defense

A Chicago theft crime occurs if a person “obtains control over stolen property knowing that the property was stolen, or under such circumstances as he or she would reasonably believe that the property was stolen.”

Whether control over the stolen property was “knowing” is a major requirement of the crime and, if the prosecution cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knew the property was stolen, the defendant cannot be convicted, even if the property was stolen. So in cases of theft, the primary defense would be that the defendant did not know, nor was it reasonable for him to know, that the property was stolen.

In this case, the defendant allegedly received information from a prison inmate (who was working with the Sheriff’s Office and FBI as part of the sting) that he could purchase stolen property from a third party outside the prison. However, unless the inmate was wired, it would come down to the word of a prison inmate – who presumably was offered some type of incentive to participate, whether it was a reduced sentence or privileges within the prison – versus the corrections officer regarding whether the prison inmate told the corrections officer the property was stolen.

It is true that the defendant was unwise in taking the inmate’s advice on where to get a good deal on a watch. But bad judgment does not mean the defendant knew the property was stolen. Perhaps he thought the inmate was telling him about a great deal on a watch in exchange for privileges or some other reward.

Even if the inmate was wired, and the recordings would prove that the defendant knew the property was stolen, an argument could be made that the defendant was acting out an unauthorized sting of his own – that his plan was to check out the warehouse the inmate directed him to, see if the property was stolen, and then report the theft ring to the authorities, perhaps hoping that the bust would gain him a promotion or some other accolades.

If, however, the facts show that the defendant did, in fact, know that the property was stolen when he purchased it, then defense would turn to getting the charges reduced and seeking a reduced sentence. The defendant was charged with a Class 3 felony, based on the fact that the watch he purchased had an approximately value of $1,200. In order to get the charges dropped to a class A misdemeanor, the defense would need to prove that the actual value of the watch was $500 or less.

There may also be a defense of entrapment, which I discussed in an earlier blog entry. A defendant is not guilty of the charged offense if he can prove that his conduct was incited or induced by an agent of a public officer. Here, the prison inmate was part of the sting operation at the direction of the Sheriff’s Office and FBI; therefore, he was acting as their agent. If the defendant can prove that the inmate’s behavior was so egregious that it would cause any reasonable person to have gone and purchased the property, then the defendant will be acquitted.

October 29, 2014

Illinois Freedom from Location Surveillance Law Now in Effect

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

A new law designed to protect Illinois residents from police officers using an individual’s cell phone tracking capability to determine their whereabouts passed the Illinois Legislature in August and went into effect immediately. The law, called the Freedom from Location Surveillance Act, was designed to prevent law enforcement from obtaining an individual’s location based on current or future data information without first obtaining a warrant.

Probable Cause to Obtain Location Based Information

Spurred, in part, by concerns over the revelation that the NSA was recording private citizen phone calls, the Location Surveillance Act prohibits law enforcement from obtaining certain location based information unless they can show probable cause that the individual whose location is sought has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime, or the location itself is evidence of a crime.

For purposes of the law, “location information” is any information obtained concerning the location of the device that is generated by the device being used (for example, a phone with GPS that automatically pinpoints your location once the device is turned on).

Any evidence obtained in violation of this law will be inadmissible in court as a violation of the defendant’s Fourth Amendment right against unlawful search and seizure.

There are, however, exceptions to the law. Police officers are not required to obtain a warrant prior to tracking location under the following circumstances (this is not an exhaustive list, but rather those related to potential criminal activity):

If location information is available to the general public, such as a Facebook, Instagram, Twitter or other social networking site, metadata attached to images and video, or by the individual’s IP address;
To obtain information from an electronic device attached to an individual as a condition of release, parole or probation;
To locate a missing person or track the location of a suspected child abduction;
If the situation involves clear and present danger of imminent death or great bodily harm to a kidnapping or hostage victim;
If information is necessary to protect law enforcement or person acting at their command; or
In an organized crime conspiracy.

If location information is obtained under one of the emergency exceptions, law enforcement must obtain a court order authorizing retrieval of the information within 72 hours of starting the location surveillance. If the order is not granted, or the application is not made, then surveillance must stop immediately, and any information already obtained is inadmissible.

Note that the law only prohibits law enforcement from using electronic information to determine your current or future location without a warrant. Police are able to obtain your past location information without first obtaining a warrant. This means that if the police suspect that you were involved in a crime – say, a robbery of a Fullerton Avenue gas station last Tuesday – they may use electronic data to determine if you were near the vicinity of the gas station at the time of the robbery, without first obtaining a warrant. Continue reading

October 27, 2014

Cook County Man Whose Rape Conviction Overturned Denied Innocence Certificate

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

In 1983, a Cook County jury convicted Stanley Wrice of rape and deviant sexual assault and sentenced him to 100 years in prison. Through the years Wrice claimed his innocence, saying that his confession was the result of police torture at the hands of detectives working under the command of former Police Commander John Burge, who has since been convicted on charges of abuse, perjury and obstruction of justice.

Wrice was released from prison in December 2013, after a judge threw out his conviction, finding that his confession had been the result of torture. Wrice had spent 31 years in prison.

Last week, a Cook County judge denied his request for an innocence certificate, ruling that Wrice had failed to prove his innocence by a preponderance of the evidence.

Proving Innocence of Chicago Crime

How could Wrice have had his conviction overturned due to a coerced confession, but be denied an innocence certificate? Because of the difference between actual innocence and innocence in the eyes of the law.

Dismissal of one piece of evidence does not necessarily mean acquittal. The court must determine whether there is a likelihood that, even with the evidence that was tossed out, the remaining evidence against the defendant supports the guilty verdict. If so, the conviction must stand.

That is what happened in Wrice’s case. There is no dispute that he was tortured at the hands of the police, or that his statement was made under duress as a result of that torture. But the court found that, even with the lack of a confession, there remained sufficient evidence of his guilt to deny issuance of the innocence certificate. That evidence included, strong circumstantial evidence, eyewitness testimony, and physical evidence recovered at the scene. The court’s ruling also stated that Wrice’s testimony that he was present in the house during the rape but had no idea what was going on defied common sense.

So despite the fact that Wrice’s conviction was tossed out in December based on the coerced confession, the court denied the innocence certificate, finding that he had failed to prove his innocence beyond a preponderance of the evidence.

Actual Innocence vs. Not Guilty

This case highlights the difference between actual innocence and a not guilty verdict. A defendant who is “actually innocent” is just that – innocent of the crime as charged. Whether it was a false accusation, a case of mistaken identity or police corruption, the defendant was arrested, charged and convicted for a crime he did not commit.

But “innocent in the eyes of the law” is different. A defendant can be found not guilty at trial, but that does not necessarily mean he is actually innocent of the crime as charged. A “not guilty” verdict in court does not mean that the court finds the defendant innocent. Instead, it means that the prosecution failed to meets its burden in proving that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. And the judge in this case ruled that even without the confession, there was sufficient evidence to support the defendant’s guilt. Continue reading

October 22, 2014

Elderly Woman Acquitted of Aggravated Assault of Chicago Police Officer

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

A 92-year-old woman was acquitted of aggravated assault against an off-duty Chicago police officer, but still faces two counts of misdemeanor battery in an incident that left her 86-year-old husband dead. The woman and the police officer’s wife were also shot.

The two couples were neighbors who had a longstanding dispute over what relatives and neighbors of the two couples described as petty differences – snow being dumped on each other’s sidewalks and littering on the lawns. On the day in question, the officer allegedly heard his wife and the defendant arguing, and came out to see the defendant throwing dirt over the fence at his wife and hitting her with a broom.

At some point, the defendant’s husband went back inside the home and returned with a gun, firing at the officer’s wife and hitting her in the chest and arm. It was then that the police officer returned fire, killing the husband and hitting the defendant in the arm.

Aggravated Assault of Chicago Police Officer

As I have discussed previously on this blog, an assault is committed if the defendant “knowingly places another person in reasonable apprehension of receiving a battery”. However, assault against a police officer is automatically aggravated assault. In this case, the officer and his wife claimed that the defendant committed aggravated assault because she allegedly reached for her husband’s gun after he had been shot.

A judge acquitted the defendant of aggravated assault, ruling that the prosecutor hadn’t provided enough evidence to support the charge. This was the right call based both on circumstances and the law.

First, circumstances. While the officer and his wife allege that the defendant reached for her husband’s gun after he’d been shot, the chaos that no doubt surrounded the shooting would have made their recollection of the incident suspect. While it is possible the defendant did reach for her husband’s gun – whether to retaliate or to protect herself from further gunshots – the more logical scenario is that she was reaching toward her husband to help him. And since he’d been holding the gun when he was shot, it was likely either in his hands or close to his body, which could have caused the officer and his wife to misconstrue her action. Because of these conflicting scenarios, it casts reasonable doubt on the defendant’s motives, thus necessitating her acquittal.

Now the law. Aggravated assault of a police officer occurs if the assault took place:

While the officer was performing official duties;
To prevent performance of official duties; or
In retaliation for performing official duties

In this case, the officer was not performing his official duties – he was off-duty. So even if the defendant had been reaching for her husband’s gun, the most she could have been charged with was simple assault, as the officer was not acting in any official capacity.

Chicago Battery Charge

The defendant was charged with battery for allegedly throwing dirt at her neighbor and hitting her with a broom. This may seem laughable – potential jail time for throwing dirt on somebody? A battery charge for hitting her neighbor with a broom? How hard could a 92-year-old woman actually hit somebody? Unfortunately for the defendant, the law makes no distinction for the extent of the injury. The slightest touch qualifies as a battery, even if it does not cause any physical damage.

But the prosecution must prove that the defendant did in fact strike the neighbor. If the dirt was thrown in the wife’s direction, but never hit her, or if the defendant simply waved the broom in the air, again not hitting her, the battery charge would have to be dismissed. Or if the wife committed a battery against the defendant first, there could be a claim of self-defense. Or the police officer and his wife could be exaggerating, or even fabricating, the battery claims, in an attempt to make themselves appear less blameworthy. These avenues would all have to be explored pre-trial in an attempt to get the charges reduced or dismissed entirely. Continue reading

October 20, 2014

Former Chicago Police Commander Convicted of Torture Released from Prison

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

Former Chicago Police Commander Jon Burge was released from prison earlier this month, after serving a three and one-half year sentence for lying to federal investigators regarding alleged torture committed by himself and Chicago police officers under his command.

For more than 20 years, Burge and those under his command used electric shocks, beatings, burnings and other torturous tactics on more than 100 African-American criminal defendants on Chicago’s south side, often leading to false confessions and wrongful imprisonment.

Chicago Police Brutality

As a criminal defense attorney, I work with police officers on a daily basis. And while we are adversaries, the majority of the Chicago police officers I have interacted with throughout nearly two decades practicing criminal law are honorable men and women who perform their job honorably.

Unfortunately, as the Jon Burge case proves, not all police officers are to be trusted. Some are racist, or homophobic, or sexist, and are unable to separate their personal beliefs from their police work. This causes them to convict the suspect from the get go, or ignore evidence that could disprove the defendant’s guilt.

Others become complacent in their jobs, failing to follow proper police procedures. And still others let the power go to their head, and believe they are untouchable.

Many often decry about criminal defendants getting off on “technicalities”. These “technicalities” could lead to not guilty verdicts for a variety of reasons that have little to do with the actual issue of the defendant’s guilt or innocence, such as:

Failure of the police to read the defendant his Miranda rights (thus negating any later confession);
Lapses in the chain of command over evidence;
Improper procedures followed in police line-ups or eyewitness identification, or;
Defendant failing to be provided a speedy trial.

But officers like Burge and those under his command are one of the reason why these “technicalities” exist. The rules of criminal procedure are vital components of the criminal justice system, put in place to ensure that all defendants are afforded a fair hearing. They work to ensure that defendants are not the victims of police officers who rush to judgment. And they exist to minimize the chance that defendants who are truly innocent are sent to prison.

Sometimes, as in the case of many of the criminal defendants imprisoned based on false confessions elicited from Burge and those under his command, the system fails. Improper, often brutal, tactics are used to elicit false confessions, which are then used as a basis for conviction.

Most people believe that the police, who are sworn to serve and protect, would not engage in such barbaric practices. So when the defendant, as so many arrested and charged under Burge, claims they were tortured, or that their “confession” was given under duress, they are not believed. Yet false confessions are more common than you may think. Suspects often confess to crimes they did not commit, after (wrongly) being led to believe the police has evidence that incriminates them, thinking that they will receive a lesser sentence, or will be let go if they “cooperate” and tell the police what they want to hear.

The result of these false confessions? Innocent men and women spending decades behind bars for a crime they did not commit. That is why, if you are arrested for a crime, your first call should be to an attorney. An experienced criminal law attorney can put an end to barbaric police tactics and prevent you from making a false confession – before it’s too late. Continue reading