criminal defense

October 2, 2015

2014 Champaign Officer of the Year: A Sexually Dangerous Person?

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

Jerad Gale, chosen as “Officer of the Year” for the Champaign Police Department, has been arrested for raping and strangling two different women. Since his arrest, another victim and a former girlfriend have come forward alleging similar crimes were committed against them by Gale, and he faces those charges as well. He was also accused of sexual assault in 2007, but was unable to be prosecuted due to a three-year statute of limitations. Somehow, he was awarded the Officer of the Year honor in spite of this. He is not likely to repeat that award, and in fact, prosecutors are trying to have him named a “sexually dangerous person.”

What is a “Sexually Dangerous Person” in Illinois?

The Illinois Sexually Dangerous Persons Act (“The Act”) defines “sexually dangerous persons” as all persons suffering from a mental disorder for longer than a year who have also “criminal propensities” to commit sex offenses and have either committed prior acts of sexual assault or sexual molestation of children. Pursuant to this definition, the prosecutors in this case are seeking a designation of “sexually dangerous person” for Gale, and his motion to dismiss the petition has been denied.

September 15, 2015

Are You Being Charged With Official Misconduct in Illinois?

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

A former Chicago police property custodian, who had held that position since 1990, was sentenced to two years in prison this week after she was caught on tape stealing money, jewelry, and a camcorder out of an evidence facility. She was convicted of the crime of official misconduct.

What is Official Misconduct?

There are two different types of official misconduct. One type is official misconduct by a public officer or a special government agent. The second type of official misconduct is done by an employee of a law enforcement agency, like in the case above. The first type of official misconduct is charged when any of the individuals mentioned above is alleged to have done any of the following when acting in his or her official capacity or capacity as a special government agent:

Intentionally or recklessly failing to perform any duty that is mandatory by law;
Knowingly performing an act which he or she knows is against the law;
Performing an act that exceeds his or her lawful authority with the intent to obtain a personal advantage; or
Knowingly accepting or soliciting another person for a fee or reward for any act which is not authorized by law.

The second type of official misconduct occurs when an employee of a law enforcement organization knowingly uses or provides information to an unauthorized recipient that was acquired in the course of employment, if the information is provided with the intention of obstructing or impeding the investigation, or interfering with the apprehension or prosecution of any person or criminal offense.

In addition to being charged with a class 3 felony, if convicted, the employee forfeits his or her employment. This is therefore a serious crime to be charged with, and it is important to have a knowledgeable criminal defense attorney at your side from the moment you are charged.

What is the Penalty for Being Convicted of Official Misconduct?

If convicted of official misconduct, you will be guilty of a class 3 felony. Under Illinois law, if convicted of a class 3 felony you can be punished with two to five years in prison. If you are convicted of an extended class 3 felony, then you can be sentenced to five to ten years in prison. You may also face fines and restitution if convicted. Continue reading

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.

December 10, 2014

What is a Grand Jury and How Does it Work?

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

The recent announcement that the grand jury chose not to indict the Ferguson, Missouri police officer who shot and killed unarmed teenager Michael Brown this past summer on charges of first-degree murder or manslaughter raised many questions, the most troubling for many being, “Why shouldn’t Officer Wilson at least stand trial?”

Purpose of Chicago Grand Jury

It is often said that “a grand jury can indict a ham sandwich.” And while this is not true, the statement comes from the fact that the burden of proof the prosecution must meet in a grand jury is different than the burden of proof the prosecution must meet in a criminal trial. At trial, the prosecution must prove the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

But in order for a grand jury to hand down an indictment, the prosecution must only prove that there is probable cause to show that the defendant committed the charged offense. If the grand jury finds that there is insufficient evidence that the defendant did not commit the crime, it will vote not to indict, and all charges against the defendant are dismissed.

The purpose of the grand jury, then, is not to decide the guilt or innocence of a criminal defendant, although arguably, the fact that they found insufficient evidence to send the defendant to trial is tantamount to their profession of his innocence.

How the Grand Jury Works

The grand jury is similar to a jury in a criminal trial in that the jurors review evidence provided by the prosecutor and hear witness testimony. But in many ways it is quite different. Because the purpose of the proceeding is to determine if there is sufficient evidence to put the defendant on trial, and not to determine his guilt or innocence, only the prosecution puts on a case; the jurors never hear from the defense attorney.

In fact, a defense attorney is not present at the grand jury and, unless the prosecution plans to call him as a witness, neither is the defendant. Grand jury proceedings are secret, and the testimony, evidence and witnesses presented in the proceedings are also kept secret, unless ordered released by the judge or released by the prosecutor as part of his duties. Grand jury proceedings are so secret, that in some cases the person being indicted does not even know that he is the subject of a grand jury until the indictment is handed down.

All evidence, regardless of whether it will ultimately be admitted in court, is presented to the grand jury. The regular rules of evidence that apply to criminal trials are inapplicable in grand juries. And again, because the purpose of the grand jury is only to determine if there is enough evidence to support the idea that the defendant committed the charged crime, and not to prove his guilt or innocence, it does not matter whether the evidence was obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment prohibition against unlawful search and seizures or any other law. Any evidence the prosecution has against the defendant is presented.

In addition to the evidence presented by the prosecution, the grand jury may consider information called to its attention by the court or learned in its investigation of other matters. The grand jury may also request permission to conduct its own investigation, including the right to subpoena witnesses or other documents.

September 9, 2014

Chicago Man Guilty of Aggravated Discharge of Firearm by Common Design

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

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

Illinois Common Criminal Design Rule

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

September 3, 2014

Sexual Assault of Woman in Buffalo Grove

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

A Buffalo Grove woman reported being awoken in her bed at 4 in the morning to a strange man straddling her in what police are calling an attempted sexual assault. The woman allegedly fought the man off, and he escaped through a patio door. No arrests have yet to be made.

Defense Against Illinois Attempted Sexual Assault

While there is currently no suspect in the case and no charges have been filed, this case is an excellent example of many issues that arise in home invasion and sexual assault cases, and illustrates the importance of hiring an experienced Chicago sex crimes attorney. An acquittal in a case like this depends on the criminal defense attorney’s ability to show the jury how the prosecution’s evidence does not rise to the level of reasonable doubt.

Chicago sexual assault attorney David L. Freidberg has more than 17 years of experience handling all types of sex crimes cases, and knows what it takes to win an acquittal or achieve a reduction in charges. Issues that David L. Freidberg and his team of forensic experts would examine in an attempt to pick apart the prosecution’s case include:

Identification of suspect. The woman was awakened from a deep sleep at 4 in the morning. Groggy from sleep and seeing the alleged assailant in the dark make any identification from a police lineup questionable, as she only had a brief, darkened view of him. Her description of him to the police was extremely generic, with no real identifying characteristics that could distinguish him from any other white male of similar age and build.

Lack of forced entry. The suspect allegedly escaped through an open patio door; there were seemingly no signs of forced entry. The lack of forced entry raises doubts that this was a home invasion. Perhaps the alleged victim had invited the man in to her home earlier that evening, and then changed her mind and kicked him out because she has a boyfriend, fiancé or husband and felt guilty or got caught. Claiming home invasion and attempted sexual assault was a means to avoid their anger.

Earlier home invasion in the neighborhood. Police reported that a similar home invasion (minus the attempted sexual assault) occurred a month ago in the same condominium complex. It is possible that this was the work of the same individual, and perhaps he was upping his game. Or, going along with the scenario that the alleged victim was trying to save face, it could be that she was aware of the prior home invasion and tacked that on to her story of attempted sexual assault, thinking it would make her story sound more believable.

Lack of physical evidence. Because there was no sexual assault, there is likely no DNA evidence that can tie any future suspect to the attack. Even if a DNA sample can link the suspect, the presence of DNA in the form of semen only proves that sexual intercourse happened. It does not prove the sex was non-consensual.

David L. Freidberg would thoroughly examine the evidence to see if these and any other issues could be raised to cast doubt on the victim’s story and the prosecution’s ability to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. Continue reading