Armed Robbery

April 25, 2018

Reform of the Armed Robbery Sentencing Guidelines in Chicago

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

It is one thing to formulate a law, it is another thing to interpret, understand and execute that law. Over the past few years, various arms of the justice system have been at the forefront of ensuring that all instituted laws are not only comprehensive but also effective when it comes to fighting crime. In this case, law reforms have become a central pillar towards formulating laws that are humane as well as tough enough to dissuade people from committing crimes.

The push to institute tough measures towards countering crime is one that the administration in Chicago values a lot. For instance, the reforms on the armed robbery guidelines have been revamped to curb the ever rising armed robbery cases, especially in the past decade.

The armed robbery guidelines in Chicago are enshrined within the Illinois Criminal Code of 1961. The code defines an act of armed robbery as one where the perpetrator is armed with a dangerous weapon during robbery. In addition to being a Class X felony, armed robbery in Chicago carries a prison sentence of between five and 25 years in prison with fines not exceeding $25,000.

January 19, 2018

The Differences Between Robbery and Theft in Chicago

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

U.S. courts are facing many criminal cases that are somehow associated with robbery or theft. When these two almost identical crimes are coupled with an uninformed population, the result is a high number of convicted felons who do not know their rights based on their crimes.

While these two forms of crime may sound the same, they are different in nature. Many law enforcement units across the country report drastic reductions in cases linked to robberies and thefts, but the numbers are still high. A recent report by the Chicago Police Department shows a slight decrease in theft-related crimes over the past decade when compared to robbery incidences. This raises the question as to what is the difference between these two types of crime?

What You Should Know About Robbery Laws in Chicago

September 22, 2017

Gun Crime Law in Chicago

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

It is a sad fact, but it is still a true one: Gun violence in Chicago, Illinois is steadily climbing higher and higher. The amount of gun crimes taking place in the city is reaching what some consider to be an epidemic level, making residents feel fearful and unsafe. Meanwhile, there are two opposing camps that are warring over the best way to deal with the gun crime rates in the Windy City: Those who feel that more gun control is needed, and those who feel like less is needed. With gun violence on the rise and crime rates at unpleasant numbers, it is making dealing with the law itself increasingly difficult.

The Second Amendment

Until recently, guns could not even be purchased inside of Chicago. The local laws banned the sale of guns within the city limits. However, in 2016, this law was ruled as unconstitutional. Strong advocates of the Second Amendment were thrilled, but those in favor of gun control were not quite so happy with the outcome. Whatever the case, it became a fact of life: Guns were easier to obtain in Chicago. There is little evidence at the moment that gun laws were being broken either before or after this occurred, so the jury is still out on any strong connection.

August 29, 2016

Family Robbed at Gunpoint and Falsely Imprisoned in Home

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

The Wisconsin State Journal reports that two suspects are currently in custody in Illinois in connection with a violent home invasion that took place in Madison last January. Allegedly, the two suspects robbed a 27-year-old man at gunpoint, forced the man into his apartment, and once inside bound the man and his girlfriend with duct tape. The couple claims that the robbers demanded more money and pointed a gun at their 3-year-old daughter’s head. Eventually, the father broke free of his bonds, lunged at one of the gunmen, and was shot multiple times. Thankfully all members of the family survived. Now that both suspects are in custody, they have been charged with several crimes, including false imprisonment.

What is False Imprisonment?

In Illinois, false imprisonment occurs when an individual’s personal liberty or freedom of locomotion is unlawfully restrained. Before a defendant can be convicted of false imprisonment the prosecution must prove the following two elements:

October 28, 2015

Man Sought in Irving Park Bank Robbery

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

On Wednesday, October 21, 2015, a man robbed an Irving Park neighborhood bank located on the Northwest side. According to witnesses, the man walked into the Wintrust Bank branch at 4343 N. Elston Ave. between 4:00 and 4:30 in the afternoon, gave the teller a note demanding cash, and then ran away with an unspecified amount of money, according to Chicago Police and the FBI. The suspect has not been caught at this time, but if he is caught, he will face serious federal charges and a lengthy prison sentence.

Bank Robbery Charges

If you are charged with bank robbery, it is always a federal offense. To be convicted of bank robbery, the assistant U.S. Attorney must be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person took or tried to take money or property from an institution that is federally insured. Even if you are arrested for allegedly stealing from an ATM, you will be charged with bank robbery.

October 14, 2015

Carjacking Laws in Illinois

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

Most of us are familiar with the term carjacking from television, movies, and video games. It is legally referred to as vehicular hijacking, and it is defined as the use of force or the threat of the use of force to steal another person’s vehicle. Vehicular hijacking, or carjacking, is a serious violent crime in Illinois and the penalties are harsh. You will be facing felony charges and a lengthy prison term, as well as fines, if you are accused of carjacking, and you will have a permanent blight on your criminal record.

What Exactly is Carjacking?

Under Illinois law, you can be charged with carjacking if you take a motor vehicle from another person by the use of force, or by the threat of the use of force. It is considered more than a simple robbery – it is a separate charge entirely, and it is a Class 1 felony. If you are convicted of carjacking, you could face up to 15 years in prison. The penalties are significantly harsher than those for robbery and burglary offenses, which are usually charged as Class 2 felonies and carry shorter sentences and lower fines.

June 17, 2015

Chicago Man Arrested for Armed Robbery of Clothing Stores

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

A Chicago man was arrested for allegedly committing armed robbery at knifepoint several clothing stores in Lincoln Park and Bucktown during broad daylight.

Chicago Armed Robbery Charge

Under Illinois law a person commits armed robbery if he:

Knowingly;
Takes property;
From the person or presence of another;
By force or threat of imminent use of force.

Conviction on an armed robbery charge requires that the prosecution prove each of these four elements. If a single element cannot be proven, then the armed robbery charge must be either dismissed or reduced.

Knowingly

As discussed in previous blog entries, the “knowingly” requirement means that armed robbery is a specific intent crime. The defendant must have actually intended to forcibly take property from another person. This element isn’t usually difficult for the prosecution to prove, as it is hard to imagine a situation where a person could mistakenly take another person’s property by force. The one example that jumps to mind would be a situation where the defendant takes property from another under the mistaken belief that it was his (the defendant’s) property.

Takes property

It is unclear whether the defendant stole merchandise, cash from the store, personal belongings of shop attendants and/or customers, or a combination. But for purposes of committing armed robbery, it doesn’t matter the type or value of the item taken; there simply had to be property stolen.

The defendant was charged with robbery of multiple stores, and charges for robbery from other stores may be pending. The prosecution must prove that for each charged incident, the defendant actually took property from a person, or in their presence (more on that below). This element is the difference between a charge of armed robbery and aggravated battery or aggravated assault.

If the defendant ran out of the store without taking any property – he got spooked that the cops were coming or was chased off, for example – then he could not be charged with armed robbery. He could be charged with battery (if he made contact with anybody in the store) or assault (no contact, but put them in fear of contact), but not armed robbery, since no property would be taken. Being able to reduce even one of the armed robbery charges to aggravated assault or battery could mean the difference between several years in prison.

From the person or presence of another

Armed robbery requires that the property be taken from the person (think grabbing a purse out of a woman’s hands), or in their presence (swiping something from the counter as the cash register attendant looks on). If an item was stolen from the counter while the salesperson was in the back, then the defendant cannot be convicted of armed robbery.

By force or threat of imminent use of force

The final element of armed robbery requires that the defendant stole the item by force or by threatening the use of imminent force. Grabbing the purse out of the victim’s hands qualifies as force. Threatening the victim with a stabbing, beating, or some other use of force if he doesn’t turn over the property qualifies as a threat of force. Even if it is later shown that the defendant was bluffing – that he in fact had no weapon on him, so the threatened use of a knife or other weapon could never have been fulfilled – he can still be charged with armed robbery. Putting the victim in fear of physical harm is sufficient to meet this element.

January 14, 2015

Chicago Store Clerks Defend Against Alleged Armed Robbers

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

Two Chicago store clerks who were the victims of an armed robbery opened fire on the alleged assailants recently. Following the robbery, the manager of the 7-11 saw a vehicle parked in the alley; when he and the employee approached with guns, the alleged assailants opened fire. The clerks fired off eight shots before the alleged assailants fled.

Self-Defense: By the Victims or the Armed Robbers?

This case raises an interesting question of whether the victims were justified in their use of force against the armed robbers, and whether they could face potential charges of aggravated battery or aggravated assault for firing upon the alleged assailants.

Illinois law allows an individual who used force against another to claim self-defense if “he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or another against such other’s imminent use of unlawful force.” The law further states that a person can only use force intended to, or likely to cause, death or great bodily harm – such as firing a gun – “only if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or another, or the commission of a forcible felony.”

Illinois law does not allow a person to claim self-defense if force was used during an escape from commission of a forcible felony, or initially provided the use of force himself. It also cannot be claimed if the person asserting the defense initiated the contact, unless he indicates his desire to withdraw from his initial use of force.

So in a typical convenience store robbery, the alleged victims would have been justified in pulling their weapons and firing if they had done so during the commission of the crime. One assailant allegedly held a gun to the clerks’ head and threatened to blow his head off if he didn’t hand over the money. Under the self-defense law, the clerk and his boss would have been justified in pulling their weapons and firing because there was a reasonable belief that their lives were in imminent danger. They also would have been justified in using force, even if the assailant hadn’t made the threat, because armed robbery is a forcible felony.

But the circumstances surrounding this case are not so straightforward. The clerks pulled their guns after the armed robbery had been committed and the assailants fled the store. So there is a question of whether the clerks’ use of force was justified, or whether the assailants themselves could claim self-defense.

At the point where the clerks approached the assailants with their weapons, there was no longer a need to defend against another’s use of imminent force, there was no fear that either of them were in danger of suffering great bodily harm, and the forcible felony had been completed. This doesn’t appear like the typical “escape” scenario, because the clerks did not chase the assailants out, guns drawn. Instead, the assailants left with the money, and the clerks then saw a car in the alley on their security cameras. They then chose walk out and confront the assailants, not even sure if the people in the car were the assailants. Their actions could be considered retaliation or vigilante justice rather than self-defense.

You may be thinking, “But when the clerks approached, the assailants drew their weapons and opened fire, so the clerks were justified.” That may be true. It may also be true that the assailants (assuming they even were the assailants) were now in fear for their lives and opened fire to protect themselves from imminent bodily harm. Yes, the law says that a person who initiated force cannot then claim self-defense if force is used against them. However, the initial aggressor can claim self-defense if he indicated a desire to disengage. Here, the fact that the assailants fled the scene could show an indication on their part to disengage from their initial threat of force, so that the clerks’ approach with guns drawn was now an improper use of force.

September 5, 2014

Skokie Aggravated Armed Robbery

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

An elderly woman was a victim of an armed robbery while walking down a Skokie street earlier this month. The perpetrator reportedly approached the woman, showed what appeared to be a gun and demanded the victim’s bag before riding away on his bicycle.

Disproving Suspect Identification in Skokie Aggravated Robbery Charge

There are a number of elements the prosecution must prove in order to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant is guilty of a Skokie armed robbery charge. For the sake of this discussion, we will assume that the prosecution would be able to prove that the defendant knowingly took property that did not belong to him, and that he made the victim believe that he was carrying a gun (an essential element in proving aggravated robbery)

In all criminal cases, a skilled criminal defense attorney will work diligently to obtain an outright acquittal or dismissal of charges prior to prosecution. Based on the facts of this case, discrediting the victim’s positive identification of her assailant may result in the prosecution dismissing the case or, if brought to trial, the jury finding the defendant not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Eyewitness testimony is often the only evidence the police and prosecution have to support an arrest and conviction, yet due to the fact that victims are attempting to recall details of a traumatic event, it is often unreliable. An arrest made based on this particular victim’s identification would be extremely suspect, and an experienced attorney would argue to the prosecution, the judge in pre-trial motions, and the jury, if the case went to trial, why this victim’s identification is unreliable and the case warrants a finding of not guilty.

The victim described the assailant as a 6-foot-tall, thin, dark-complexioned male between the ages of 18-20. He was wearing a black baseball hat, sunglasses and, according to the police report, “possibly” a white shirt and white pants.

This is an extremely vague description – the victim mentions no identifying marks, such as scars, tattoos, or other unique features that could distinguish the assailant from any other tall, thin black man. He was wearing sunglasses and a baseball hat, further obscuring his face. This will make it difficult for the victim to make a positive identification.

On top of that, the victim was unsure if the assailant was wearing white pants and a white shirt. This uncertainty throws into doubt her ability to provide an accurate description of the assailant, and thus makes any future identification of him suspect.

An adept criminal defense lawyer would argue all these points at trial to discredit the victim’s identification. In addition, he would review the method of identification – whether an in-person or photographic lineup – to ensure that the victim was provided only with a selection of men fitting the assailant’s description, and not men of varying builds and ages, or displaying any other identifying characteristics. He would also review photographs or recordings made of the lineup (or, if retained once the arrest is made, participate) to determine whether the police may have somehow led the victim to choose the suspect from the lineup.

Skokie Armed Robbery Attorney Continue reading

November 20, 2013

Armed Robbery Not Guilty (Maywood, Chicago): You never know how a victim will testify at trial.

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

My 22 year old client, with no criminal background, was charged with Armed Robbery and Aggravated Battery. This case carried a mandatory 21 year sentence if convicted because there was an allegation that a firearm was used during the offense.

My client was charged along with another co-defendant after they allegedly robbed a pizza delivery guy. Even though my client did not possess the weapon, because he was “involved” the state’s attorney was attempting to use the law of accountability to charge him with the same crime as the co-defendant. The law of accountability states that a defendant must engage in a common criminal design or agreement, any acts in furtherance of that common design committed by one party are considered to be the acts of all parties.

And I tell all of my clients, even if I believe they have a difficult case, you never know what will happen when an officer or civilian victim testifies. In this case, the officer’s sworn report stated that my client actually took possession of the pizzas, after his co-defendant held a gun to the victim’s head, and ran into a neighboring house. There were also allegations that not only was a gun held to the victim’s head, but that three other masked individuals were involved who attacked the victim, causing bodily harm. At trial the victim made no mention of my client possessing a firearm or taking possession of the pizzas. A motion was made after the state’s attorneys rested their case for a directed finding of not guilty. The judge heard arguments from both sides and determined that my client could not be found guilty and found my client NOT GUILTY! And my scared client did not even have to testify. 720 ILCS 5/18-2