Chicago Criminal Lawyer Blog

August 22, 2013

Chicago Armed Robbery Charges Likely When Bank Robbery with Hammer is Apprehended

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

Having been charged with Chicago armed robbery, you are aware that this is one of the most serious types of charges you can face. In fact, probation is not even an option.

According to the FBI, a man in Park Ridge, Illinois, armed with a hammer, proceeded to rob a bank, getting away with an undisclosed amount of cash. It was noted by those at the scene that the robber appeared extremely nervous and agitated during the crime, luckily however, no one was injured. The man has not yet been apprehended, however when he is caught, he will likely be charged with armed robbery. It is worth noting that, in light of the above story, anyone considering committing the crime of robbery should remember that sometimes others fight back when they perceive a credible threat to their safety. For instance, a 62-year old Chicago shop owner defended his store and his brother-in-law who was in the shop, by swinging a baseball bat at two robbers as one of them opened fire. The shop owner and one of the gunmen suffered gunshot wounds and the robbers—who fled the shop—were later identified through surveillance video. One suspect was apprehended and is currently being held on charges of armed robbery and attempted murder. The shop owner is expected to make a full recovery.

Chicago Armed Robbery is considered a violent crime, involving the use of force or the threat of force. The circumstances surrounding the crime will have considerable bearing on the charges, as well as the eventual sentence. If the robbery was perpetrated on an elderly or disabled person or if serious bodily injury occurred in the commission of the crime, the charges will increase accordingly. Armed robbery occurs when a deadly weapon is used or when the person being robbed was threatened with the weapon. Prior robbery convictions or even a history of unrelated criminal charges can make the sentencing more severe. If you were on probation or parole when you were arrested for armed robbery, the felony charges may be escalated to a higher class. In some cases your criminal defense attorney might be able to negotiate your charges down to a lesser offense.

Although many people believe robbery is one of the most-often committed crimes, in fact it is down the list at number five, following larceny-theft, burglary, motor vehicle theft and aggravated assault. If you have taken part in an armed robbery, be aware that the charges are very serious and that there is a very narrow window of time between your arrest and the prosecutor’s decision to file charges against you. Those with an experienced criminal defense attorney by their side stand the best chance of avoiding criminal charges. The consequences of an armed robbery conviction can include:

· A permanent criminal record

· The necessity of submitting to random drug testing

· Restitution

· Steep fines

· Jail or prison time

· The inability to obtain a student loan after your prison sentence has ended

· The inability to obtain a job, work with children, obtain a professional license, run for public office or own a firearm once your prison sentence has ended

· A negative impact on your ability to obtain employment

Your Chicago criminal defense attorney will assess your individual situation thoroughly then determine the best course of action. Some potential defenses include:

· Failure to read the Miranda rights to you

· An illegal search or seizure

· Your alibi for the time of the robbery

· A claim of mistaken identity

· The lack of intent to commit the crime charged

August 4, 2013

Bradley Manning Found Not Guilty of Aiding the Enemy, Guilty of Lesser Charges

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

Recently, Bradley Manning, the 25-year old private who released over 750,000 pages of classified U.S. military documents and videos to the website WikiLeaks, was found not guilty of aiding the enemy – the most serious of the 21 counts he faced. Specifically, Manning faced possible life imprisonment had he been convicted on this charge. Manning was also found not guilty of unauthorized possession of information relating to national defense.

Manning was, however, found guilty of most of the remaining charges lobbed against him, including six espionage charges, five theft charges, computer fraud, and other military infractions. The judge, Judge Col. Denise Lind, also accepted two guilty pleas Manning had previously entered to two lesser charges. For all the various convictions, Manning faces over 130 years in prison. There is, however, no minimum sentence the judge must impose. Manning will return to court on Wednesday to begin his sentencing hearing.

Considered the largest leak in U.S. history of highly classified government materials, Manning (since 2010) admittedly provided battlefield reports, diplomatic cables, and other confidential materials, including battlefield videos, to the disclosure portal, WikiLeaks. WikiLeaks published much of the material on its website, as did a number of major news sources. Some of the most infamous leaked material includes a video of a 2007 Bagdad airstrike which WikiLeaks dubbed “Collateral Murder.” As a result, Manning was arrested in 2010 and ultimately charged with 22 counts, including espionage and the capital offense of aiding the enemy.

While Manning has awaited trial the past 3 years, the world has furiously debated whether his actions were that of a whistleblower or a traitor to his country. Manning himself has stated that he released the documents and videos because they had concerned him and he wanted to show the public the true costs of war. The prosecution, however, urged that Manning released the material to with an evil intent, knowing it would be seen by terrorists.

In light of the above, Manning’s high-profile conviction will have long-reaching implications in the legal field. Among them are:

1. Precedent setting— the Manning case is a precedent setting one. Manning was convicted under the Espionage Act for his leaks to the media, despite a lack of evidence that he had the intent to harm the United States. Some see this as a scary precedent for the handling of future secret sharers. On the other hand, his acquittal on the count of aiding the enemy serves to narrow the reach of that crime. Traditionally, the capital crime of aiding the enemy has been used to punish those who directly turn over secret material to the enemy, such as occurred in World War II when POW’s provided information to the Japanese. Legal analysts feared that if Manning were convicted on the charge of aiding the enemy for his actions, it would set dangerous new precedent because Manning did not directly place the secret material in the hands of the enemy. By rejecting the charge, Judge Lind appears to express a belief that the definition of the crime of aiding the enemy should not be expanded to encompass Manning’s behavior.

2. Chilling effect on whistleblowers— despite being found innocent of aiding the enemy, Manning still faces over 130 years imprisonment for his actions and has already spent 3 years in confinement awaiting trial, including a harrowing 9 months in solitary confinement. Manning’s arrest and conviction, along with the recent high profile charges against fellow secret sharer Edward Snowden, could potentially have a grave chilling effect on would be whistleblowers, secret sharing websites like WikiLeaks, and even major news media. Continue reading

August 1, 2013

Blast from the Past: Lessons Learned from the Chandra Levy Case

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

Facing a Chicago murder charge can carry significant consequences.

It has been over a decade since the disappearance of 24-year-old Washington, D.C. intern Chandra Levy, but the case is back in the national spotlight as questions continue to swirl concerning the guilt of Ingmar Guandique, the Salvadorian illegal immigrant convicted of killing Levy in 2010.

The Chandra Levy case, which captured national attention due to its mystery, intrigue, and political ties, is back in court due to the fact that defense attorneys for Ingmar Guandique have called into question the testimony of a star prosecution witness, Armando Morales. Numerous hearings have been held on the matter but, until now, the proceedings were kept secret due to concerns for Morales safety. On July 29, 2013, however, D.C. Superior Court Judge Gerald Fisher ordered the release of the transcripts of these previously confidential hearings. While it is unclear how much new information these documents will contain, they should be available by the end of the week.

Ingmar Guandique was charged with the death of Chandra Levy in 2009, seven years after Levy’s remains were found in a Washington, D.C. area park. Guandique, then 20 years old, was already in jail for attacking two women in the very same park where Chandra Levy’s body was found. From the start, he adamantly denied murdering Chandra Levy. During his trial, the prosecution presented the crucial testimony of Armando Morales, Guandrique’s one time cell mate, also a convicted felon and gang member, who told the jury that Guandique confessed to him to killing Chandra Levy.

Guandrique’s defense attorneys state that the unsealed documents will reveal Morales made contradictory statements at trial. For instance, Morales testified at trial that he had never come forward to law enforcement before as he did not trust them. However, the defense recently learned Morales had discussed three murders with law enforcement officers and informed them of drugs and weapons dealings occurring in the prison in which he was housed.

Guandrique’s defense team plans to request a new trial based on this previously undiscovered information affecting Morales’ credibility. The motion will likely be filed in October or November of this year.

Here are a few points to take away from the Ingmar Guandrique Case:

A conviction does not have to be final–with a strong, dedicated defense team a guilty verdict is not irreversible, even in a high-profile Chicago murder case. An experienced defense attorney will continue to fight for your case and diligently search for new evidence that might warrant a new trial.
Witness credibility is crucial—in so many cases like Guandrique’s, witness testimony is one of, if not the deciding factor of, an individual’s guilt. Given the potential for witnesses to lie or be less than fully honest – particularly jail house informants like Morales – it is absolutely critical for your defense attorney to test the credibility of the prosecution’s witnesses. This is accomplished through thorough discovery, extensive preparation, and effective cross-examination.
Wrongful convictions do happen—although Guandrique’s defense team still faces an uphill battle in proving he deserves a new trial, his case does serve to highlight the fact that wrongful convictions can occur; and do in fact occur more often than we would like to believe. Wrongful convictions are frequently a result of poor lawyering, such as an attorney’s failure to fully investigate and prepare his client’s defense. This makes it imperative to obtain the representation of a skilled, experienced, and dedicated defense attorney.

July 31, 2013

Chicago Arrest News – Is Your Cell Phone Protected from Searches Incident to Arrest?

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

Living in Chicago, many people have unfortunately been subject to unlawful search and seizure by the Chicago Police Department.

That’s the question two federal appellate judges are pushing the Supreme Court to decide. The U.S Supreme Court held over forty years ago that police who arrest someone have the authority to search all items on their person. However, since this time, items on one’s person have grown to encompass a wide variety of cell phones, including smart phones, and tablets which contain a medley of personal information such as pictures, documents, and other private data, that would once have been found only in one’s home. The lower courts are now struggling to decide how to apply tried and true legal principals to these new technologies, and some are calling for the Supreme Court to step in.

In a 2-1 decision this past May, the First U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held in the case of United States v. Wurie, No. 11-1792 (1st Cir. 2013), that police practice of seizing and searching cell phones at the time of arrest violates the Fourth Amendment.

The facts of the Wurie case are as follows: while performing routine surveillance, Boston police witnessed what appeared to be a drug sale. Police stopped the individual involved, later learned to be Brima Wurie, and found drugs in his pocket. Police also confiscated two cell phones from Wurie at the station. While waiting to book Wurie, one of the cell phones begin ringing. The phone number was identified as “my house” on the cell phone and police officers observed a picture of a woman and a baby set as Wurie’s “wallpaper.” Police searched the phone number and linked it to an address. After some questioning of Wurie, officers drove to the address they had discovered from the phone number and, believing Wurie may have stashed drugs in the home, they entered to “freeze it” while they obtained a warrant. After obtaining a warrant, officers seized large quantities of drugs from the home.

The First Circuit held that allowing the police to search the phone data without a warrant any time they conducted an arrest would create a serious threat to the privacy of countless individuals.

On Monday, the First Circuit rejected the Justice Department’s request that the justice’s rehear the case and, in a rare move, urged the Supreme Court to take up the issue. Chief Judge Sandra Lynch wrote in her statement that while she believed the case me the criteria for a rehearing, she believed the better course of action would be for the Supreme Court to review the case and resolve provide a final resolve on the issue.

Currently, the circuits are split on the constitutionality of cell phones searches incident to arrest. The First Circuit now joins the Ohio and Florida Supreme Courts in requiring a warrant, while another three circuits, including our Seventh Circuit, have held no warrant is required.

We are left to wait and see in the next few months whether the Supreme Court will take up the issue. In the meantime, one thing that can be learned from the Wurie case and others like it: a skilled defense attorney with experience handling Fourth Amendment issues is absolutely critical to your case. Specifically, a seasoned defense attorney can review the facts of your arrest and determine where the police may have violated your Fourth Amendment rights. Further, a veteran defense attorney like Brima Wurie’s is not afraid to challenge existing precedents and champion new legal holdings.

July 25, 2013

Chicago Gun News – New Illinois Concealed Carry Law Enacted by Legislature

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

By now almost everyone has heard about the Chicago unlawful use of weapon statute revisions. These are also referred to as Chicago gun charges.

After a protracted legal battle, Illinois has adopted legislation to permit individuals to carry a concealed gun, but the permits likely will not be issued until 2014. Illinois takes its place as the final state in the nation to approve a law to allow citizens to carry a concealed gun, but it has not been a smooth process and it may not be over yet.

The current process began in December of 2012, when the United States Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit ruled that Illinois’ ban on concealed carry was unconstitutional in response to a challenge to the State’s unlawful use of a weapon statute by gun rights advocate Mary Shepard. Pursuant to the holding of the 7th Circuit, the Illinois Legislature had until June 9, 2013 to enact legislation that permitted people to carry concealed guns. The Legislature was granted a one month extension and the Senate and House drafted and approved legislation, which subsequently was significantly modified by Governor Pat Quinn’s amendatory veto. However, with a Senate vote of 41-17 and a House vote of 77-31, the Legislature attained the three-fifths majority necessary to override the veto and enact the law.

The Legislature was under intense pressure to come up with some type of acceptable law before the deadline had past due to the uncertainty of what would happen with no regulation in place. Concealed carry supporters claimed that they would be able to carry concealed any type of gun anywhere without any restrictions. Gun control advocates claimed it would be up to local governments to craft and implement restrictions, which could be very strict. The Legislature attempted to reach a compromise with the legislation that was passed, allowing a very permissive process for gun owners to be able to obtain a permit to carry a concealed gun while enacting prohibitions about where these guns could be taken. Locations where concealed carry is not allowed include schools, parks, libraries, and buses and trains that are part of the mass transit system.While the Legislature was wrangling with language and restrictions on a person’s right to carry a concealed gun, Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan filed a request with the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals for a rehearing en banc, specifically asking that the entire 7th Circuit reconsider the decision. The 7th Circuit rejected Attorney General Madigan’s request and Ms. Madigan did not appeal the decision to the United States Supreme Court.

Under the law passed by the Legislature, the Illinois State Police have 180 days to organize a program to process applications for concealed carry permits and an additional 90 days in which to get all application forms processed. In order to obtain a permit, an applicant must:

Possess a Firearm Owner’s Identification card;
Have passed a background check;
Have undergone a gun-safety training program of at least sixteen (16) hours; and
Paid a fee of $150.00.

Although the State of Illinois now has enacted legislation that dictates the provisions for being permitted to carry a concealed gun and this law is far less restrictive than similar laws in other states, including New York where law enforcement personnel have the discretion to deny permits, gun rights advocates are not happy yet. These advocates believe that the nine (9) months that it will take for the first applicants to obtain their carry permits is a continuation of the unconstitutional ban on carrying concealed guns. Therefore, Mary Shepard, whose lawsuit was the impetus behind the Illinois concealed carry law, has gone back to federal court to force an immediate issuance of the permits. Some local governments are in agreement with this position and have announced that they will not prosecute those local citizens who are discovered with a concealed gun. Attorney General Lisa Madigan has filed a motion to dismiss Ms. Shepard’s case as moot because the requisite legislation has been enacted. Now, it is a matter of waiting to see whether the courts will give Illinois law enforcement a little time to get an effective system in place. This will greatly affect those facing Chicago gun charges.
Continue reading

July 24, 2013

Chicago Gun UUW News – New Illinois Concealed Gun Law Sparks Federal Litigation

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

Despite Illinois’ recent enactment of its concealed-carry gun law, some gun rights advocates are still not happy – and, they are taking their dissatisfaction to federal court. In a motion filed earlier this month by Mary Shepard, and backed by the Illinois State Rifle Association, she asserts that having to wait several months for the permit process to be outlined is an unjustified abridgment of her Second Amendment rights. Shepard, a gun owner from Cobden, Illinois, was 69 at the time she was brutally attacked (along with her 83-year old coworker) and left for dead by Willis Bates, a paroled felon, as he burglarized the First Baptist Church where she worked. As a result, she argues that had she been able to carry a gun at the time of the incident (back in 2009), she would have been able to thwart the attack and protect herself.

By way of background, the new law was passed on July 9, despite Governor Pat Quinn’s rather vehement objections, barely meeting the deadline set by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals to create the legislation. Pursuant to its terms, Illinois State Police are charged with the responsibility of setting up a permit program before concealed-carry applications can be submitted. Specifically, the police have 180 days with which to complete this process, and an additional 90 days to process the application forms that they receive. As a result, Shepard and several other gun rights advocates feel that the aforementioned timeframe is way too long and perpetuates Illinois’ long-standing gun ban until the permit process is up and running. In her court filing, Shepard provides that “the delay proposed by the state constitutes an unacceptable perpetuation of the defendants’ infringement of the Second Amendment rights of Ms. Shepard and the other law-abiding citizens of the state of Illinois”, and further insists that “no Wild West anarchy would ensue” if the U.S. District judge, the Honorable William Stiehl, ruled in her favor.

In response to Shepard’s arguments, the State of Illinois has fired back, stating that her case is completely moot and therefore, should be dismissed. According to the State, it asserts that the law provides Shepard with what she wanted all along – the right to conceal and carry a gun. Moreover, it further argues that the timeframe allotted to the Illinois State Police to develop the permit program should be allowed to run its course. Notwithstanding both the State and Ms. Shepard’s respective positions, no hearing date has been set by Judge Stiehl to rule on the matter.
Continue reading

July 17, 2013

Chicago Arrest News – What to do When a Loved One Has Been Arrested in Chicago

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

It is always a shock to hear about a friend or family member who has been arrested. While we assume that our friend will be treated as “innocent until proven guilty”, this is not necessarily the reality in every situation. Many times, police officers and detectives alike will take advantage of a person’s lack of experience with the criminal justice system, which could lead to the inadvertent disclosure of incriminating information. Moreover, they also regularly fail to inform people as to the full scope of their rights, including their right to have an attorney present during various stages of the legal process (i.e. during interrogation and police line-up, etc.). If you find out that someone you love has been arrested, it is crucial to consider the following steps to help them protect their legal rights:

Obtain as much information as possible. The first thing you need to do is to find out where your loved one is being held. If he or she doesn’t know, then contact your local police department to see if they can help you locate them. When you speak with your loved one, find out what the charges are but do not allow them to tell you what happened. Your phone conversation could be recorded and held against your loved one later on.
Encourage your loved one to remain silent and to request an attorney. Don’t let your loved one make any statements or submit to any tests without the presence of an experienced Chicago criminal defense attorney. Also, it is important to advise the police officer or detective to not speak with your loved one until his or her attorney is present.
Take detailed notes. Be sure to write everything down, including the time that you were informed of your love one’s arrest and thereafter. This will not only help you keep things straight during this stressful time, it will also help your loved one’s attorney get the facts and start working on your defense.
Find a competent criminal defense attorney. As soon as you find out that your loved one has been arrested, it is crucial to find an experienced criminal defense attorney to help protect their legal rights. Do not hire the first attorney that comes along. Make sure that the attorney with whom you meet is familiar with the criminal justice system and, who knows the judges and applicable court of your jurisdiction. Having this level of familiarity can make a huge difference in your case.
Post bond. In most cases, a criminal judge will determine the appropriate amount of bail following your loved one’s arrest. Specifically, bail guarantees that your loved one will appear in all court proceedings following his or her release from jail. Jail bonds are available to cover the bail amount, get your loved one out of jail, and enable them to seek immediate legal representation.
Be wary of any deals that are offered, including those that seem too good to be true. Many times, various people involved in the interrogation process will attempt to make promises in order to influence your loved one to talk. However, it is crucial to realize that these individuals may not actually possess the requisite authority for their promises to hold any weight. With this in mind, do not accept any plea bargains or promises until an attorney has become involved in your case. He or she will certainly be able to “see through” these unfair police tactics and guide you accordingly. Continue reading

June 20, 2013

Chicago Criminal Lawyer News – Why You Need An Experienced Chicago Criminal Attorney

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

Top 10 Reasons You Need a Chicago Criminal Defense Attorney

If you find yourself in trouble with the law, guilty or innocent, you should call on the services of a Chicago criminal defense attorney. There are a number of crimes of which you might be accused and an experienced lawyer helps you defend yourself. Whether you need to prove your innocence or that your crime was justified, a Chicago criminal defense lawyer guides you through the stressful, and sometimes intimidating, legal process.

The American legal system is complicated. You might think you understand how things work because you have watched courtroom dramas on TV, but things are never simple enough to be resolved in an hour. A criminal defense attorney is able to help you navigate the confusing legal system.

Criminal defense lawyers have studied the legal system. They are familiar with local, state and federal laws. They understand the nuances of the legal system and if there is a way to interpret a law in your favor, a Chicago criminal defense attorney will be able to do so.
Criminal defense attorneys have experience. Attorneys have spent their careers working with the law and have used it to help clients before you. They are also familiar with the individual personalities in the local legal system. A Chicago criminal defense lawyer is likely to know the prosecuting attorney, as well as the judge. This insight helps you a great deal during legal proceedings.
A criminal defense attorney acts as your personal representative. No matter whether you are facing a Chicago drug charge or a simple Chicago battery charge, your lawyer will listen to your side of the story. Even if it feels as if everyone is judging you, your lawyer is on your side. Everyone deserves justice and your lawyer will see to it that you get yours. You will be represented fairly and everything you share with your lawyer will be confidential.
A lawyer from a Chicago law firm knows the routine and will assist you during the bail process, when you appear before a judge and throughout the case.
If you are not released on bail, they will meet with you in jail and talk confidentially. During the meetings you will receive information about the proceedings, so you know what to expect during each phase of the process. Legal counsel helps you anticipate what happens next and provides you with information so you do not say or do something that can be held against you at a later time.
They are aware of the evidence that will be used against you. During the discovery process, attorneys are required to share evidence with one another that will be presented during the trial. For instance, if you have been accused of driving while intoxicated, the prosecution will have to share any information they have concerning your blood alcohol results or eye witness testimony with your DUI defense lawyer. This gives you and your attorney a chance to build an argument against the evidence beforehand.
Your attorney will work to select the best possible jury for you. An experienced Chicago criminal defense attorney will choose jurors that are most likely to treat you fairly during your trial.
They know how to battle the prosecution and are trained at focusing on the weaknesses of their case. They might also be familiar with the courtroom style of the prosecuting attorney and frame their case to weaken the prosecutions argument.
They understand the appeals process. Should you lose your case, your attorney can build a felony defense to be heard in a higher court. Continue reading