Chicago Criminal Lawyer Blog

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.

April 10, 2015

ACLU Report Finds Chicago Leads Nation in Stop and Frisks

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

A startling new report released by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) found that Chicago police conduct more stop and frisks than any other police department in the nation. In 2014, the Chicago police conducted more than 250,000 stop and frisks that did not result in arrest, making the possibility very real that a vast number of them were unreasonable searches and seizures.

Stop and Frisk in Chicago

The ACLU report indicates that 93 out of every 1,000 Chicagoans were stopped by a Chicago police officer in 2014. More alarming than their frequent use are the targets – 72% of all stops were of African-Americans, even though African-Americans comprise only 32% of the city’s population. They are more likely to be stopped in predominantly white neighborhoods as well. In the Near North District, which has only a 9.1% African-American population, they made up 57% of all stops.

I have discussed stop and frisks frequently on this blog, as they are one of the prime areas of police abuse and at the root of most unreasonable search and seizures. Under the 1968 U.S. Supreme Court Case Terry v. Ohio, the court ruled that law enforcement may stop any person on the street, provided the officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has either committed, is in the process of committing, or is about to commit, a crime. Once the stop is complete, the officer may frisk the person only if he believes the person is dangerous or has a weapon.

While the courts over the years have carved out narrow exceptions regarding what constitutes “reasonable suspicion” – for example, loitering on a street corner does not generally rise to the level of suspicion necessary to justify a frisk, but officers can take into consideration the area when determining whether a person may be engaged in criminal activity – the rules are clear. While a person can be stopped for any reason, he cannot be frisked because he’s black walking through a white area. He cannot be frisked because he “looks” dangerous. He cannot be frisked because a crime was just committed in the immediate area, unless the person stopped matches the description of the suspect.

“Contact cards” filled out by police following such stops show that police are abusing their right to stop individuals. Chicago police officers complete contact cards for every stop that did not result in an arrest or charge, noting information about the person and the reason stopped. Information pulled from the cards shows that police are stopping individuals for dubious, if not completely unwarranted, purposes. And the fact that the cards are not completed if the stop did not lead to arrest or charges makes it impossible to accurately determine how many stops are of innocent Chicagoans.

The completed contact cards that were reviewed during the ACLU’s study show that many Chicago police officers have a poor understanding of what they are legally allowed to do during stop and frisk. This reinforces the fact that if you are stopped and subsequently arrested by police, even if they find illegal contraband during a frisk, you should not answer any question or make any statement until you have a lawyer by your side. Law enforcement is required to follow specific procedures in regard to search and seizures, and failure to adhere to those procedures can result in evidence against you being inadmissible at trial. But confess to committing a crime, even when the results of the frisk are later deemed inadmissible, and you will severely hinder the defense attorney’s ability to get the charges against you dismissed or win an acquittal at trial.

April 8, 2015

Cook County Home Invasion

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

An Indian Head Park man was arrested and charged with home invasion after allegedly gaining access to the victim’s home by impersonating a police officer and assaulting the man.

Home Invasion: Separate Offense from Residential Burglary

While home invasion and residential burglary have similar elements – both involve unlawfully gaining entry into the home of another – they are two distinct crimes. Home invasion has the added element of unlawful entry of another person’s home knowing that at least one person is present in the home at the time of the invasion, or gaining entry by falsely representing himself to be someone else, with the intent to cause injury to the resident.

Like burglary, home invasion is a specific intent crime. The intent required for the crime applies to several different elements. In order to gain a conviction, the prosecution must prove that the defendant knowingly:

Entered another person’s home;
Entered the home knowing that one or more people were present, and;
Intended to cause harm.

In defending against a specific intent crime such as home invasion, the defense strategy is to raise as much doubt as possible regarding whether the defendant had the necessary intent for each element of the crime. The defense would therefore examine all of the circumstances surrounding the case to find any evidence that would tend to disprove intent. Such evidence may include:

Whether the home subject to the invasion was in the vicinity of the defendant’s home. If so, we would want to examine whether the defendant was intoxicated or under the influence of drugs, so that perhaps he mistakenly believed he was entering his own home, which is not a far stretch given some of today’s cookie cutter houses. If the defendant believed, even mistakenly due to his drunken state, that he entered his own home, his assault of the homeowner could not be considered intentional, since he would have believed he was protecting himself from a burglar.

Whether the defendant and the alleged victim knew each other and had any prior altercations. Is there any evidence to suggest that the two had had a verbal or physical altercation earlier that evening, and the fight continued in the victim’s home?

Whether the alleged victim assaulted the defendant first, prompting the defendant to retaliate in self-defense. The victim alleged that the defendant claimed he was a police officer to gain entry into the home. An examination of the victim’s history may show that he had outstanding warrants for his arrest, or past run-ins with law enforcement, so that his first reaction was to assault the “officer.”

Whether the defendant actually entered the home. If the assault is true, it cannot be a home invasion if the defendant did not knowingly enter the home. The defense would need to examine whether the initial assault took place on the front step of the victim’s home, and the defendant was pulled inside the home during the ensuing altercation. This would result in the charges being reduced, most likely to battery.

April 3, 2015

Attempted Kidnapping Caught on Camera in Washington

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

If you watch the news or use social media, you no doubt heard about a pair of Washington state siblings who thwarted a potential kidnapping of their 22-month-old brother. The attempted kidnapping – which was caught on camera and shows the kidnapper running away with the boy in his arms, the siblings running close behind – is every parent’s worst nightmare and reinforces the idea of “stranger danger.” But kidnapping encompasses much more than that.

Illinois Kidnapping Laws

In Illinois, a person commits the crime of kidnapping if he knowingly:

And secretly confines another against his will;
Carries a person from one place to another, by force or threat of force, with the intent to secretly confine her against her will, or;
Tricks or entices a person to accompany him to another location with the intent to secretly confine the person against his will.

I will discuss each crime separately, to provide a better understanding of the types of actions that can constitute kidnapping under Illinois laws.

Secretly confine against one’s will

This form of kidnapping does not require that the victim be moved to another location or even be snatched off the street. The victim must only be confined against her will. The confinement can occur in any public or private place – even the victim’s own home. The location itself, or how the victim got there, is irrelevant to whether the crime was committed. The victim must have only had a reasonable belief that she was unable to leave.

Carry a person from one place to another

This is the most commonly thought of kidnapping scenario, the unknown assailant attacking a person on the street, or removing a child from his home in the middle of the night, and moving him to a secret location to be held for ransom. The movement does not need to be very far to fall into this category of kidnapping. A victim can be pushed into the kidnapper’s car and driven a block away to an abandoned building, and it would constitute a kidnapping.

Using tricks or enticement to move a person

Again, the typical scenario that comes to mind is the stranger in the car who tells the child, “Come with me and I’ll show you my puppy.” In this form of kidnapping, the victim willingly goes with the kidnapper, but under false pretenses.

The ‘knowingly’ requirement

Kidnapping is a specific intent crime, which means that the kidnapper must have known he was holding the victim against her will. If the kidnapper had a reasonable belief that the victim consented to being held, or consented to accompany him to a third location, then he failed to commit an essential element of the crime and cannot be convicted.

April 2, 2015

Illinois Supreme Court Orders New Trial Due to Ineffective Counsel

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

A Cook County man’s conviction for first-degree murder was overturned, and a new hearing ordered, after the Illinois Supreme Court ruled that his defense attorney provided ineffective counsel for failure to object to testimony regarding the defendant’s confession.

Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

Watch any crime procedural on television or in the movies and you’ll no doubt witness repeated cries of, “Your honor, I object!” from attorneys on both sides. While they add dramatic flair to the movies, objections serve an extremely important part of criminal trials. Just like in a basketball game, where the referees call fouls when players violate the rules, objections serve as the attorney’s way of ensuring that the rules of criminal procedure are followed.

In basketball, if the ref fails to call a foul, there’s a lot of grumbling by players, coaches and fans, and maybe the team loses the game over a couple of lousy calls. But in a criminal trial, the defense attorney’s failure to object can result in conviction and imprisonment.

This is what happened to the defendant in People v. Simpson. The defendant was convicted of first-degree murder in the beating death of a man. The conviction was based in large part on videotaped statements of a third party, who told police that he was near the murder scene and that the defendant confessed to committing the crime. At trial, the witness said he remembered talking to the police about the defendant’s statements, but he could not remember what he told them. In fact, when the prosecution would ask him to confirm specific statements he made to the police, the witness could not confirm that he had made them.

Statements made by a witness out of court, which are inconsistent with his current testimony and which were not subject to cross-examination when made, are generally inadmissible at trial as hearsay. That is because attorneys on both sides have the right to cross-examine a witness, and a statement made out of court is not subject to cross-examination. But prior inconsistent statements are admissible if:

The statement is inconsistent with testimony at trial;
The witness is subject to cross-examination, and;
The statement describes an event the witness had personal knowledge about.

In this case, the witness’s statements did not describe an event he had personal knowledge of, and the Illinois Supreme Court made clear that the “personal knowledge” requirement refers to the crime itself, and not personal knowledge of the defendant’s statements, which is what the prosecution argued.

Yet despite the fact that the witness’s testimony was clearly inadmissible under the prior inconsistent statement rule, the defendant’s attorney failed to object. It is the duty of the defense attorney to object to the admission of evidence – the judge makes no objections, he simply rules on them. Failure to object means the evidence is admitted. In this case, the witness’s testimony was instrumental in the defendant’s conviction.

The defendant appealed his conviction, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel. In order to prove this, the defendant must prove on appeal that the attorney’s representation “fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.”

In overturning the defendant’s conviction, the court noted that it could determine no strategic reason for the defense attorney to have wanted the statements admitted. The court also noted that while other testimony tended to show the defendant’s guilt, the testimony in question was a supposed confession, which generally carries more weight with jurors than other testimony (particularly in this case, where one of the prosecution witnesses had failed to identify the defendant at trial). Without its admission, the court stated that there was a reasonable probability that the jury would have acquitted the defendant. As a result, the conviction was overturned and defendant was granted a new trial.

March 27, 2015

DuPage County Man Charged with Possession of Child Pornography

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

A Wheaton man was arrested in late January and charged with four counts of possession of child pornography. A forensic examination of the defendant’s home computer, which was seized following the issuance of a search warrant, uncovered evidence of child pornography that had been downloaded to, and distributed from, the computer.

Defense of DuPage County Possession of Child Pornography

In Illinois, a defendant is guilty of possession of child pornography if he knowingly possesses any visual depiction of a child engaged in a sexual act. Possession of child pornography is a specific intent crime. If the defendant did not intend to have the pornography in his possession – if it was obtained without his knowledge – then he cannot be found guilty, as “knowingly” is a specific element of the crime.

In defending against a possession of child pornography case, it is extremely important to examine all of the facts to determine if any of the evidence raises the possibility that the defendant did not knowingly possess the photographs or other visual depictions. A forensic examination of the defendant’s computer by computer expert, independent of the police and prosecutor’s examination(s), would need to be conducted to help answer the following questions. A “yes” answer for any of them would raise reasonable doubt as to whether the defendant knowingly came into possession of child pornography:

Did a third-party have access to the defendant’s computer?
Were the pornographic images purposely downloaded, or were they unknowingly installed as part of an adware or malware attack?
Were the images installed via an e-mail attachment that was opened?
Were the images downloaded after clicking on a link in an e-mail?
Were the images obtained from a site that a reasonable person would have known had child pornography?

The police investigation also found that the images on the defendant’s computer were distributed. A person is guilty of distribution if he knowingly distributes, or offers to distribute, any visual depiction of a child engaged in any sexual act. Again, the defendant must have had knowledge that he was distributing pornographic images. It could not have been done on accident or through no fault of his own.

A complete examination of the defendant’s computer by an independent computer expert would need to be done to help answer the following questions:

Did anybody have access to the defendant’s computer at the time the photos were distributed?
Does anybody else know the defendant’s login and password for his computer and/or e-mail account?
Was the defendant’s e-mail system hacked?
Did the defendant’s computer contain any spam, malware, adware, or other virus laden program that sent the e-mails without his knowledge?

If the answer to any of these questions is yes, it would raise reasonable doubt that the defendant had the requisite knowledge to satisfy that specific element of the crime. The Law Offices of David L. Freidberg, P.C., has access to a team of independent computer experts who will thoroughly examine the defendant’s computer, as well as review the police and prosecution experts’ report, to determine if any evidence supports the theory that the defendant had no knowledge that the pornographic images were downloaded to, or distributed by, his computer.

March 26, 2015

2015 Changes to Illinois Criminal Laws

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

A number of changes and additions to Illinois’ criminal laws took effect on January 1. Some of the changes are procedural, while others modify or add crimes to the books. Here are some of the changes that will impact criminal defense work in Chicago.

“Skype” Search Warrants: Judges will now be allowed to authorize search warrants based on sworn testimony provided over electronic methods, such as Skype or FaceTime, that utilize both an audio and video component. The judge must be able to see and hear the officer or attorney requesting the search warrant in order to sign off on it. Defense attorneys will keep a close eye on how this new law works to determine if putting it into action violates a criminal defendant’s right against unreasonable search and seizure. The court is authorized under this new law to establish best practices and procedures, so there may be the opportunity for defense attorney concerns to be considered and made part of the process.

One possible upside for the issuance of these types of warrants is the potential for these proceedings to be recorded. This would be another tool for defense attorney’s to use at trial or on appeal to show that law enforcement exaggerated the evidence used to justify issuance of the warrant or the need for one to be issued in an emergency. Defense attorneys routinely review the information included in the warrant and the officer’s accompanying notes in support, but being able to see and hear the testimony given to the judge, and not just what was written in the warrant, could be extremely helpful.

Grooming: The current grooming law, which prohibits the use of the Internet to seduce or entice a child to commit a sex offense, has been expanded. Under the new law, a charge of grooming also includes the distribution of photographs depicting the child’s sex organs.

Controlled Substances: The drugs “25I-NBOMe,” “25B-NBOMe” and “25C-NBOMe”, which are marketed as an LSD substitute, are now included on the list of Schedule I controlled substances. The changes came after the drug was linked to at least 19 deaths across the country over a 16-month period.

Expungement and Sealing of Records: This law allows a person to petition the court and request that his criminal conviction for misdemeanor assault, aggravated assault, battery, or reckless conduct be sealed as soon as four years after the termination of the defendant’s sentence. The defendant must not have committed any crime since his sentence was completed.

Electronic monitoring. Under this new law, judges are permitted to order, as a condition of bail, a risk assessment evaluation and electronic monitoring through GPS for defendants charged with certain violent crimes, regardless of whether an order of protection has been issued against him.

Photo lineup procedures: The law makes extensive changes to how police conduct photographic lineups, which should hopefully minimize law enforcement bias in the process and help cut down on eyewitness misidentification.

March 18, 2015

Chicago Burglary Suspect Nabbed Due to Stolen Lottery Tickets

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

An Evanston man was arrested and charged with burglary for allegedly breaking into three Elgin gas stations last month and stealing cash and Illinois state lottery tickets.

Illinois Burglary Requires Intent to Steal

Under Illinois law a person commits the crime of burglary if:

He knowingly enters a building;
The entry is without permission, and;
His entry is with the intent to steal or commit a felony.

Burglary is a specific intent crime, which means the prosecution must prove that the defendant knowingly entered the premises without permission, and that he intended to steal once he was inside. This definition raises an interesting point about burglary that many people do not realize – it is possible to illegally enter a building without permission, steal something, and yet not be charged with burglary. How? It all depends on when the intent to steal was formed.

Here is an example. It’s freezing on the streets of Chicago, and a homeless man is looking for a warm place to spend the night. He breaks the window of a doctor’s office so he can sleep on the couches in reception. That is his only purpose in entering the office – to get a good night’s sleep in a warm place. At this point, he has fulfilled the first two elements of the burglary charge.

When he awakes in the morning, he notices an open drawer. Upon further inspection, he sees an envelope containing petty cash. He decides to take it, along with some drugs that were unlocked in a cabinet. Although he intended to steal from the doctor’s office when he took the money and the drugs, the man did not commit burglary. That is because his intent to steal was not present the moment he illegally entered the office, but was formed later. The intent to steal must be present when the person illegally enters a building.

Now this does not mean the man cannot be charged with a crime. He could be charged with trespass and theft, but not burglary. The distinction is significant, because burglary is a felony, whereas depending on the value of the items stolen, the theft may only be a misdemeanor, which means a much shorter prison sentence, if convicted.

Chicago Burglary Defense

In any case of burglary, the first line of defense would be to argue that it was not the defendant who broke into the gas stations. The article states that police linked him to the crimes through stolen lottery tickets. Assuming that they do not have images of him on video surveillance, then the only evidence linking him to the crime is the stolen lottery tickets. Possession of the lottery tickets in and of itself is not proof that he was the one who illegally entered the gas stations and stole the tickets. He may have received them from a friend after the fact, or he could have found them all discarded in a dumpster after the real thief tried to dump them. Regardless, even if he knew, or should have known, they were stolen, this does not make him guilty of burglary.

The second line of defense, as discussed above, would be to prove that the defendant did not have the intent to steal when he entered the premises. If it can be proven that he entered for any non-criminal purpose, and decided to steal only later, as discussed above he could not be charged with burglary.

March 13, 2015

Teacher Charged with Indecent Solicitation and Attempted Predatory Assault of Teen

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

A substitute teacher with the Chicago Public Schools was recently arrested and charged with indecent solicitation of a child and intent to commit predatory aggravated sexual assault. The arrest was made after police and the school discovered suggestive texts allegedly sent from the defendant to the former student, a 14-year-old.

Chicago Indecent Solicitation of a Child

Indecent solicitation of a child is committed when an individual age 17 or older knowingly solicits a child to engage in sexual penetration or sexual conduct, with the intent to commit the act, or knowingly discusses sexual conduct or penetration with the intent that the act be committed.

The police in this case have texts allegedly sent by the defendant to the victim requesting a date and asking her to have sex with him. Assuming that police statements regarding the nature of the texts is correct, a defense against this charge would require proving that either the defendant did not send the texts, or that he did not know he was sending them to a minor.

The news is full of stories about teens send elicit text messages to each other, often as a way to harass or bully other students and even adults. Teens also have a history of playing pranks on teachers or trying to get them in trouble for retaliation against a poor grade or some other perceived slight.

Children today grew up with technology and are avid users of all forms of social media, including texting. Thus many of them are adept at hacking into other’s phones, intercepting IP addresses, or even making it look like a text came from a person it did not.

In any case where technology, particularly computers or smartphones, played an essential part in the alleged crime, it is vital to have a forensic expert examine the phone that allegedly sent the texts, the phone that received the texts, and all data associated with the messages to determine if the messages were actually sent by the owner of the phone. This can be traced via IP addresses, date, time and location the messages were sent, even whether the phone was re-routed through a different address. Evidence obtained in a forensic search could show that the messages were sent at a time when the phone was not in the defendant’s possession, from a location he never frequented, or from a different address altogether.

If it can be proven that the defendant did in fact send the texts, then it would be necessary to prove that he knew he was sending them to a minor. Presumably, since he had taught in the girl’s school, he was aware that she was underage. But it is possible that he believed he was sending them to a different person – perhaps he transposed a number, or the student shares a name with an adult in his phone contact list and he didn’t pay close enough attention to the recipient when he inputted the number (it is not uncommon for students and teachers to interact via social media or e-mail, so the idea of him having a student’s cell phone number is not that far off). The student may have mistakenly believed he was soliciting her, or may have realized his error but thought it was funny to play along. Regardless, if it cannot be proven that the defendant knew he was interacting with a minor, then he must be acquitted or the charges dropped.

March 11, 2015

Attempted Murder, Retail Theft Charges against Chicago Man Who Shot at Police

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

A Chicago man was arrested last week and charged with attempted first-degree murder after allegedly firing at two Chicago police officers as they were arresting him for shoplifting. The defendant allegedly fired once, though nobody was injured; he continued to fire not realizing the clip had fallen out.

Attempted First-Degree Murder of Police Officer

A defendant can be charged with attempt of a crime if, with the intent to commit a specific offense, he commits “any act that constitutes a substantial step toward the commission of that offense.” To be convicted of attempted first-degree murder, the prosecution would need to prove that the defendant intended to actually commit that crime.

First-degree murder requires an intent to “kill or do great bodily harm”, or acting in a manner that creates a “strong probability of death or great bodily harm”, to another. If the prosecution could prove that the defendant in this case fire the officer’s gun with the intent to either kill them or cause them great bodily harm, then he can be convicted of attempted first-degree murder.

Assuming it can be proven that the defendant did purposely grab and fire the officer’s weapon during the arrest, as opposed to the trigger accidentally being pulled in the struggle, it firing due to a malfunction, or the officer actually being the one to fire it, then the prosecution would have the burden of proving intent to kill or harm. Defending against attempted first-degree murder would require arguing for a lesser crime, such as assault. This defense requires convincing the jury that the defendant fired the weapon not with the intent to kill the officers or cause them harm, but instead to scare them, most likely so he could continue to try and make his escape.

Eyewitness testimony as to the direction the weapon was fired during the arrest could help support this defense. If the gun was aimed away from the officer’s, it would tend to show that the defendant did not intend to cause death or great bodily harm, but rather to scare them. A gun aimed away from the officer’s would also disprove the idea that he should have known his actions could result in death or bodily harm (the other elements required to prove first-degree murder), because nobody would expect a gun fired away from a person would cause him harm.

An interesting aspect of this case are in-court statements made by the defendant’s attorney that the defendant is a pastor and was recently honorably discharged from the Army. These actions don’t fit with the idea of a pastor and respected Army veteran. This raises the possibility of several state of mind defenses – perhaps the defendant was suffering from PTSD from his time spent in the Army. It would be worthwhile to have the defendant submit to a psychological evaluation by an independent third-party to determine his mental state, which could possibly negate him having the proper state of mind, or could be used in negotiations with the prosecution to reduce charges.