Chicago criminal defense attorney

April 29, 2016

Tackling Violent Crime in Chicago: Is it a Lost Cause?

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

Like most cities, Chicago’s violent crimes seem local to certain areas and districts. Those areas taint the entire city with their reputation of violence. Specifically, neighborhoods that are infested with gangs and street thugs, like Austin and Englewood, have a murder rate that is much higher than any other part of the city. But when anyone thinks about Chicago, they think that it is one large area where gangs rule. Sociologist refers to this typically as the “crime gap.” Theory has it that the “crime gap” advances as the “income gap” gets wider; that they are linked in such a way that unemployment and poverty creates the atmosphere where wants and needs conjoin to create the stagnant pond that eventually gives birth to crime and violent behavior. This theory is played out in neighborhood after neighborhood. The most crime infested communities are those where poverty is the rule of the day.

Fixing the Problem is Harder Than You Think

Theories aside, is there a way to fix this problem? A good start would be to bring industry back into the communities, but employers are not likely to relocate into areas overrun with violent crime. To end poverty, you need to bring employers back into the inner cities but the employers will not come back unless crime can be controlled. Entitlement programs are bandages in a situation that needs a tourniquet. Those that can move out of the city altogether, are doing so.

April 27, 2016

The Coroner Says Marques Gaines Was Murdered, But by Whom?

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

A series of events led to the death of a Chicago man, Marques Gaines, that is now being called a homicide by the coroner’s office. Gaines and an unidentified man started arguing outside a 7-Eleven Store. The argument escalated, ending up with the unidentified man assaulting Gaines in front of the store and leaving him unconscious in the street.

Several bystanders rifled through Gaines’ pockets and robbed him while he lay unconscious. Other bystanders walked casually over and around the unconscious man but no one attempted to help him. Eventually, a taxi cab driver ran over Gaines. Gaines was taken to the hospital and later pronounced dead.

The question is who is responsible for Gaines’ “murder.” Was it the unidentified man who punched Gaines and left him unconscious in the street? Was it the bystanders who robbed him while he lay unconscious in the street and failed to assist him; or was it the cab driver, who may not have known that Gaines was lying unconscious in the street, but who ended up running over him? Who is ultimately responsible for Gaines’ death, and who will be charged with his murder?

August 14, 2015

Have You Been Wrongly Identified in a Lineup?

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

Eyewitness identification is incredibly unreliable, yet can be a determining factor in a jury finding someone guilty at trial. In a study of 525 wrongful convictions, the Innocence Project found that 73% of those wrongfully convicted (235), were found guilty due to incorrect eyewitness identification. If you are being charged with a crime, it is best to consult an experienced criminal defense attorney immediately, and especially before standing or having your photograph presented in a lineup.

Wrongful Identifications in Illinois

Illinois alone has released more than 20 wrongfully convicted criminals since 1993. Thankfully, Illinois is taking steps in attempts to cure this issue. A recent legal change is a step in the right direction. Illinois has a new statute governing lineup procedures, 725 ILCS 5/107A-2. This statute is an attempt to remove human influence from tainting the lineup procedures, by requiring the use of either an independent administrator, an automated computer program, or random shuffling of photos for all lineups. This new statute also contains other safeguards, including video recording and written reporting requirements, all measures designed to strengthen the reliability of the results and prevent misidentification of witnesses. According to the new law, lineups now must be conducted using one of the following methods:

Independent Administrator

An independent administrator is somebody who is not a police detective, officer, or any other member of the arresting police force. The lineup administrator has to draft and file a report at the end of the lineup, which must be shared with your lawyer.

Automated Computer Program

If the lineup is going to be a photographic lineup (rather than one in which people stand before a glass), then this statute allows an automated computer program or other automated device to be used. The automated program will automatically display a lineup of photographs to an eyewitness without allowing the lineup administrator to see which photographs the eyewitness is viewing until after the lineup is completed.

Random Photo Shuffling

If there is no independent lineup administrator available, and no automated computer program to “shuffle” the photos for the lineup, then the lineup administrator must place randomly numbered photographs in folders and present them to an eyewitness. The statute requires that the lineup administrator does not see or know which photographs are being presented to the witness until after the lineup is completed.

Other Requirements

In addition to using one of the methods above, law enforcement agencies have to adopt written guidelines that explain in which circumstances simultaneous lineups will be used (all photos are shown at the same time), and under which circumstances sequential lineups will be used (when an eyewitness is shown photos one at a time). There are also specific instructions that must be given to the witness, and all lineups must be audio and video recorded whenever possible. Copies of any recordings must be given to your lawyer during the discovery process.

This new law still does not go far enough to protect you from an erroneous conviction based on wrongful identification. There is a catch-all provision in the new law that allows the police to use “any other procedure” which supposedly prevents the lineup administrator from knowing the persons or photographs presented to the witness, but in essence allows the police to avoid using any of the procedures this statute suggests.

July 7, 2015

Saint Xavier Football Player Charged with Burglary

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

A Saint Xavier University football player and criminal justice major, Jonathan Gilbreth, was charged with one felony count of burglary on June 26, 2015, according to a news report. At around 3:10 a.m., police responded to a security alarm at an Oak Lawn tobacco store where they saw a man running from the area behind the store. After a brief foot chase, police caught Gilbreth at a nearby backyard and found him in possession of tobacco products from the store. A witness also saw Gilbreth hit the glass door to the tobacco store just before the security alarm went off.

Burglary laws in Illinois

According to Illinois statute, a person commits burglary if he or she:

Enters or remains in a building, house trailer, watercraft, aircraft, motor vehicle, railroad car without authority; and
Does so with the intent to commit a felony or theft inside.

Entering without permission is not enough – prosecutors have to be able to prove that the individual entered (or remained) with the intent to commit theft or some other felony. Here, the police witnessed Gilbreth running from behind the store and found him in possession of products from the store. It is likely the police will have a strong case with circumstantial evidence where Gilbreth’s actions are only consistent with an intent to steal. Additionally, the intended crime does not have to occur – it is enough that an unauthorized entry occurred with a corresponding criminal intention.

Possible defenses to burglary may include negating the first element of the offense by proving that the individual had the consent of the owner or occupier of the property to enter. In these cases, there would be no unauthorized entry. Even if the defendant misunderstood the owner and erroneously believed he had permission, the belief in the consent, if reasonable, may be enough to defeat a charge of burglary.

Also, burglary requires that a person have the specific intent to commit theft or a felony once inside the property. If a person was intoxicated, it may be a valid defense to the degree that it kept the defendant from forming the specific intent.

Penalties for Burglary as a Felony

If proven, burglary is considered a Class 2 felony in Illinois, which is punishable from three to seven years in prison. However, if the individual had not been convicted of a class 2 felony or greater within the previous ten years, up to four years of probation may be available.

However, if the burglary involved someone’s home, it is considered residential burglary, which is much more serious. It becomes a Class 1 felony, which is punishable from four to fifteen years in prison and probation is unavailable.

May 29, 2015

New Program Hopes to Keep Mentally Ill Defendants Out of Jail

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

On the heels of the Chicago “Rocket Docket” program comes a new initiative from the Cook County Sheriff’s Office aimed at identifying – and getting treatment for – Cook County misdemeanor arrestees with mental health issues.

Mental Health Crisis in Cook County Jails

Cook County Sheriff Thomas J. Dart has been a proactive force in efforts to keep non-violent, mentally ill Cook County offenders out of jail, focusing his efforts instead on getting them much needed mental health treatment. The Cook County Sheriff’s website estimates that approximately 30% have some type of mental illness that is a major contributing factor to their crime. The greatest concentration of crime committed by those with a mental illness is in the south suburbs, which saw a huge increase when the Tinley Park Mental Health Center closed in 2012, which left many patients with no options for treatment or housing, leading them to petty crimes as a means of survival.

Yet for these non-violent offenders, spending time in jail while they await trial is not the answer – without services or treatment, once released these inmates will fall right back to a life of crime. Thus a vicious cycle of arrest, incarceration, and discharge continues, all at a huge cost to taxpayers.

The pilot program is housed at the Markham Courthouse and is run in partnership with Adler Community Health Services. Pre-bond detainees are screened to determine eligibility for the program based on their charge (only misdemeanor charges are considered), background and mental health needs. Appropriate detainees are referred to the judge, who has discretion to release the arrestee on his own recognizance, with the condition that they enroll in the Sheriff’s Office’s mental health clinic for regular treatment.

Opened in 2014, Sheriff Dart’s Mental Health Clinic provides therapeutic services, job training and discharge planning for Cook County Jail inmates with mental illness. The hope is that with proper treatment and medication, and skills that can help them secure a job, these arrestees will be able to become productive members of society and break the cycle of incarceration, while at the same time saving taxpayers the high cost of incarceration and leaving the jails open for violent offenders.

This program is promising and, if successful, will hopefully be expanded to other courthouses throughout Cook County. Many Chicago residents suffering from mental illness lack the mental capacity to stand trial, as they do not understand the nature of their actions. But there are many that fall between the cracks – they understand the nature of the proceedings, and that their actions are wrong, but their mental illness makes them unable to control themselves, or to make choices that could steer them away from theft, trespass and the other petty misdemeanor crimes they are often arrested for committing. But with the right combination of treatment, medication, job training and life planning, they can get their mental illness under control before they progress to committing violent crimes that will land them in prison and have no chance of treatment.

May 22, 2015

Cook County Woman Charged with Battery after Attacking Boyfriend in Public Restroom

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

A Cook County woman was charged with domestic battery for allegedly slamming her boyfriend’s head into a public restroom following his refusal to have sex with her. She was also charged with illegal possession of prescription drugs after police saw prescription pills in her purse that had the name of another woman on the label.

Cook County Domestic Battery Charge

A charge of domestic battery is no different than a regular battery charge, other than the fact that domestic battery charges can only be brought against a defendant if the battery was committed against a family or household member or significant other.

Battery and domestic battery are Class A misdemeanors, so attempting to argue that the victim does not meet the criteria of family or household member would not be a good defense strategy, because the potential punishment if convicted is the same for either crime. The argument that the victim was not a family or household member would be relevant if this was a second charge of domestic battery; in those instances, conviction is a Class 4 felony. So trying to argue the charge down to “regular” battery based on a failure to meet the relationship criteria would be justified.

In this particular case the only viable defenses, if the facts supported them, would be self-defense or accidental. Based on the description of the incident – the alleged victim was using the urinal at the time the defendant approached him for sex – it seems unlikely the facts would support a self-defense claim.

That leaves the defense that it was unintentional. The crime of battery is committed only if action causing harm was committed “knowingly” – that is, intentionally. The woman was in a state of undress when her boyfriend rebuffed her advances; it is possible that she tripped putting her clothes back on. Or, if she was taking medication, it could have impaired her balance, causing her to fall against him. If either of these are true, it would have been her falling against him that caused him to hit his head against the wall, rather than an intentional action on her part.

Cook County Possession of Prescription Drugs Charges

Illegal possession of a prescription drugs is a felony, and conviction has serious consequences. The first line of defense is to prove that you had a prescription for the drug. The second is to verify that the drug found in your possession is in fact listed as a controlled substance under the Illinois Controlled Substances Act.

If you do not have a prescription, you must prove that the drugs were not truly in your possession. In this case, the police found the drugs when the woman pulled them out of her purse and placed them on the table. The pill container had another woman’s name on it. That alone is not enough to prove illegal possession. Perhaps the defendant had just picked up the prescription for a friend or family member and was planning to deliver it the next day.

Or perhaps the name on the bottle is the woman’s legal name, and she uses another for everyday life. Or maybe the opposite is true – not wanting her prescription history to get out in the event the pharmacy computers are hacked, perhaps her doctor writes the prescription under a different name. It may also be possible that the drugs inside pill bottle were prescribed to the defendant, but she was using an old pill bottle that belonged to somebody else to hold them. The mere fact that the defendant had possession of a pill bottle that did not have her name on it is not enough, on its own, to prove that she was in illegal possession of a controlled substance.

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 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 15, 2015

Mistrials in Chicago Criminal Cases

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

Criminal defense trials, whether fictionalized accounts on television or in the movies or the real life versions, usually end in one of three ways – a guilty verdict, a non-guilty verdict or a mistrial. The first two are self-explanatory. But what exactly constitutes a mistrial?

Reasons for Chicago Mistrials

A mistrial results in the trial ending without a verdict, and either the prosecutor or defense attorney can make a motion for mistrial. In some cases, the judge will enter the order for mistrial without a request from either side. If the judge grants the motion for mistrial, the trial is over. If he denies it, the trial continues, and the defendant can appeal the decision if the jury enters a guilty verdict. There are a number of reasons why a mistrial may be granted, including:

Hung jury: Probably the most well-known reason for a mistrial. A hung jury occurs when all 12 members of the jury cannot agree on a verdict, and no amount of further deliberations will change anybody’s mind. The judge usually orders the mistrial on his own in these situations, as opposed to the prosecution or defense filing a motion.

Juror misconduct: Either side may request a mistrial if there is evidence of juror misconduct. This may include discussing the case with other jurors before deliberations begin, using evidence not admitted at trial to influence their decision, discussing the case with non-jurors or having contact with any of the parties associated with the trial outside of the courtroom.

Death: A mistrial can be declared if a juror (if there are no alternates) or attorney dies during trial.

Tainted jury pool: If a juror lies during voir dire – the pre-trial phase where the prosecutor and defense attorney question the potential jurors prior to jury selection – the jury pool can be considered tainted and may be grounds for a mistrial. Lies or omissions by a juror that could cause a mistrial include failure to disclose a relationship (personal or otherwise) with any parties to the case, including witnesses; having been a victim of the crime the defendant is accused of committing, or; having already formed an opinion regarding the defendant’s guilt or innocence.

Prejudice to the defendant: If something occurs at trial that is so prejudicial to the defendant that he can no longer receive a fair trial, and a judge’s admonition to the jury to not consider that information is not enough to erase it, a mistrial can be declared. Actions that can cause such prejudice include improper remarks made by the prosecutor during his opening statement, or a witness testifying to highly inflammable, but irrelevant, acts by the defendant.

If a criminal case ends in a mistrial, the prosecutor may be able to retry the case. Whether or not this is possible depends on the reasons for the declaration of trial, and whether a retrial would violate the defendant’s right against double jeopardy, that is, the right to not be tried a second time for his alleged crimes. Whether double jeopardy attaches to prevent retrial is a complicated legal analysis that is generally taken up on appeal. In general, however, any case that ends in a hung jury can usually be retried.