Chicago Criminal Lawyer Blog

January 30, 2015

Chicago Man Arrested for Robbery, Assault of Landlady

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

A Chicago man was recently charged for the alleged assault and robbery of his mother’s elderly landlady. The robbery occurred shortly after the defendant’s mother paid rent for the month.

Question of Identification in Robbery

In this particular case the victim was allegedly robbed by two men, the defendant and an as yet to be determined co-offender. The defendant allegedly grabbed the victim around the neck and covered her mouth, presumably to prevent her from crying out for help. The robbery occurred outside the apartment building.

There is an immediate question of whether the victim properly identified the defendant as her assailant. The victim was grabbed from behind, and with the hand over her mouth was unlikely able to turn her head to see who had grabbed her. Following the robbery she was pushed to the ground. Reports indicate that the fall caused nerve pain and made her unable to move her legs, so it is also unlikely she was able to turn to get a good look at her assailants as they fled.

Thus, it is quite possible that, injured and most likely extremely shaken-up over the assault, she described the defendant to the police and later identified him in a lineup as the assailant not because he actually committed the crime, but she had seen him shortly before the assault and was therefore the most recognizable.

Careful attention then would need to be paid to the circumstances surrounding the police lineup and whether they influenced the victim in any way. Factors that would tend to show that the police unduly influenced the victim’s description of the perpetrator, and thus would invalidate her identification, include:

Whether law enforcement asked leading questions when obtaining a description of the assailants, such as specific questions about his physical characteristics;
Whether the non-suspects included in the lineup of similar coloring, height and build as the defendant;
Whether law enforcement asked the victim to specifically take a look at the defendant, or to check him out again if she did not immediately select him;
Whether law enforcement took any other action or made any other statements that drew more attention to the defendant than the other people in the lineup.

Examination of Injuries Sustained in Assault

The victim allegedly suffered a bulging disc, nerve pain and an inability to move her legs following the assault and robbery. Although the degree of the injuries suffered does not increase the charge, it could have a huge impact on the jury. The victim is 68 years old, which will likely make her extremely sympathetic in the eyes of the jury. The more injuries she suffered during the assault, the more likely the jury is to view the defendant in an unfavorable light for assaulting who they perceive as a poor, defenseless little old lady.

It is therefore important to have a medical forensic expert review the victim’s medical records to determine if the injuries she suffered were consistent with the actions taken in the assault. It is also important to review her prior medical records to determine if she has a pre-existing condition that could have caused the nerve pain and bulging disc flare up as a result of the assault, as opposed to being the cause of the injuries. Continue reading

January 29, 2015

Chicago Man Charged with First Degree Murder of Mother

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

A Chicago man was charged with first-degree murder for the stabbing death of his mother recently in the Southwest Side Chicago home they shared with her husband. The defendant was covered in his mother’s blood and allegedly admitted to stabbing her following an argument.

Criminal Confessions and the 5th Amendment

The defendant allegedly confessed to stabbing his mother, telling police he did so because he was angry that she constantly put him down and told him to get a girlfriend. His statement to police indicated that he took a knife from the butcher block in the kitchen and replaced it following the killing.

Contrary to what you may think, a confession does not mean the case is a slam-dunk for the prosecution. As I have discussed in prior posts, the 5th Amendment provides criminal suspects protection against self-incrimination. To ensure that right, the police must read a suspect his Miranda rights once he is placed in custody.

Any confession therefore must be carefully scrutinized in light of the Miranda protections. Police actions that may violate the 5th Amendment include:

Failure to read the defendant his Miranda rights;
Failure to provide an attorney if the defendant requests one;
Continuing to interrogate the defendant once he requests an attorney, and;
Attempting to talk to the defendant about the crime after he has met with an attorney, and without the attorney’s permission.

Consideration must also be paid to the manner in which the police conducted the interrogation, and all copies of police transcripts or video tapes of the interrogation, particularly of the alleged confession, must be thoroughly reviewed to ensure that the confession was not coerced or made under duress.

If the police violated the 5th Amendment in anyway, or utilized abusive interrogation techniques, the defendant’s confession could be deemed inadmissible in court, and could result in a dismissal or reduction of charges.

Seeking Reduction of Charges in First-Degree Murder

If a review of the circumstances surrounding the defendant’s confession indicate that it will be admissible in court, and if the other evidence in the case tends to show that the defendant’s chances of acquittal in court are slim, then the defense moves from seeking an acquittal or dismissal to obtaining a reduction in charges.

In this case, the defendant had large, visible cuts to his hands and face. A review of the medical records by an independent medical expert is needed to determine whether the wounds to the defendant’s face could have been caused by the kitchen knife, or any other knife in the house. An expert forensic analysis of the bloody knife found in the house is also necessary to determine whether the defendant’s blood is on it. These two facts could be consistent with the victim having attacked the defendant first, which could result in a reduction of charges to manslaughter, second degree murder (for imperfect self-defense, where the belief that the use of force was necessary was unreasonable) or allow the affirmative defense of self-defense to be raised.

Because the murder was allegedly committed because of what the defendant described as belittling behavior by the victim, friends and family must be interviewed to determine the nature of the relationship between the defendant and the victim. If there was a history of emotional and verbal abuse, the argument that evening could have been the proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back and caused the defendant to lash out at his mother over years of abuse. If this were the case, then an argument could be made that the charges should be reduced to second degree murder, since the defendant acted in the heat of passion.

January 23, 2015

Ford Heights, Illinois Man Charged with Threatening Police Officers

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

A Cook County man was arrested last week and charged with felony threats to a police officer, assault and various weapons charges, after a person reported a Facebook post in which he threatened to kill police officers.

Threat to Illinois Police Officer

Under Illinois law a person can be convicted of threatening to harm a police officer, even if no actual attempt to inflict harm was made. However, “the threat must contain specific facts indicative of a unique threat. . .and not a generalized threat of harm.”

In a case such as this, it is important to closely examine the threat that was made to determine if it was specific or general. A specific threat would have to include details that showed the individual making the alleged threat had, at the very least, a loose plan of when, where and how the harm was going to be committed. A general threat would be more along the lines of puffery or letting off steam.

For example, a Facebook post that said, “Death to the police!” or “Those pigs had better hope they never run along my path!” is a general threat. The threat is not aimed at any specific individual and doesn’t give any indication of where, when or how the threat would be carried out. But if the threat said, “Some cops are going to die tonight!” and was accompanied by a photo of the person armed with guns or other weapons, that may be specific enough to indicate an actual threat – the time is specific (tonight) and the photos shows the person has the means to carry out his threat.

Careful examination of the threat is especially important at this particular moment in time. Police across the nation are on high alert after the murders of two New York City police officers, which was done in apparent retaliation for the recent police killings of unarmed black men in Ferguson, Missouri and New York City. Knee-jerk reactions could cause police, and the judge who signed the arrest and/or search warrant, to overreact. But when it comes to a person’s constitutional right to be free from unlawful search and seizure, the adage “better safe than sorry” does not apply.

In addition, it is important to separate post-arrest statements from the initial threat. In this case, statements the defendant allegedly made post-arrest make his threat seem more specific. But post-arrest statements in a threat case cannot be used to bolster the arrest. The threats needed to be specific at the time the arrest was made.

Cook County Search and Seizure

Any arrest or search of a suspect or his home raises immediate concerns regarding whether the police had the appropriate authority to initiate the arrest or search, and whether the arrest and/or search warrant was lawfully obtained.

In order to arrest a person in his home, the police must have an arrest warrant. Issuance of an arrest warrant is based on law enforcement’s reasonable belief that the individual named in the warrant has committed a crime. In order to search a suspect’s home, the police must have a search warrant, which requires a showing of probable cause. The arrest warrant alone is insufficient to conduct a search and obtain evidence, with the exception of the following:

Search incident to arrest: Law enforcement may search any area within the arrestee’s immediate control for weapons or evidence of the crime;

Plain view: Law enforcement may collect any evidence that is within view of the spot where the arrest occurred. For example, if the arrest occurred in the kitchen, they could confiscate any evidence of crime they see sitting in plain view on the dining room table. They could not walk down the hallway and take evidence they see sitting on a bedroom nightstand.

Safety: Police may do a protective sweep of the home if they believe there may be others present, or if the nature of the underlying crime warranted it – for example, it was suspected the arrestee was making bombs, so a check was done for explosives that could detonate and harm others.

A careful review of the arrest and search warrant in this case is necessary to determine whether law enforcement had the appropriate warrants and, if not, whether the search fell within any of the three exceptions. If the police did have the appropriate warrant, it must be determined that they probable cause to obtain the warrants. If the defendant’s Facebook threats were too general to qualify as threats under the law, then the warrants would be invalid, all evidence uncovered in the search would be inadmissible, and the charges would have to be dismissed. Continue reading

January 20, 2015

Illinois Governor Signs “Revenge Porn” Law

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

If you’re on the internet at all these days, you’ve no doubt heard of “revenge porn”. An ex-romantic partner, whether in a fit of jealousy or just a pure desire to get back at you for dumping him, posts private, nude images you had sent him online for all the world to see. Or maybe a current girlfriend, angered that she caught you flirting with another girl, posts naked pictures to her social media account without your consent, in an attempt to ridicule you. Regardless of the motivation behind it, as of January 1, posting such pictures without your partner’s consent is a class 4 felony that could land you in prison.

Illinois Revenge Porn Law

The law, which was proposed by Sen. Michael Hastings of Tinley Park in 2014, prohibits the “non-consensual dissemination of private sexual images”. It is seen by proponents as closing a loophole in the pornography laws, which make it a crime to post nude images on pornographic sites without the subject’s consent. But the law did not criminalize disseminating nude pictures, which were shared privately between two consenting adults, on social media.

Under the law, an individual is prohibited from intentionally sharing an image of a person over the age of 18 if the person is:

Identifiable from the either the image or information displayed in connection with the image, and
Engaged in a sexual act, or whose intimate parts are exposed.

In addition, a reasonable person must have understood that the images were to remain private, and the person sharing the image must have known, or should have known, that the person in the photo did not consent to its being shared.

For purposes of the law, “image” includes any photograph, film, videotape, digital recording or other depiction or portrayal. Although the law was drafted with the idea of the image being shared on social media, posting the photo in public places would constitute a violation of the law. A conviction under the law is a class 4 felony, which carries the possibility of 1 – 3 years in prison.

Defense against Illinois Revenge Porn

Although many consider revenge porn something to laugh at and not that serious – after all, the person voluntarily shared nude photos of herself – conviction under the law is serious. Defending against a charge of revenge porn requires a careful examination of all the evidence, including having a forensic expert examine the all data related to the dissemination of the image, to find the flaws in the prosecution’s case. Evidence that would go against a conviction include:

Unintentional dissemination of the image, for example if a virus caused your phone or computer to share the image via a text or e-mail;
If the phone was in somebody else’s possession when the image was sent;
Whether somebody had hacked in to your phone or computer and sent the image;
If a reasonable person would have believed sharing the images was acceptable, for example if the woman in the picture had those same images on public display in her home, or;
Nobody would have been able to identify the person in the image – for example, his face was blurred or cropped out – but for the fact that he told everybody it was him.

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.

January 9, 2015

Chicago “Ban the Box” and Expungement or Sealing of Violent Misdemeanors

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

Chicago’s “Ban the Box” law, which prohibits certain employers from requesting criminal background information on job applications goes into effect January 1. However, this information can be requested – and must be provided – once the applicant is invited for an interview, or when a conditional offer of employment is made. Employers may also conduct criminal background checks at this time. The only way to completely avoid having to disclose your criminal history, or to keep it from turning up during a criminal background check, is to have the records expunged or sealed.

Getting a Chicago Misdemeanor Expunged

The “ban the box” law is an important tool that will help qualified applicants who happen to have arrests or convictions in their past proceed to the interview stage. Unfortunately, it does not go far enough to help those with a criminal background get a fresh start. Under the law employers are not prohibited from refusing to hire an applicant based on his criminal background – it simply prohibits them from asking on the job application. Employers are free to not hire someone with a criminal history once they learn about it, either because the applicant disclosed it during the interview stage or because it turned up during a criminal background check. And the general public harbors a great deal of prejudice against those with a criminal background, even though the individual paid his debt to society by fulfilling the terms of his sentence.

January 6, 2015

DuPage County Woman Charged with Possession of a Controlled Substance

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

A Villa Nova woman was arrested and charged with possession of a controlled substance after accepting delivery of almost 700 Xanax pills. The arrest was made through the combined efforts of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the U.S. Postal Service and the DuPage County Sheriff’s Office.

DuPage Possession of a Controlled Substance

Drug crimes require an aggressive defense, and that defense must begin immediately. In any criminal case, there are certain procedures law enforcement must follow in order to ensure that each defendant is afford a fair trial. One of the most important is the fundamental right against unlawful searches and seizures, and law enforcement’s motivation and justification for initiating a search is the most important aspect of any drug crimes defense.

In this case, there are a number of concerns regarding the arrest and subsequent search of the defendant’s residence.

U.S. Customs and Border Patrol intercepted a package addressed to the defendant containing the Xanax. Undercover officers then proceeded to deliver the package to the defendant’s home and, when she accepted it, immediately arrested her for possession of a controlled substance. It is unclear whether the defendant did any more than simply accept the package; if that is all she did, it is very alarming that she was promptly arrested without any further action on her part. Just because the package was addressed to her does not mean she knew it contained 700 Xanax pills and, in order to be charged with possession, the defendant’s possession must have been knowing. A roommate, friend or family member could have arranged for it to be delivered to her house for their own personal use, and simply addressed it to her so she could accept it. The defendant could not be said to be in possession of the Xanax if she had no idea what was in the package; in such a case, she would have just been in possession of a package delivered to her.

There is, of course, also the possibility that she had a valid prescription for the pills and got them filled out of the U.S. because she had no health insurance and it was cheaper to purchase them elsewhere than have the prescription filled at a local pharmacy.

Next is the search of defendant and her home. Police are able to conduct a search incident to arrest, without the need to first obtain a search warrant. The purpose of the search is to ensure officer safety and prevent the destruction of evidence. However, a search incident to arrest is limited, generally to an area within the defendant’s reach. Since the defendant accepted the package at her front door, law enforcement was legally permitted to search that area within her immediate reach; a search of the entire residence seems beyond the scope of her reach.

However, in this instance it appears that the defendant’s home was searched pursuant to a search warrant. A thorough review of the search warrant, as well as the evidence provided to the judge who issued the warrant, is very important. As I said, the fact that the pills were addressed to the defendant is not enough to prove that she knew what was in the package or had in any way arranged for it to be delivered to her. Because the package could have been sent, unbeknownst to her, by a friend, family member or roommate who planned to pick it up after it had been delivered, the fact that the police was able to get a search warrant is suspect. They could have delivered the package and conducted surveillance, or even gotten a warrant to tap her phone for a limited time to see if she made any calls regarding the pills, before being issued a warrant to search her home.

The circumstances surrounding law enforcement’s acquisition of the search warrant and their immediate arrest of the defendant would all need to be thoroughly examined in order to determine whether police violated the defendant’s right to be free from unlawful search and seizures.

December 31, 2014

Cook County Man Charged with Promotion of Prostitution

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

A Lyons man was arrested last week and charged with two counts of promoting prostitution through a joint investigation by the Cook County Sheriff’s Vice Unit and the Berwyn Police Department. The alleged promotion of prostitution occurred on a website offering goods and services for sale.

Illinois Promotion of Prostitution

In Illinois a person commits the crime of promoting prostitution if he knowingly arranges, or offers to arrange “a situation in which a person may practice prostitution” and profits from his actions.

The word “knowingly” is important. Unless the prosecution can prove that the defendant knew he was arranging a situation where sex would be bought and sold, he cannot be convicted of promoting prostitution.

In a case like this, where the defendant was arrested based on information posted on a website, there are a number of different avenues the defense can explore that may cast reasonable doubt on the prosecution’s case. These may include:

Whether anybody else had access to the defendant’s computer. Posts to websites can normally be traced back to the user’s IP address. Using a team of computer experts, we could pinpoint the location of the computer which posted the ads, as well as the date and time of the postings, and determine who else may have had access to it. If the computer was the defendant’s, we would look at any roommates, friends or family members who may have had unrestricted access to it at the time the posts were made. If the posts were made at a public computer, such as a library, then proving the defendant made the posts would be extremely difficult, since any number of people could have accessed the computer.

What the defendant thought he was picking up. The defendant was arrested on his way to allegedly pick up proceeds from the prostitution operation. But the fact that he was on his way to a destination to pick up money doesn’t necessarily mean he knew what the money was for. He could have been told the money was a debt owed to the person he was getting it for. Or he may have been told that is was for the sale of an automobile or other property. He may not even have been told to pick up money, but rather simply to go and meet somebody at that location.

Whether any actual profit resulted from the alleged ads. A conviction for promoting prostitution requires that the defendant profited from the alleged prostitution. The defense would need to look closely at any money that the defendant made and whether the money came from payment for prostitution.

Whether the defendant had the means to offer prostitutes. Even if the defendant placed the ads, if he didn’t have the means to fulfill his offer, he cannot be convicted for promoting prostitution. For example, perhaps he was just pulling a prank and intended to video tape and post on social media any people who showed up with the intent of purchasing sex. Or perhaps he arranged to meet individuals who responded to the ads and intended to rob them of the money they had brought for payment. If the defendant did not have the ability to provide prostitutes to anybody who responded to the ads, the charges must be dismissed.

December 24, 2014

Conviction of Illinois Hate Crime Carries Additional Penalties

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

A Cook County man was arrested this past October and charged with attempted first-degree murder and hate crimes for allegedly stabbing a 79-year-old African-American woman.

Illinois Hate Crimes

When most people think of a hate crime, they think of an assault upon an African-American, maybe even a lesbian, gay or transgendered individual. But hate crimes under Illinois law may be committed against an individual due to his:

Race;
Color;
Creed;
Religion;
Ancestry;
Gender;
Sexual Orientation;
Physical or mental disability, or;
National origin.

Hate crimes include not only assault and battery, but also:

Theft;
Trespass to residence, vehicle or real property;
Damage to property;
Mob action;
Disorderly conduct, or;
Harassment by telephone or electronic communications.

Hate crimes are a class 4 felony – class 2 if it’s a second offense – and carry with it a minimum of one year in prison. Hate crimes are a class 3 felony if committed in certain locations, such as a school or church. The penalties imposed for conviction of a hate crime are in addition to those imposed for conviction of the underlying offense. The defendant in a hate crime case is charged then not only with the hate crime, but with the assault, battery, or whatever other crime committed against the victim as well.

Defenses Against Hate Crimes

There are two portions of a hate crime defense – defending against the underlying crime, and defending against the hate crime charge. When defending against a hate crime, it is actually not a defense that the victim was not a member of a protected class. For example, if the defendant attacked a man because he thought he was Muslim, but it turned out he was Indian, the mistake as to the victim’s actual ethnicity is not a defense to the charge. It is enough that the defendant thought he was attacking a Muslim.

In order to successfully defend against a hate crime, the defense attorney must prove that the crime was not racially motivated (assuming that he cannot disprove commission of the underlying crime). Just because a crime victim falls into the protected class of victims does not automatically mean it is a hate crime, although the prosecution may attempt to argue otherwise. Proving the crime was not motivated by hatred toward the victim’s race, sexual orientation, religion, or other protected class may include:

Showing a lack of history of any type of racial crime;
Showing that the crime was one of opportunity; for example, you robbed the woman on the street corner because she was there and you needed money, not because she was a woman;
Lack of use of racial, sexual or other slurs against the victim during the commission of the crime, or;
You have a prior history of committing the same offense, and there is no pattern of it being against members of the protected class.

Disproving that the crime was motivated by reasons unrelated to race, religion, gender, or any of the other protected classes will result in the jury being forced to acquit on the hate crime charge.

December 19, 2014

DuPage County Burglary and Retail Theft Raise Possibility of Avoiding Prison

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

A DuPage County couple was arrested and charged in early December with two counts each of burglary, and additional counts of retail theft, for allegedly stealing and selling more than $4,000 worth of merchandise from a string of DuPage County Walmart stores. The charges are Class 2 and Class 3 felonies, respectively. Police allege the couple stole and later sold the items to feed their drug addiction.

DuPage County Commercial Burglary Charge

In Illinois, burglary is committed when a person knowingly and without authority enters, or knowingly and without authority remains, within a building with the intent to commit theft or another felony within the building. Although most people consider burglary to be entering a residence with the intent to steal, a person can be charged with burglary if he enters a building with the intent to kill, rape, or commit any other felony.