Chicago Criminal Lawyer Blog

May 20, 2015

Forensic Podiatrists Examine Crime Scene Footprints to Identify a Suspect

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

Often a criminal defense case will rely on the use of expert testimony. Whether it is DNA evidence, blood splatter, fingerprint or hair analysis, this evidence must be tested and interpreted, and the results relayed to the jury by an expert in the field. Much of the forensic evidence used in criminal trials is well accepted theory. The prosecutor and defense attorney may disagree on whether the fingerprint analysis points to the defendant, or whether the results of DNA testing pinpoint the defendant as the suspect, but they do not question the science behind this evidence or its ability to be used to identify a suspect.

But what happens when a new type of science comes along, such as say, forensic podiatry?

Use of Expert Testimony in Chicago Criminal Cases

Forensic evidence, when available, and questioning of the forensic expert, can often mean the difference between conviction and acquittal. If the evidence doesn’t point to the defendant as the one who committed the crime, the verdict is often (though not always) an acquittal. Likewise, if the expert can be debunked on the stand, whether due to a history of inaccurate analysis, improper credentials or because the other side’s expert comes across as more knowledgeable, the verdict can be swayed in favor of the side with the most convincing expert.

Not just anybody can be deemed an expert with the ability to testify in court regarding a particular subject. Some experts are recognized on a local level, and neither side will object to their being brought to the stand to testify as an expert in their particular field. In order to be accepted as an expert, the prosecution (or defense, depending on who is calling the expert) must show to the court that he has the necessary “knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education” regarding the subject matter of which he claims to be an expert. This proof is usually accomplished by the expert’s educational background, work in the field, publications, number of prior cases in which he has served as an expert and reputation in the field.

If, however, the witness claims to be an expert in a field that is new – such as forensic podiatry – the requirements to be admitted as an expert are a bit harder to prove. In addition to proving the necessary knowledge in his field, the prosecution or defense attorney (depending on who is calling the expert) has the burden of proving that the scientific principles or methodology underlying the expert’s opinion, and how he came to it, “is sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs.”

What does this mean? It means that the prosecution must prove more than just “this witness is an expert because he works in this field.” In the growing field of forensic podiatry, which is not as generally accepted as fingerprint analysis or DNA, he would have to prove that the science behind the method is sound. The judge is responsible for making a determination as to whether a witness qualifies as an expert; the jury may give as much weight to the witness’ testimony as they wish, which means they can discard it entirely.

Both the prosecution and criminal defense attorney can call their own witnesses to the stand to testify about the same piece of evidence. It is then up to both attorneys to prove to the jury why their expert is the most credible, and why his testimony should be given the greatest weight during deliberations.

May 14, 2015

The Use of Social Media in Chicago Criminal Cases

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

Social media sites such as Facebook, Twitter and Instagram are changing more than just how we communicate with friends and family. It is changing the way law enforcement and criminal defense attorneys handle their cases as well.

The Oak Brook police department, for example, posts alerts on its Twitter and Facebook pages in real time, alerting followers to descriptions of suspects and vehicles to be on the lookout for. Law enforcement routinely comb suspects’ social media sites – many of which are wide open to the public – for evidence that could point to commission of the crime or fulfill the reasonable suspicion necessary to obtain a search warrant.

Law enforcement also uses social media in sting operations to catch child predators, having undercover cops pose as underage children in online chat rooms or other groups and arranging meetups. And a suspect’s updates can pinpoint his location to a specific time and location, which could help put him in the vicinity of the crime or, in the case of a defense attorney, could provide an alibi.

But while social media is changing the way police, prosecutors and criminal defense attorneys obtain evidence and conduct their investigation, the evidence is still subject to scrutiny and must be collected in accordance with the same rules of criminal procedure that apply to other evidence.

Access to social media accounts. For example, law enforcement could not hack into your social media sites. If they want access to non-public information, they need to obtain a search warrant or have your consent to access the sites. If you have a shared account with another person – many husbands and wives share Facebook accounts, for instance – the other person could consent to law enforcement’s access of the account.

Hacked accounts. If the police find photographs or other evidence that tends to show the suspect was responsible for the crime, computer experts must be called in to examine the evidence to determine if it could have been posted by somebody else. Did the suspect have access to the social media site at the time the photo, status or other evidence was posted? Does somebody else have access to the account? Could the time stamp or location designation have been altered? Could the incriminating evidence have been posted due to spam?

On the other hand, social media sites give law enforcement the potential for unparalleled access to a suspect’s information that may seem sneaky, but are nonetheless legal.

Facebook friends. If your page is private, law enforcement can set up a fake profile and request to be your friend. If the friend request is accepted, law enforcement can use anything on your page as evidence without the need for a search warrant, because you invited them to look.

Off-site entry. Have you ever gotten a call from somebody claiming to be your computer’s technical support, asking for access to your computer to fix a “bug”? Law enforcement could try to access your computer that way as well, which could give access to your social media passwords. This may be considered legal access to your information, even though you wouldn’t have given them permission if you’d known who they really were, similar to if you allow a police officer into your home.

May 12, 2015

FBI Admits Errors in Analysis of DNA Evidence

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

A joint task force comprised of the U.S. Department of Justice, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Innocence Project and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers released a report in April indicating that in at least 90% of criminal defense trials reviewed, testimony by microscopic hair comparison analysis examiners was erroneous.

Three thousand cases involving FBI hair analysis are being reviewed as part of the review process. As of March 2015, approximately 500 of those cases have been reviewed. Among the report’s findings:

In cases where the examiner’s testimony was used as evidence of the defendant’s guilt, 96% contained erroneous statements;
In cases where the defendant received the death penalty, 94% contained errors;
Nine of the defendants sentenced to death have already been executed, and five died of other causes on death row; and
Of the 28 FBI examiners whose testimony has been reviewed, 26 of them had errors in their testimony or prepared lab reports containing erroneous statements.

The results of the joint study do not mean that there was no other evidence to support the defendants’ guilt, and the prosecution may have won a conviction even if the erroneous testimony had not been admitted at trial. But the fact that 96% of cases included false proof of guilt highlights the need for independent forensic experts in all criminal defense cases.

The popularity of television crime procedurals means that the public is more aware of DNA and forensic evidence than ever before. For many proof of guilt or innocence rests on the presence of DNA. But while advances in forensic science mean that forensic analysts are able to obtain DNA evidence from smaller and smaller specimens than they were in years past, the potential for error still exists, and a DNA “match” is not the slam-dunk television would have you believe. Errors in DNA evidence may include:

Improper collection;
Contamination of specimen prior to processing;
Failure to obtain a search warrant prior to taking a specimen;
Contamination of specimen during testing;
Malfunction of equipment used to test specimen;
Inadequate credentials and expertise of examiner, or;
Improper analysis of evidence.

Errors in DNA testing and analysis may be malicious or due to simple human error. Regardless of the reasons, those errors will go undiscovered without the knowledge and expertise of a seasoned criminal defense attorney and independent forensic experts. Forensic analysis submitted by the FBI or police department is biased; after all, they are the ones who made the arrest, so they are convinced of the defendant’s guilt. Thus in order to convince the jury that the prosecution’s analysis of the evidence is wrong, the defendant must obtain his own expert to test the DNA sample and prepare his own report on whether the evidence points to the defendant’s guilt or innocence. Failure to obtain an independent expert analysis of DNA evidence could mean the difference between a finding of guilt or innocence.

May 8, 2015

Decriminalization of Marijuana One Step Closer in Illinois

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

The Illinois House of Representatives passed a bill that would decriminalize possession of marijuana. Passage comes on the heels of a recent announcement made by Cook County state’s attorney Anita Alvarez that her office will no longer prosecute minor pot cases. The bill must pass the Senate before being transmitted to the governor’s desk for signature.

Low-level Possession of Marijuana Crimes in Illinois

If passed by the Senate and ultimately signed in to law by Governor Rauner, the law would not only decriminalize possession of low-levels of marijuana, but would create consistency between state law and public ordinances.

Current Illinois law classifies possession of between 2.5 and 30 grams of marijuana as a Class A, B or C misdemeanor, depending on the amount the defendant possessed at the time of arrest. A second or higher arrest for possession being is upgraded to a Class 4 felony. Penalties for conviction range from 30 up to one year in jail and fines ranging from $1,500 to $2,500.

Under the proposed law, Chicago residents could legally possess up to 25 grams of marijuana, and the penalty for being caught in possession would be no worse than a traffic ticket – no jail time, and a maximum $125 fine.

The law is addressed at growing recognition that prosecution for low-level misdemeanor cases is a waste of the court’s already stretched and limited resources and serves no real purpose, as the majority of offenders are non-violent, recreational users who pose no threat to the public. But it will also make penalties for misdemeanor possession crimes uniform across the state.

Under the present system, a person in any city or county across the state can be arrested for possession of 5 grams of marijuana. But whether or not that person is prosecuted depends on where the arrest was made.

If the arrest is made in Chicago, as of now there will be no prosecution for misdemeanor possession. According to the Cook County state’s attorney’s office, all such cases will be dismissed. Those arrested and charged with a Class 4 felony in Cook County will be diverted to an alternative program that seeks to rehabilitate chronic drug abusers, rather than throw them in prison where they will receive little to no treatment for their addiction.

The same person arrested in another city, however, for possession of 5 grams of marijuana could be placed in jail for up to 30 days and face a fine of $1,500. And if he is a repeat offender, whereas the city of Chicago would offer him treatment in an effort to break the cycle of addiction, another city could place him in jail for up to a year, only to have him be released and fall right back into the cycle.

In order to be effective laws must be applied uniformly. And basic fairness requires that a person should not be subject to criminal punishment for engaging in behavior in one city that is perfectly legal in the next. Continue reading

May 7, 2015

Defendant Found Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity, Sentenced to Mental Institution

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

A DuPage County man who was charged with the attempted murder of his mother was declared not guilty by reason of insanity and sentenced to up to 30 years in a mental institution. A DuPage County judge found the defendant mentally unfit to stand trial for the 2011 stabbing and entered the ruling. But what level of competency is required to stand trial, and what does it mean to be found not guilty by reason of insanity?

Illinois Standard for Mental Fitness to Stand Trial

Under Illinois law each criminal defendant is presumed fit to stand trial. The criminal defense attorney has the burden of proving that, due either to mental or physical condition, the defendant is mentally unfit to stand trial because he does not “understand the nature and purpose of the proceedings” and is unable to assist in his defense.

Being mentally fit for trial does not mean that defendant will automatically be found not guilty by reason of insanity. Mental fitness to stand trial has to do with the defendant’s ability, at the moment of trial, to understand the purpose of the trial and assist in his defense. It has nothing to do with whether the defendant understands the nature of his alleged crime at the time of commission.

Mental fitness to stand trial can change over time. A defendant can be competent at the time of arrest but found incompetent – perhaps due to a subsequent injury unrelated to the charged crime – at the time of trial. Or a defendant can be mentally unfit when the crime was committed, such as if he suffers from a mental illness, but may be declared fit for trial once he is on a course of medication to keep his mental illness under control. It is not uncommon for prosecutors to seek a continuance of trial when a defendant is deemed mentally unfit to see if there is a possibility that he will regain the required competency to stand trial

Illinois “Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity” Verdict

In order for a defendant to be found not guilty by reason of insanity in Illinois, it must be proven that, at the time the crime was committed, the defendant lacked “substantial capacity to appreciate the criminality of his conduct” as a result of a mental disease or defect. In these cases, the defendant was unable to recognize that his actions were wrong.

Like proving the defendant is mentally unfit to stand trial, the burden is on the defense to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that the defendant lacked substantial capacity to recognize that his actions were wrong, and should therefore be found not guilty by reason of insanity. The prosecution still bears the burden of proving the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If the jury finds the defendant committed the crime, it may then decide whether to find him insane. The issue of the defendant’s sanity cannot be considered unless the jury finds that he committed the crime.

As evidenced in the above case, being found not guilty by reason of insanity does not mean that the defendant walks free. Criminal defendants who have been found insane can be committed to mental institutions, sometimes for a pre-determined sentence, and in other cases until the defendant can be cured of the mental defect.

May 1, 2015

Retail Theft in Chicago: Even a Small Item Carries Big Punishment

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

Two Chicago residents were arrested recently for allegedly committing retail theft at two different stores at Lincolnwood Town Center. But the value of the stolen goods may leave you wondering why police and prosecutors even bothered pressing charges.

Chicago Retail Theft

In the first incident, a man was charged with retail theft for allegedly hiding an $18 pair of socks and walking out of a Kohl’s department store without paying for them. In the second incident, which occurred on the same day but at Carson’s, a woman was arrested for allegedly concealing a pair of earrings worth $46 and walking out of the store with them.

You’re probably thinking: “Wait, the police were called for an $18 pair of socks? For a $46 pair of earrings? The amount of time and resources they spent taking statements, arresting and booking the suspect was probably five times the cost of the items these two people attempted to steal. Can they even get jail time for that?”

Despite the fact that yes, the expenditure in police, prosecutor and court time and resources to follow these two cases from arrest to jury trial far exceeds the value of the items stolen, both these defendants could be facing jail time if found guilty.

Retail theft in Illinois of any property valued at less than $150 is a Class A misdemeanor, which is punishable by up to a year in jail. A charge of retail theft isn’t dependent upon the suspect actually getting away from the store with the item. Once he exits the store with the unpaid merchandise, the crime has been committed, even if store security was watching and waiting for him to step outside before detaining him.

But why bother pressing charges against a person for $18? Taken as a single event, it seems ridiculous. But from the store’s perspective, these small, single events add up and take a toll on their bottom line, so many take a hardline and press charges on all attempted thefts, no matter how small. Many department stores even have signs posted in dressing rooms and other prominent places stating their intent to prosecute all incidents of retail theft, no matter how minimal the value of the stolen item.

From the prosecution’s standpoint, small crimes can add up. While a person may steal only an $18 pair of socks one day, over the course of several years the theft of small items quickly adds up. But that doesn’t mean if you are arrested with retail theft you are guaranteed time spent in jail. Prosecutors are overworked, underpaid and want to close the big cases – murder, robbery, sexual assault and other violent crimes – not spend precious time and resources going after sock stealers. If this is a first or second offense, chances are high that the charges may be dismissed, or we can negotiate no jail time in exchange for a guilty or no contest plea. Or we may be able to have the charges reduced to attempted theft, depending on the circumstances. With an experienced criminal defense attorney, it is often possible to get these crimes pled out with minimal to no jail time, or even outright dismissed.

April 29, 2015

Intoxication as Defense in Chicago Criminal Case

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

You have no doubt heard the story of a Kentucky woman who answered a knock at her door only to be assaulted by a stranger who began strangling her with a bra. The woman fended off the attacker after knocking her on the head with a ceramic chicken. The suspect pled not guilty and claimed she was under the influence of narcotics. But is being under the influence a valid criminal defense to the commission of any Illinois crime?

Intoxicated or drugged condition defense

Under Illinois law a person who commits a crime while intoxicated or otherwise under the influence of drugs or alcohol is still responsible for those crimes, unless the intoxication is involuntary and deprives him of substantial capacity to either:

Appreciate the criminality of the conduct; or
Conform his conduct to the law.

The intoxication defense is an affirmative defense. This means that the defendant, and not the prosecution, has the burden of proving that his intoxication was involuntary, and that as a result of this involuntary intoxication, he could neither understand nor control his conduct.

Under this standard, it is clear that knowingly drinking alcohol to the point of intoxication, or getting high on marijuana, cocaine or another drug, would fail the voluntary portion of this defense. But what situations would fall within the defense?

If the defendant was tricked or otherwise coerced into taking a substance that caused him to become intoxicated. Someone who ingested brownies or another food product made with marijuana, had a drug slipped in their drink, or in some other way took an intoxicating substance without knowing it was laced with drugs cannot be said to have become voluntarily intoxicated.

Another scenario would be when prescription or nonprescription medication affected the defendant in a way that was unexpected. Whether over the counter or prescribed by a prescription, drugs come with warnings of side effects. If drowsiness was a side effect, and the defendant ran over someone with his car after taking the drug and falling asleep at the wheel, he can’t be said to be involuntarily intoxicated. It was not his intent to become impaired, but he knowingly took the drug, with full knowledge of the potential side effects, and got behind the wheel anyway. The same could be said about a defendant who took a drug knowing that it had caused a reaction in the past. For example, maybe the defendant took medication that one day caused him to have a seizure. If he was in an accident at that time, he could successfully invoke the intoxication defense, because he had no idea the drug would cause that reaction. But if he took the drug again, knowing how his body may sometimes react, his intoxication would not be considered involuntary.

The above scenario would be different, however, if the defendant did not know the drug would affect him in the way that it did. For example, if the doctor failed to inform the defendant of possible side effects prior to prescribing it, or if the prescribed medication caused an adverse reaction with another medication the defendant was taking, and the physician failed to warn the defendant ahead of time of the consequences of the drug interaction. Another instance would be where the defendant had a previously undiagnosed medical condition that made him react to the drug in ways that could not have been anticipated when taken. If the defendant mistakenly took a powerful narcotic, when he thought he was taking something as ordinary as aspirin, could also be enough to invoke the intoxication defense.

April 24, 2015

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

April 22, 2015

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

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

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

Illinois Statute of Limitations

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

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

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

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

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

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

April 17, 2015

Plea Bargains in Chicago Criminal Cases

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

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

Reasons for Accepting Chicago Plea Bargain

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

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

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

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

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

Consequences of Pleading Guilty

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