Chicago Criminal Lawyer Blog

September 17, 2014

Defense of Imperfect Self-Defense in Illinois Murder

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

Everybody knows a defendant can invoke a claim of self-defense to defend against charges of murder, manslaughter, or other violent crimes that result in injury or death to another person. What you may not know is that a claim of imperfect self-defense can reduce a murder charge from first-degree to second-degree.

Illinois Imperfect Self-Defense

Under Illinois law, a homicide qualifies as second-degree murder if the defendant can show he acted under a sudden and intense passion due to provocation by the victim, or he actually, but unreasonably, believed he was acting in self-defense. This is know as imperfect self-defense. Imperfect self-defense is an affirmative defense, which means the defendant carries the burden of proof. If the defendant can successfully prove one of those factors existed at the commission of the crime, then the jury may find the defendant guilty of second-degree murder, rather than first-degree murder.

A defendant cannot be charged with attempted second-degree murder; he can only be found guilty of second-degree murder by proving the existence of one of the two mitigating factors. A charge of second-degree murder includes all of the elements of first degree murder: the defendant must have intentionally planned to kill the victim, or he knew there was a strong probability his actions would result in causing the victim great bodily harm or death. It is then up to the defendant to convince the jury he was either in a blind rage due to the victim’s actions (also known as the “heat of passion” defense), or he believed, however unreasonably, that his life was in jeopardy.

Here is one example of how imperfect self-defense would apply. An individual suffering from a mental illness that causes paranoia or delusions may plead imperfect self-defense if he actually, though unreasonably, believed the victim was about to cause him great bodily harm or death. In that case, the defendant believed his use of force against the victim was justified, even if, from an objective viewpoint, it was not.

Imperfect self-defense may also arise in cases of murder that occurred in the heat of passion. For example, a wife who walks in on her husband and his lover flies into a rage, grabs a gun in her nightstand drawer, and shoots them both dead. The wife knew her actions were likely to cause the death of her husband and his lover (she may even have intended it), but she was in such a blind rage due to his betrayal that she could not control herself. In this case, the defense could argue the charge be reduced to second-degree murder. Continue reading

September 15, 2014

Defenses to Aggravated Discharge of a Firearm and Aggravated Battery

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

A Chicago man was charged with aggravated battery with a firearm, reckless discharge of a firearm and vehicular invasion following a shooting at a Cook County Preserve soccer field on Labor Day that injured one other man. The alleged shooter then tried to flee the scene by stealing a vehicle.

Chicago Defense to Aggravated Discharge of a Firearm

A person commits the Illinois crime of aggravated discharge of a firearm if he “discharges a firearm in the direction of another person.” In this case, we would first challenge the validity of the defendant’s identification as the shooter, looking first at whether gunpowder residue was found on the defendant’s hands or clothes, or whether his fingerprints were found on the weapon.

We would also challenge any eyewitness descriptions of the shooter. There were approximately 2,000 people present at the soccer game, given the chaos that ensued after the shots were fired, eyewitnesses would have difficulty accurately describing the shooter, let alone determining who fired the weapon. Another important point concerns whether the eyewitness descriptions of the shooter match the defendant. If the witness descriptions do not match, it would indicate a different person was responsible for the gun’s discharge.

Assuming eyewitnesses could positively identify the defendant as the individual who discharged the firearm, or if gunpowder residue shows the defendant fired the gun, a successful defense would require a thorough examination of the weapon to determine whether discharge was due to a malfunction. If the weapon discharged due to malfunction, the defendant cannot be charged or convicted of reckless discharge. David L. Freidberg’s team of forensic experts would examine all of the evidence surrounding discharge of the weapon to determine whether another explanation exists for its discharging.

Chicago Defense to Aggravated Battery

A person commits the Illinois charge of aggravated battery based on use of a firearm if he discharges that firearm and causes injury to another person. In this case, we would employ many of the same defenses as in the aggravated discharge of a firearm: challenge the identification of the shooter, as well as any evidence indicating he was actually the shooter. Forensic experts would thoroughly examine the defendant for evidence of gunpowder residue on his hands or clothes (or review police reports on these findings) to determine if the prosecution can prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant fired the weapon.

If the evidence proves the defendant did in fact fire the weapon, we would again examine whether there is another reason the weapon discharged, other than through the defendant’s intent. A charge of aggravated battery based on use of a firearm requires the defendant “knowingly” discharge the weapon. If the weapon malfunctioned, he did not knowingly discharge the weapon. Continue reading

September 11, 2014

Was Chicago Police Officer Falsely Charged with Child Sexual Abuse?

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

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

False Allegations of Child Sex Abuse

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

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

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

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

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

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

September 9, 2014

Chicago Man Guilty of Aggravated Discharge of Firearm by Common Design

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

The Illinois Supreme Court recently upheld a Chicago man’s conviction on a charge of aggravated discharge of a firearm toward a police officer, despite the fact that the defendant did not fire the weapon and claims he was unaware the shooter was armed.

Illinois Common Criminal Design Rule

In People v. Fernandez, Fernandez was convicted of a single charge of aggravated discharge of a firearm toward a police officer (he was initially charged with one count of burglary and two counts of aggravated discharge, but the trial court merged the three charges into a single charge). Fernandez and his friend drove to a church under the Dan Ryan Expressway, where the friend attempted to burglarize a vehicle. Fernandez’ friend was approached by a police officer and opened fire as Fernandez drove away.

Fernandez claimed he had no idea that his friend had a gun.

A Chicago resident commits the crime of aggravated discharge of a firearm toward a police officer if he “knowingly or intentionally” discharges a firearm in the direction of a police officer. If Fernandez did not fire the weapon, how, then, could his conviction have been upheld?

In a previous post I discussed the felony murder rule, which allows a defendant who commits a forcible felony to be charged with murder if the victim dies during the commission of the felony, even though the defendant did not cause the victim’s death. The theory behind the felony murder rule is that forcible felonies are inherently dangerous crimes, so the defendant should know there is high likelihood that the victim will be injured or killed.

The common design rule is the felony murder equivalent to non-forcible felonies. Under the common design rule, if two or more people are involved in a common design agreement, any acts committed by one party in furtherance of that common design “are considered to be the acts of all parties . . .and all are equally responsible for the consequences of those further acts.”

Fernandez argued that because he did not know that his friend was armed, he cannot be held responsible for aggravated discharge of a weapon toward a police officer, and because he did not know his companion planned to commit that crime. The court rejected this argument, stating that because Fernandez admitted that he intended to help his friend burglarize the vehicle (by knowingly driving him around town looking for vehicles to burglarize), he is equally responsible for his friend’s conduct. “Conduct”, the court stated, “encompasses any criminal act done in furtherance of the planned and intended act.” In this case, Fernandez’ companion discharged his weapon toward the police officer in furtherance of the burglary, i.e., in an attempt to evade arrest.

Therefore, under the common design rule, just as in the felony murder rule, intent is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether the defendant intended to commit the underlying crime. If the prosecution can prove that, then all parties to the crime are responsible for the actions of the others.

September 5, 2014

Skokie Aggravated Armed Robbery

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

An elderly woman was a victim of an armed robbery while walking down a Skokie street earlier this month. The perpetrator reportedly approached the woman, showed what appeared to be a gun and demanded the victim’s bag before riding away on his bicycle.

Disproving Suspect Identification in Skokie Aggravated Robbery Charge

There are a number of elements the prosecution must prove in order to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant is guilty of a Skokie armed robbery charge. For the sake of this discussion, we will assume that the prosecution would be able to prove that the defendant knowingly took property that did not belong to him, and that he made the victim believe that he was carrying a gun (an essential element in proving aggravated robbery)

In all criminal cases, a skilled criminal defense attorney will work diligently to obtain an outright acquittal or dismissal of charges prior to prosecution. Based on the facts of this case, discrediting the victim’s positive identification of her assailant may result in the prosecution dismissing the case or, if brought to trial, the jury finding the defendant not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Eyewitness testimony is often the only evidence the police and prosecution have to support an arrest and conviction, yet due to the fact that victims are attempting to recall details of a traumatic event, it is often unreliable. An arrest made based on this particular victim’s identification would be extremely suspect, and an experienced attorney would argue to the prosecution, the judge in pre-trial motions, and the jury, if the case went to trial, why this victim’s identification is unreliable and the case warrants a finding of not guilty.

The victim described the assailant as a 6-foot-tall, thin, dark-complexioned male between the ages of 18-20. He was wearing a black baseball hat, sunglasses and, according to the police report, “possibly” a white shirt and white pants.

This is an extremely vague description – the victim mentions no identifying marks, such as scars, tattoos, or other unique features that could distinguish the assailant from any other tall, thin black man. He was wearing sunglasses and a baseball hat, further obscuring his face. This will make it difficult for the victim to make a positive identification.

On top of that, the victim was unsure if the assailant was wearing white pants and a white shirt. This uncertainty throws into doubt her ability to provide an accurate description of the assailant, and thus makes any future identification of him suspect.

An adept criminal defense lawyer would argue all these points at trial to discredit the victim’s identification. In addition, he would review the method of identification – whether an in-person or photographic lineup – to ensure that the victim was provided only with a selection of men fitting the assailant’s description, and not men of varying builds and ages, or displaying any other identifying characteristics. He would also review photographs or recordings made of the lineup (or, if retained once the arrest is made, participate) to determine whether the police may have somehow led the victim to choose the suspect from the lineup.

Skokie Armed Robbery Attorney Continue reading

September 3, 2014

Sexual Assault of Woman in Buffalo Grove

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

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.

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

September 1, 2014

Chicago Police Chief Charged with Felony Theft

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

A former Chicago police chief is set to stand trial in late September on charges of felony theft of government property, misallocation of funds and official misconduct. The police chief, who pled not guilty to the charges in February 2013, is accused of stealing more than $140,000 from the city’s drug asset forfeiture fund.

Chicago Felony Theft Charge

Felony theft of Illinois government property occurs when the defendant obtains or exerts control over property in the custody of any law enforcement agency. Felony theft of government property is a serious crime that imposes harsher penalties than other theft categories – in this case, a Class X felony due to the amount of money allegedly stolen and the fact that it was stolen from a government agency. A Class X felony carries the potential for a minimum of six years in prison, with a maximum of 30 years.

The defense attorney recently filed a motion requesting that the prosecution provide more details on the intent element and on the transactions themselves. This is an important motion, as it deals with an essential element of the crime, and whether the defendant should have been charged with a lower class of felony.

Intent to Deprive

Felony theft is a specific intent crime, which means that in order to prove guilt, the prosecution must be able not only to prove that the defendant took the money knowing he was not entitled to it, but that he also intended to permanently deprive the rightful owner of the use of the property, or used it in such a manner that would deprive the rightful owner of the use of the property.

How does this work in terms of defense? Let’s assume that the prosecution can prove that the defendant knew he was not entitled to the money when he took it. The prosecutor still must prove that the defendant intended to permanently deprive the city of its right to the money. It may be possible, therefore, to make the argument that at the time the defendant took the money, he intended to repay it; that he simply had fallen on hard times, and was using it as a stopgap measure until he was able to obtain other income.

Class 1 v. Class X Felony Theft

The defense attorney also requested more information on the details of each interaction. In Illinois, theft from a government agency is a Class 1 felony if the value of the property stolen was $500 or less.

Although the total value of the money allegedly stolen by the defendant was $140,000, the law does not specifically state that the total value is cumulative. Meaning, if the amount allegedly stolen was taken in numerous increments of $500 or less, an argument could be made that each separate occurrence should be charged as Class 1, rather than a Class X, felony. This would result in a significant reduction in sentence if the defendant is found guilty – up to three years in prison for a Class 1 felony versus the potential 30-year sentence for a Class X felony. Continue reading

August 29, 2014

Cook County Sheriff’s Office Conducts Solicitation Sting Operation

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

The Cook County Sheriff’s Office participated in the National Day of Johns Arrests July 17 – August 3, along with 28 other law enforcement agencies in 14 states. The sweep, which was created by the Cook County Sheriff’s Office in 2011, netted 14 men on charges of allegedly being involved in pimping, trafficking or promoting prostitution, while another 184 men were arrested and charged with attempted solicitation.

Chicago Solicitation of Prostitution Cases

Most cases of solicitation involve two consenting adults, neither of whom were kidnapped and forced into prostitution (known as sex trafficking), so it is generally a victimless crime. However, this is not a valid defense in court, because the law assumes that the prostitutes are vulnerable and that their circumstances – for example, a single mother with no other means of support – led them to accept payment for sex. Where leniency is often given to the prostitutes, it is not to the men arrested and charged with solicitation. And a conviction for solicitation is not a slap on the wrist – you face up to a year in jail and a $2,500, not to mention the social stigma.

Because of this automatic bias against those accused of soliciting sex, experienced defense counsel is vital in defending against charges of solicitation. Creating a defense requires examining the circumstances that led up to the arrest to determine whether the prosecution can prove that the defendant was, in fact, soliciting sex. Facts that would negate the prosecution’s claims and require the charges to be dropped or would lead to an acquittal in court may include:

Whether the defendant knew the woman was a prostitute (for example, if he thought he was just hitting on a stranger at the bar);
Whether any money exchanged hands. Even someone who sells sex for a living can decide to have sex with somebody for free simply because she finds him attractive;
Whether the defendant dropped all attempts to have sex with the woman once he realized she was a prostitute;
Whether the defendant was enticed or entrapped. These stings often result in overzealous, undercover police officers forcefully attempting to get the defendant to pay for sex in order to make an arrest; or
If the alleged solicitation occurred over the Internet, such as in response to a Craigslist ad, did the defendant actually intend to follow through; for example, perhaps he was engaging in some risqué flirting or indulging a fantasy, but never intended to meet the woman at the designated place and time.

If any of these factors are present, then there is a strong defense to be made that the charges should be dropped. Solicitation cases carry a social stigma even if the defendant is ultimately acquitted. Having the case tried in court opens up the possibility for it to be reported in the local newspaper, which can negatively impact your job and public reputation. Our goal in all solicitation cases is to get the charges dropped as quickly as possible to not only avoid potential jail time and fines, but to avoid possible damage to your reputation as well. Continue reading

August 21, 2014

Felony Murder Rule in Chicago Homicide

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

A 15-year-old Chicago boy was charged in February with the murder of his friend, a 16-year-old Chicago boy, who was shot in the head during the commission of an armed robbery. But this case has a twist – the victim was killed by an off-duty police officer, who himself was the victim of an attempted armed robbery by the victim and his friend. So how can the boy be charged with murder when he did not pull the trigger? Because of a controversial law known as the felony murder rule.

Illinois Felony Murder Rule

A criminal defendant can be charged with first degree murder in Illinois if the victim was killed while the defendant was “attempting or committing a forcible felony other than second degree murder.” Forcible felonies include armed robbery, burglary, sexual assault, or any other violent felony.

Although the full statute states that “a person who kills an individual” is the one charged with first degree murder, under the proximate cause theory of felony murder, the defendant does not have to be the one who actually killed the victim. Instead, the defendant can be charged for the death because the death was so closely related to the commission of the underlying felony.

The felony murder rule is based, then, on the assumption that any person committing a forcible felony – such as armed robbery – should realize that one of the risks is that somebody, either the victim or one of the assailants, may be killed. It does not matter if the assailant had no intention of killing anybody. Maybe the weapon was brought along just to scare the victim. Perhaps, even, it was not loaded, so there was no possible way the assailant could kill the victim.

But under the felony murder rule, intent is irrelevant. The only thing that matters in proving felony murder is that the underlying crime was a forcible felony. This makes defending against the charge extremely difficult, since the prosecution does not need to prove intent for the first-degree murder charge to stick.

Self-defense is not a defense to a charge of felony murder. Self-defense is the justified use of force against an unjustified force. Since armed robbery is the unjustified use of force, a person charged with felony murder could not argue that he was protecting himself from the victim.

Defending against a felony murder charge is fact intensive and depends on the circumstances surrounding each case. It may be possible to defend against a felony murder charge if the facts show that the defendant abandoned the plan before it happened (for example, if in this case the defendant had fled the scene as soon as he realized his friend had a gun).

Or, if the underlying crime began as a non-forcible felony, it may be possible to argue that the defendant could not have known the underlying crime could lead to murder because it did not begin as a forcible felony (for example, if the defendant and his friend had been robbing a vacant car and were then approached by the owner, at which point it escalated to a forcible felony).

Because there are so few defenses to a charge of felony murder, and because they are all fact sensitive, it is extremely important that you speak with a criminal defense attorney immediately if you are being charged with felony murder. While intent regarding the murder is irrelevant, intent regarding commission of the underlying crime may be partially relevant, and it is important to discuss those facts with a criminal defense attorney who understands the felony murder rule prior to making any statements to the police. Continue reading

August 20, 2014

Chicago Attempted Murder Charge and Self-Defense

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

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