Picture of attorney David L. Freidberg,
"I DON'T KNOW WHAT I WOULD HAVE DONE WITHOUT HIM..."
Read More
"MY SON AND I ARE SO GRATEFUL FOR MR. FREIDBERG AND WHAT HE HAS DONE..."
Read More
"DAVID IS A PHENOMENAL LAWYER AND HIS CHARACTER SPEAKS WONDERS..."
Read More
"IF YOU NEED AN ATTORNEY IN CHICAGO, I WOULD RECOMMEND HIM IN A HEARTBEAT..."
Read More

by

In a previous post I discussed the right of every Illinois criminal defendant to a speedy trial and touched on how in some cases, it may be to the defendant’s advantage to waive that right.  An arrest warrant issued earlier this month against a 41-year old Rolling Meadows, Illinois man on charges of second-degree sexual assault and false imprisonment is an excellent example of a time when waiver of that right may prove favorable to the defendant.

Advantage to Not Invoking Chicago Right to Speedy Trial

In 2012, a Rolling Meadows, Illinois man known by the street name “Joker” allegedly locked a then 16-year-old girl at a party, threatened to kill her if she screamed and then sexually assaulted her. After the defendant left the bathroom, the girl went home and slept; several hours later she told her mother what happened and went to the hospital for a rape examination. The defendant had distinctive tattoos that helped police eventually determine his identity.

So what is it about this case that would recommend that the defendant waive his right to a speedy trial?

It has been two years since the alleged crime occurred – and it could be even more before the defendant is arrested. In her statement to police just a few hours after the alleged attack, the girl stated that she could not remember all the details of the attack. Memories fade, so the more time that passes between the alleged attack and the criminal trial makes the girl’s testimony, which was weak to begin with, only weaker. The testimony of other potential witnesses, including the girls’ friends who helped her return home and the girl’s mother, will also suffer from the passage of time.

The passage of time may also impede the prosecution’s ability to convince the girl to cooperate and provide testimony. If the assault did in fact occur, she may not want to relive the incident by going through a trial, especially since an experienced sex crimes attorney would use her admission that she cannot remember all the details of that evening to poke holes in her testimony.

As far as the girl’s friends who were with her at the time of the incident, the prosecution may be unable to locate and secure their testimony for trial as well. They may have started over in a new city, enrolled in college, or started families – all things that could make them unwilling to cooperate. The circumstances surrounding the incident – accepting an invitation to a party with adult men they did not know – may also be embarrassing to them in their new lives and not something they would not willingly revisit. Already their memories are tainted with the passage of time – add hostility to the mix and you have a witness with the potential to react negatively in court, making her testimony all the more suspect.

In this case, where the alleged victim’s memory was already shaky within hours of the crime occurring, the passage of time can only help in the defense, and it would be more advantageous to not invoke the right to a speedy trial.  Continue reading

by

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

Police Objection to Illinois Concealed Carry Permit

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

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

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

Illinois Orders of Protection Not Evidence of Crime

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

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

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

by

A Chicago man was charged in mid-May with felony aggravated assault, among other charges, for threatening to kill a police officer with an ice pick. Unfortunately for him, in Illinois assault of a police officer is immediately classified as an aggravated offense and carries stiffer penalties than if the crimes were committed against an ordinary citizen.

Illinois Assault Charges

Police in Riverside received a call about a “suspicious” man who was banging on the front door of a residence and repeatedly ringing the doorbell. An officer responded and approached the man, asking why he was banging on the door. According to police reports, he told police he would not show them his identification (although it is unclear if the officer had even requested it), and then allegedly reached into his pocket, pulled out an ice pick and threatened to kill the officer. The man fled the scene when the officer pulled his gun and ordered him to drop the ice pick. He struggled when police caught up with him, but was quickly subdued.

In Illinois a person commits assault if he knowingly “places another person in reasonable apprehension of receiving a battery” – or in everyday language, if the alleged victim had a reasonable fear that the defendant was about to cause him physical harm. Simple assault is a Class C misdemeanor punishable by less than 30 days in jail and a maximum fine of $1,500, or between 30 and 120 hours of community service if no jail time is imposed.

But the victim in this case was a police officer, and on January 1, 2011, the law­ was changed to impose stiffer penalties in Illinois assault and battery cases where a police officer is the victim.

Assault of Illinois Police Officer

In 2010 the Illinois legislature passed a law that imposed harsher penalties on individuals who committed assault or battery against an on-duty officer. When the law went into effect on January 1, 2011, simple assault was immediately upgraded to aggravated assault if the victim was a police officer. The assault did not have to be any more menacing for the charge to move up to aggravated – it just had to be committed against an officer of the law. With the upgraded charge came increased penalties: a Class 4 felony and up to three years imprisonment and/or a $25,000 fine.

But while the charge was reclassified and the penalties increased, mounting a defense against a charge of aggravated assault of a police officer is not much different than defending against a charge of simple assault against an ordinary citizen. Aggravated assault against a police officer occurs if the officer was assaulted:

  • While performing official duties;
  • To prevent performance of official duties; or
  • In retaliation for performing official duties.

Defenses against this charge could include whether the defendant was aware that the assaulted person was a police officer; for example, if the officer was dressed in plain clothes, if he didn’t identify himself on approach, or if he was in an unmarked police cruiser. If it was impossible for the defendant to have known the victim was a police officer, it may be possible to have the charge reduced to simple assault.

Whether the charge is reduced to simple assault or remains at aggravated, defense against the assault portion would be the same whether against a police officer or an ordinary citizen. The basis of an assault charge is whether the alleged victim could have reasonably feared being physically injured.

Whatever the circumstances and whomever the alleged victim, an attorney will scrutinize all of the evidence and witness testimony to get the aggravated assault charges against you reduced or dismissed entirely. Continue reading

by

A McHenry County, an Illinois judge sentenced Oliver Woodstock to 36 years in prison this week for three counts of sexual assault. A jury found Woodstock guilty in February on one count of sexual assault. He entered into a plea agreement with prosecutors in March; in exchange for prosecutors dropping five additional cases against him, Woodstock would plead guilty to two additional charges of sexual assault. Prosecutors also agreed not to file any more charges against Woodstock if they uncovered additional victims in video recordings seized from his home.

The Woodstock case is unusual in that the victims were all prostitutes whom Woodstock had paid for services prior to the assault.

Illinois Craigslist Rapist

Woodstock was originally charged with sexually assaulting eight women, each of whom he had met on Craigslist and other online dating sites, with the intent of paying them for sex. Woodstock did, in fact, pay the women. According to trial testimony, what began as a consensual encounter quickly turned ugly.

Two women testified to similar stories at trial. Woodstock picked them up and brought them to his home, where he immediately escorted them to his basement. The women testified that Woodstock threatened to report them to the police as prostitutes, and became violent before escorting them upstairs to his bedroom, where he videotaped the sexual assault. The women could be heard saying “No” on the video recordings, and repeatedly asked Woodstock to stop because he was scaring them. Woodstock could be heard telling the women that he didn’t have to stop because he “paid them.” He also threatened to “hunt them down,” as he had their license plate numbers, if they reported the assault to the police.

Withdrawal of Consent as Defense to Rape

The defense argued that the encounter was a business transaction. The woman was a prostitute who was paid for sex, and thus the encounter was consensual. Because consent is always a defense to rape, Woodstock did not in fact commit sexual assault. Instead – for whatever reason – the woman changed her mind at some point during the encounter and decided to claim it was rape.

In some cases though consent can be withdrawn. In Illinois, consent can even be withdrawn while the sexual act is being committed.

In this case, it was clear from video recordings that the woman had withdrawn her consent to the sexual encounter: she repeatedly asked him to stop, and she indicated that she was afraid of him. In addition, he repeatedly threatened to report the woman to the police for prostitution. (Though not raised in this case, the argument could be made whether that threat was one that should have been taken seriously. Had Woodstock reported the woman to the police for prostitution, he would be placing himself in jeopardy of being charged with solicitation as well).

Had the above been a single isolated incident, the defense may have been able to convince the jury that consent was not withdrawn, but that this was a case of “buyer’s remorse.” But the prosecution had eight different women who testified to similar stories – and because Woodstock had recorded the sexual encounters, it also had the evidence to back the women up. In this case it was the pattern of behavior the videos documented – violence, threats, and each woman asking him to stop – that helped sway the jury that although the encounter started off consensual, that consent was ultimately withdrawn, making the encounter a sexual assault. Continue reading

by

Chicago police received 48,141 reported incidents of domestic violence in 2013, including reports of assault, battery and unauthorized use of a motor vehicle. During that same time period they received 171,077 domestic violence-related calls. Domestic violence is a serious issue that affects not only the parties involved, but collateral victims as well, most notably the children. Most of the focus on domestic violence revolves around men as the batterer and women as the victim. But a recent Chicago murder highlights the fact that men can also be victims of domestic violence.

Chicago Domestic Dispute Ends With Woman Fatally Stabbing Boyfriend

killer-hand-1-1153640-mMiata Phelan, a 24-year-old pregnant woman who lives in Chicago, stabbed and killed her boyfriend, 28-year-old Larry Martin, on Cinco de Mayo. Why? Because he allegedly purchased gifts for his eight-year-old son and his cousin on a trip to the mall and nothing for her, even though her birthday was the next day.

Prior to the stabbing, Phelan reportedly kicked and scratched Martin in the car as punishment for his selfishness, and then took off with the vehicle when Martin stopped to run another errand, forcing him and his eight-year-old son to walk home, where he found the front door of the house locked. When he was finally able to get inside, Phelan stabbed him in the side with a knife – in full view of his son – screaming, “I hope you die.”

 

Martin died a few hours later at the hospital; Phelan was charged with first-degree murder.

Multiple Domestic Violence Charges in Single Incident

Although Phelan is charged with murder, this incident contains many elements of domestic violence and highlights the escalation of abuse, albeit in a compacted time frame. Each action on its own could be a crime under Illinois’ domestic violence laws:

 

  • Verbal abuse: screaming and calling Martin selfish because he seemingly failed to buy her a birthday present gift
  • Battery: kicking and scratching
  • Theft: driving away in Martin’s car
  • Aggravated battery:the stabbing
  • Murder:end result of the stabbing

Like many domestic violence cases, the violence escalated from verbal to physical abuse, with this case ending on the most extreme end of the physical abuse scale. In this case that escalation seemingly occurred in the same episode, although it is unclear if Phelan had a history of escalating domestic violence against Martin, and this was the culmination of months of abusive behavior.

Had Martin survived – and assuming he left her – Phelan’s actions would have subjected her to civil penalties as well as criminal. Martin would have most likely been able get an order of protection against Phelan, which could have resulted in her being forced to move out of the couple’s home, and could have caused her to lose her job. Her ability to gain custody of the couple’s unborn child would also have been adversely affected, as violence against one parent is a factor the court considers when making an award of child custody.

Absent the murder, this case is typical of many domestic violence incidents and demonstrate how much a single incident of domestic violence can impact numerous aspects of a person’s life. A skilled criminal defense attorney understands these long-lasting ramifications and is experienced in defending against domestic violence charges and civil orders of protection. Continue reading

by

A Palatine man faces charges of first-degree murder and hiding a corpse in a 17-year-old homicide case. The alleged murderer, James Eaton, was arrested in early April after DNA evidence from a discarded cigarette linked him to the 1997 murder of 14-year-old Amber Creek, a ward of the state who had run away from the juvenile residential facility where she was living.  Illinois has no statute of limitations on murder, which is why Eaton can still be charged and potentially convicted of the 17-year-old crime.

Illinois Murder Investigations  revolver-704729-m

Eaton was charged with first-degree murder, which means that the prosecution will have to prove that he either intended to kill Amber Creek or knew that his actions would cause her death. There is also evidence that Amber was sexually assaulted prior to her death which, if proven, would be an aggravating factor that would result in a stiffer penalty if Eaton were to be convicted.

An Illinois murder conviction carries a mandatory minimum sentence of 20 years in prison; the existence of aggravating factors, such as if the murder was committed during the commission of another violent felony, such asrape, can add another 15 years to the sentence, or possibly result in the death penalty.

While murder is a serious charge no matter when it occurred, cold case murders raise a number of evidence and proof issues that an experienced attorney can use to poke holes in the prosecution’s case to raise reasonable doubt. An experienced attorney can work closely with forensic experts who are experienced in analyzing DNA evidence. DNA samples can deteriorate over time, and forensic experts can help determine if the DNA sample from the victim’s body allegedly linking her to the defendant was of sufficient quality and sample size to pinpoint the defendant as the murderer.

If the integrity of the DNA sample can be brought into question, an attorney’s team of private investigators would look into whether there was a possibility that the defendant and victim’s paths had crossed prior to death, which could provide an innocent explanation for his prints being on the bag – for example, since she had recently run away, he gave her (or she took from him) a bag to carry her belongings. Or perhaps eyewitnesses who had not come forward during the initial murder investigation have information showing that the victim was seen alive after her encounter with the defendant, which would decrease the likelihood that the defendant was the murderer.

Although the goal is to exonerate the defendant and get an outright dismissal of charges where possible, if it appears that the defendant did commit the crime, or that the prosecution’s evidence is so overwhelming as to make a conviction likely, a skilled attorney will work with prosecutors to get a reduction of the charges. While sex with a minor is a crime regardless of consent, a defense attorney can review the sexual assault law in effect in 1996 to determine if the sexual encounter could have been legal at that time, assuming consent on the victim’s part. He will also review the evidence to determine if there are any mitigating factors that could decrease any possible prison sentence or avoid imposition of the death penalty, such as was the murder intentional or could it have been manslaughter or possibly even self-defense. The defense attorney will use any piece of evidence that could raise reasonable doubt to help gain a dismissal or reduction in charges. Continue reading

by

Once again Chicago police violated a citizen’s Fourth Amendment right against unlawful search and seizure. On April 30, the Illinois Appellate Court issued a ruling in People v. Sims re-affirming that police must have a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity before they can stop and search an individual.

People v. Sims

In 2010 Henry Sims was stopped by a Chicago police officer after the officer witnessed Sims stuff something down the crotch of his pants and walk away. The officer knew that Sims had a prior arrest for unlawful use of a weapon. He proceeded to stop Sims because his “movement was consistent with someone that could be armed.” The officer immediately palmed Sims’ crotch where he felt not a weapon, but a bag that he recognized as containing narcotics. The bag contained 25 smaller bags, which testing revealed to be cocaine.  supreme-court-1-657696-m

At trial Sims moved to suppress the cocaine, arguing that the officer did not have reasonable suspicion that he was engaged in criminal activity, and that the stop there did not meet the requirements of a Terry stop. The court denied Sims’ motion; he was convicted of possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver, and was sentenced to six years in prison.

The Illinois Appellate Court overruled the trial court’s decision, finding that the officer’s actions did not meet the two-part test required in determining whether a Terry stop is valid. Sims’ simple act of putting his hand down his pants did not give rise to a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity that would justify the stop – and a “hunch” by the officer that Sims had a weapon is insufficient to stop him. Since the stop itself was unreasonable, the search (or frisk) was also unreasonable, as it was not justified by a reasonable belief that the individual was armed and dangerous. Because the only evidence of Sims’ crime was the direct result of the illegal stop and search, the court overturned both Sims’ conviction and imprisonment.

People v. Sims is another in a long line of cases that support the individual’s right to not be harassed by police. As the officer even stated in his trial testimony, it is not illegal for a person to stuff his hands down his pants. He could have been cold, he could have had an itch, or he could have been readjusting, as males do from time to time. As the court noted, it is not the defendant’s responsibility to provide innocent explanations for his behavior; rather, the burden lies with the prosecution to prove that his actions raised a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. But these innocent explanations are ones that a skilled defense attorney would raise in court during a motion to suppress, or at trial to raise reasonable doubt.

The recent passage of Illinois’ concealed carry gun law will make it even more difficult for an officer who has a reasonable suspicion that an individual has a gun, to further prove that he had reasonable suspicion reasonable suspicion that a crime had been, was, or was about to be, committed, since carrying a concealed weapon is now legal. The fact that an individual is seen stuffing a weapon down his pants or adjusting what appears to be a weapon in his jacket pocket is insufficient to make a stop; there is a presumption against the individual engaging in criminal activity, and since carrying a concealed weapon is legal with a permit, the presumption would be that, absent any other reasonably suspicious activity, the individual has a permit and is in legal possession of the concealed weapon. Continue reading

by

A Chicago man who teaches GED and adult literacy classes to Cook County Jail inmates has been charged with custodial sexual misconduct for allegedly having sexual intercourse with a female detainee on two occasions this past January. Both the defendant and the detainee were over the age of 18. While there does not appear to be allegations that the sex was not consensual, Illinois law prohibits consent to intercourse as a defense in custodial situations. However, that does not mean that the defendant has no chance of having the case against him reduced or dismissed.

Custodial Sexual Misconduct in Illinois

Illinois law prohibits employees of any penal system or treatment and detention facility from engaging in any type of sexual conduct or penetration with a person who is in the custody of either facility. The law states that a prisoner or detainee is deemed incapable of consenting to the sexual conduct. Conviction under this statute is a Class 3 felony, which carries a possible penalty of 3-5 years in prison and up to a $25,000 fine.

Defense against Custodial Sexual Misconduct in Illinois

As already discussed, consent is not a defense to a charge of custodial sexual misconduct. But an experienced sex crimes attorney knows how to find the flaws in the prosecution’s case to get the charges reduced or dismissed.

Illinois law does allow as a defense to custodial sexual misconduct that the defendant “has no knowledge, and would have no reason to believe, that the person with whom he or she engaged in custodial sexual misconduct was a person in custody.” The class the defendant taught in this case had voluntary attendance, which means he likely did not have a class roster of inmates who would be in attendance. If the inmate came to class in civilian clothes and claimed that she was a Cook County jail employee, the defendant would have had no way to prove that she was lying, as he had no class list to check. An experienced criminal defense attorney would examine all of the circumstances, including the inmate’s actions, demeanor and clothing, to determine whether the defendant should have known she was an inmate.

It is also always a defense to any sexual assault charge that no sexual conduct took place, or in other words, that the alleged victim is lying. If none of the defendant’s DNA was found on the inmate, and if there was no other physical evidence indicating that any type of sexual conduct happened, the case would come down to he said/she said. In these cases, a criminal defense attorney would want to:

  • interview all potential witnesses;
  • interview anybody who knew the alleged victim, particularly prison employees who interacted with her on a daily basis;
  • review any of the alleged victim’s treatment or prison notes; and
  • review her criminal record, including the conviction that sent her to jail.

The purpose of this extensive review of the alleged victim’s background would be to see if she had made similar accusations against prison officials or others in a position of authority in the past; if she had a history of lying, or; if she had had any prior trouble with the defendant over attending the class. All of these could point to her having made up the story of sexual misconduct either to get back at the teacher for a prior slight – perhaps him rebuffing her advances – or as a pattern of past behavior. Proving that the alleged victim made the story up would result in an acquittal. Continue reading

by

Illinois Cook County Sheriff’s officers arrested a Minneapolis man in March after a traffic stop revealed that the man had 25 pounds of crystal methamphetamine in his vehicle. Officers pulled the vehicle over in Arlington Heights after observing it commit several traffic violations. The drugs were found after the driver consented to a police search; the driver was then arrested and charged with possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver. The arrest raises several issues that an experienced drug possession attorney would explore to determine whether the police exceeded their authority in the search, seizure and arrest. Such a violation of the defendant’s rights could help get the charges dismissed or reduced.

Stop, Search and Seizure of Vehicle

Illinois police are permitted to stop a vehicle if they have reasonable suspicion to believe that the driver has committed a traffic violation. In this case, an experienced attorney would review police reports to determine whether the police had reasonable suspicion to believe that the driver did in fact commit a traffic violation. The police report should reveal what prompted the officers to pull the vehicle over; if no valid reason is included in the report, it could indicate that the police acted on a “hunch,” which does not qualify as reasonable suspicion. Lacking a reasonable suspicion, the stop and everything that followed would be a violation of the defendant’s Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure, and may lead to outright dismissal of the charges.

Next comes the search. Police claim that the driver consented to the search. An attorney would again review the police report and discuss with the client how consent was given. There is a difference between if the officer asked, “Would you mind if I searched the vehicle?” or instead stated, “I’m going to need to search the vehicle.”

The first question implies that the driver had the right to refuse, which is the case in all police stops; there is no requirement that you answer the police officer’s questions, and you are always free to go on your way unless an arrest has been made.  An arrest is made when you do not feel that you have the right to leave the scene.

The second statement, however, does not give the driver any indication that he is free to refuse the search and continue on his way. Consent is not freely given if the defendant feels that he cannot refuse. The search may also have been unreasonable if the reason for the stop did not warrant the search; for example, pulling the driver over for a broken taillight would not normally necessitate the search of a vehicle. If consent was not freely given, then discovery of the methamphetamines would be illegal.  A motion to quash the arrest and suppress the evidence would be filed and the evidence would be deemed inadmissible in court, thus leading to an outright dismissal of the charges.

An attorney would also investigate to determine whether the police could prove that the drugs belonged to the driver. Was the car registered to him? If the driver borrowed a friend’s car and did not know it contained drugs, it may be possible to have the intent to deliver charge dismissed. If the car did belong to the driver, had he lent it to anybody recently who may have placed the drugs in the vehicle without his knowledge? If the drugs were planted by a third party, then the intent to deliver charge would have to be dismissed. Both of these scenarios would also negate the charge of intent to deliver.

Intent to Deliver in Illinois  penitentiary-3-434119-m

The defendant in this case was also charged with intent to deliver, which carries stiff penalties; a conviction for possession of more than 900 grams of methamphetamine with intent to deliver is a Class X felony, which carries a possible prison sentence of 15 to 60 years and a maximum fine of $500,000 the street value of the drugs, whichever is greater.

An attorney will examine all the evidence to determine if any of the defendant’s rights were violated. If the evidence suggests a guilty verdict, he will zealously negotiate with prosecutors and the judge for a reduced sentence, or seek to reduce the charges or prison time in exchange for helping in an investigation of a larger drug ring. Continue reading

by

Abortion is legal in the state of Illinois. But as a Humboldt Park woman discovered in January of this year, if you unintentionally cause the death of an unborn child, you could go to prison.

The woman was making a U-Turn from West North Avenue when she crashed in to a pregnant woman riding a scooter. The woman was tossed from the scooter, and doctors were later unable to locate the fetus’ heartbeat. The driver was charged with one count of felony reckless homicide of an unborn child and one count of aggravated DUI causing bodily harm after a DUI kit showed she had marijuana in her system.

Reckless Homicide v. Involuntary Manslaughter of Unborn Child in Illinois.  crashed-car-1148745-m

In Illinois reckless homicide of an unborn child occurs when the driver of a motor vehicle recklessly causes the death of, or great bodily harm to, the mother, which results in the unborn child’s death. The charge applies whether the person’s actions were lawful or unlawful. Reckless homicide is a Class 3 felony, punishable by two to five years in prison and up to a $25,000 fine.

If a motor vehicle is not involved, the charge is involuntary manslaughter.

Defense Against Illinois Reckless Homicide Charge

It is undeniably sad when an unborn child dies. However, even if you were involved in an accident that allegedly caused the death of that child, it does not automatically mean the death was your fault.

Like any vehicular case, David L. Freidberg will first look at the crime scene evidence and the police report. Experts may be able to disprove the prosecution’s claim that you caused the accident, or that it happened in the manner they claim. Experts will look at evidence such as eyewitness statements, video surveillance footage, skid marks, estimated speed and driving conditions in an attempt to reconstruct the accident to determine if your actions were reckless. They will also look at the actions of the other driver or pedestrian to determine if you even caused the accident.

Medical experts may also examine the mother’s medical history related to the pregnancy. Stillbirth, which is the in utero death of a fetus past 20 weeks gestation, occurs in 1 out of every 160 pregnancies; miscarriage, which is the spontaneous loss of a fetus prior to 20 weeks gestation, occurs in 10–25% of all pregnancies. It is therefore possible that the unborn child had died prior to the accident, and it was just discovered during the hospital’s examination of the mother following the accident. Examination of the mother’s medical records will show whether the mother had experienced any complications, or if the unborn child had any abnormalities, that could have resulted in an in utero death days or weeks prior to the accident.

If the unborn child died following the accident, medical experts would review the mother’s medical records looking for the same information. If an autopsy of the unborn child was performed, that may have evidence of an underlying condition that could have resulted in the child’s death, rather than the accident. The fact that an unborn child died near the time of the accident does not automatically mean the accident was the cause of death, and David L. Freidberg can help uncover other possible causes of death. Continue reading

Contact Information
Chicago Office
70 W Madison St
#1450
Chicago, IL 60602
Phone: (312) 560-7100
DuPage Office
140 Butterfield Rd
#1500
Oakbrook Terrace, IL 60181
Skokie Office
5250 Old Orchard Rd
#300
Skokie, IL 60077

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2025, Law Offices of David L. Freidberg, P.C.
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design