Picture of attorney David L. Freidberg,
"I DON'T KNOW WHAT I WOULD HAVE DONE WITHOUT HIM..."
Read More
"MY SON AND I ARE SO GRATEFUL FOR MR. FREIDBERG AND WHAT HE HAS DONE..."
Read More
"DAVID IS A PHENOMENAL LAWYER AND HIS CHARACTER SPEAKS WONDERS..."
Read More
"IF YOU NEED AN ATTORNEY IN CHICAGO, I WOULD RECOMMEND HIM IN A HEARTBEAT..."
Read More

by

A Cook County man was recently arrested and charged with two counts of aggravated domestic battery for allegedly hitting a woman in the head with a bookcase and attempting to strangle her. If you are thinking that this is your average, everyday case of domestic violence, you are wrong. That’s because the alleged victim in this case was the defendant’s 53-year-old mother.

Chicago Domestic Violence Law

The Illinois domestic violence laws are incredibly broad. Not only do they include a wide variety of criminal offenses – assault, battery and harassment to name a few – but a wide variety of victims as well. No doubt when you imagine the typical domestic dispute, you think of a male/female couple, with the male as the perpetrator and the female as the victim. (Although, as I have discussed before, men can be victims of domestic violence as well). So you are probably wondering how it is possible for a grown man to be charged with committing domestic violence against his mother.

Under Illinois law, a crime can be classified as a domestic dispute if it was carried out against any family or household member. A family or household member may include:

  • family members related by blood or adoption (including step-children);
  • spouses or former spouses;
  • a current of former boyfriend/girlfriend, including same-sex partners;
  • disabled individuals and their personal assistants;
  • roommates or former roommates; and
  • individuals with a child in common.

Illinois Aggravated Domestic Battery

In this case, the defendant was charged with aggravated domestic battery. The crime of domestic battery is the same as battery committed against a non-family or household member; the only difference is who the act is committed against.

In Illinois, a person commits battery if he or she knowingly causes bodily harm or makes physical contact of an insulting or provoking nature to another person. A battery is elevated to aggravated based on the type of injury or the status of the victim (for example, a battery becomes aggravated if the victim was disabled), but it is unclear from this case where the aggravating factor came into play.

The punishment for domestic and non-domestic battery is the same. Both are Class A misdemeanors punishable by less than one year in prison and up to a $2,500 fine. A conviction of domestic battery, however, may carry federal criminal penalties if the crime involved the possession, transportation, shipment or receival of firearms or ammunition. Additionally, while a defendant can receive supervision for a battery charge, which is not a conviction and can be expunged from his or her record, the same is not the case with regard to domestic battery. A conviction for domestic battery is just that, a conviction, which can never be expunged.

Defense against Illinois Domestic Battery

Would the defense of a domestic battery charge be any different than a regular battery charge?

Not at all. As in any other charge of battery, an attorney would look at all the facts and circumstances to mount the best possible criminal defense. In this case, the alleged battery occurred while the mother was attempting to stop her son from allegedly abusing the mother’s dog. The defense would include looking at whether:

  • the defendant was protecting himself from being attacked by the dog;
  • the mother, in her attempt to stop the alleged attack on the dog, committed a battery against her son first, causing the son to act in self-defense;
  • the injuries sustained by the mother could have been accidentally inflicted by the son as he protected himself from the dog; or
  • the mother could have sustained the injuries herself trying to get to her dog, and blamed them on her son when police arrived because of a prior argument.

Regardless of the type of battery, an experienced legal professional will examine all of the evidence to seek a dismissal or reduction of charges.  Continue reading

by

Illinois Supreme Court Decision Overturned in Double Jeopardy Case

The United States Supreme Court ruled unanimously this month that the Illinois Supreme Court “manifestly erred” when it ordered the retrial of a criminal defendant on charges of aggravated battery and mob action. The retrial, the Court found, would have violated the defendant’s right to be free from double jeopardy.

The rule against double jeopardy is one of the cornerstones of criminal defense. The United States and Illinois Constitutions both provide criminal defendants explicit protection against double jeopardy.

Section 10 of the Illinois Constitution states that “No person shall be . . .twice put in jeopardy for the same offense.” This means that once a criminal defendant has been acquitted (found not guilty) of a crime, he cannot be retried – even if evidence is later uncovered that affirms his guilt.

In Crist v. Bretz,the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that “jeopardy attaches when the jury is empaneled and sworn.” Because U.S. Supreme Court decisions regarding constitutional issues also apply to state laws, this rule applies to Illinois criminal cases,

It is a very clear rule that the Supreme Court has consistently applied time and again. Yet in Martinez, both the Illinois Appellate and Supreme Courts failed to get it right.

Martinez v. Illinois

In 2006, the defendant was arrested and charged with aggravated battery and mob action against two victims. After numerous continuances by the prosecution to try and locate the victims, who were the main witnesses, and delays due to Martinez and his defense attorney, the trial was eventually scheduled to begin in May 2010 (Martinez obviously waived his constitutional right to a speedy trial).

On the day of trial, the victims still could not be located. The trial judge refused to grant any more continuances, but offered to postpone the starting time of the trial to later in the day, and to issue subpoenas for their arrest. The prosecution denied both offers and indicated that it would not participate in the case. The jury was sworn in, and the prosecution refused to give opening statements or call any witnesses. The trial judge then granted the defendant’s motion for a directed finding of not guilty, which means the defense attorney requested that the defendant be acquitted since the prosecution, in failing to put on any evidence, had no case against him.

The prosecution appealed, and the defendant argued that double jeopardy applied. His argument was rejected by both the Illinois Appellate and Supreme Courts, who ruled that because the state had put on no evidence, he was in no real danger of ever being found guilty during the first trial.

Martinez then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which overturned the Illinois Supreme Court’s ruling based on his petition alone. The rule stated above – that double jeopardy attaches the moment the jury is sworn in – is so clear, the Court had no desire to hear oral arguments on the issue.

Double jeopardy does not apply in all cases. The defendant may be retried if there is a mistrial, or if the prosecution seeks a dismissal. In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court noted that in this case, the trial judge offered to dismiss the case, which would have allowed the prosecution to retry Martinez if the victims could be located. The prosecutor failed to take the court up on this offer. Continue reading

by

The Cook County Sheriff’s Office reports that 44% of individuals arrested and brought to Cook County jail for intake on May 22 self-reported as mentally ill. Even if we assume that arrestees self-report at a higher rate because they believe claiming mental illness will grant them leniency, it is still an alarming number, and highlights the importance of hiring an experienced criminal defense attorney if you or your loved one suffers from a mental illness and is arrested in Chicago or the surrounding suburbs.

Mental Illness Not a Criminal Defense in Illinois

Illinois defines mental illness as “a substantial disorder of thought, mood, or behavior which afflicted a person at the time of the commission of the offense and which impaired that person’s judgment, but not to the extent that he is unable to appreciate the wrongfulness of his behavior.” Contrary to what some may believe, a claim of mental illness is not the same as pleading insanity as a defense. The insanity defense requires that the defendant lack “substantial capacity to appreciate the criminality of his conduct.”

A person suffering from a mental illness – for example, someone with post-traumatic stress, a type of anxiety disorder – would understand that assaulting his neighbor with a baseball bat is wrong, even though at the moment he was unable to control it. A person suffering from insanity would not believe the attack was wrong and, if successful in pleading insanity, would be absolved of all responsibility.

Is a person suffering from some type of mental illness – whether anxiety disorder, schizophrenia, bipolar, or some other illness that, for whatever reason, can momentarily impair his judgment – or even a person suffering from cognitive disabilities, such as a person with Down’s syndrome, held to the same standard as a healthy defendant?

Yes and no.

Mental illness is not a total defense to a crime in Illinois, and so even if both the prosecution and defense agree that the defendant suffered from a mental illness that impaired his judgment, a jury can still find him guilty of a crime. However, defendants often raise it as a defense in court to be granted leniency. And in some cases, the jury or judge will take the defendant’s illness into consideration when reaching a verdict or handing down a sentence, including sending them to an alternate treatment program where they can receive services, rather than simply locking them up in prison.

Mental illness is generally not a driving force behind the commission of crimes. A recent study found that only 7.5% of crimes are committed over the course of symptoms of the defendant’s mental illness, and that 66% of those also committed crimes related to other factors, such as drug abuse, homelessness or being poor. But for individuals suffering from mental illness, an experienced criminal defense attorney is more important than ever. Continue reading

by

A Highland Park, Illinois girl pled guilty last week to reckless homicide and was found guilty by a judge for aggravated DUI in a 2012 case that injured three and left a 5-year-old girl dead. The teen faces up to five years imprisonment on the reckless homicide case, and up to 14 years imprisonment in the DUI case. The girl had been released from drug rehab two weeks prior to the accident.

Illinois Reckless Homicide

An individual commits reckless homicide in Illinois if she “unintentionally kills an individual while driving a vehicle.” If no vehicle was involved, the death would be considered involuntary manslaughter under Illinois law.

In this case, the defendant passed out while driving her car and hit the young girl before crashing into a car. When she woke up, she backed up – hitting the girl a second time – and then, in her groggy state, ran over the girl one final time. The defendant admitted to police on the scene that she caused the crash.

In all criminal cases, an experienced attorney will strive to gain an outright dismissal or a reduction of charges. In some cases, however, where it is clear that the defendant committed the crime – as in this case, where not only did she admit her actions to police on the scene, but also there were numerous eyewitnesses – entering a guilty plea was the best defense. Because the judge can grant probation in a reckless homicide case, entering a guilty plea may be the best chance at gaining leniency from the court in sentencing.

Illinois Aggravated DUI

As admitted by the defendant and her attorney, the defendant caused the crash, which seemed to be the result of her huffing from a computer air duster while driving. The defense argued that not all inhalants are listed as intoxicants under Illinois state law, and in fact the Illinois Use of Intoxicating Compounds Act does not prohibit the use of difluoroethane, or DFE, which was the substance found in the defendant’s system at the time of her arrest.

This is not the first time the issue of whether DFE is considered an intoxicant for purposes of a DUI charge has been at issue. In 2012, the Second District Court of Appeals in Wisconsin overturned a conviction on a similar DUI charge. The court agreed with the defense that DFE was not listed in the Wisconsin statutes as a prohibited intoxicant, and that the defendant could not be found to have been in violation of the state’s DUI laws. In that case, the defendant inhaled the substance from a computer air spray can, like the one the defendant used in this case.

It is unclear from this case why the judge convicted the defendant of aggravated DUI despite the fact that DFE is clearly not listed under Illinois law as a prohibited intoxicant. The only rationale is a seeming catch-all phrase in the statute, which includes as a prohibited substance “any other substance for the purpose of inducing a condition of intoxication.”

Since DFE is not specifically listed as a prohibited substance, despite being a primary chemical in air spray cans, the assumption should be that it is not an intoxicant. In this type of case (and there is no implication that the defense in this case did not do these things), an experienced attorney could turn to a team of medical experts to look for other reasons the defendant may have passed out while driving that were unrelated to the DFE in her system.

Regardless of whether the blackout was or was not caused by the DFE, an appeal should be submitted immediately. The judge had no basis for finding that DFE was an intoxicant based on the plain language of the statute, and precedent – even though from another state – supports overturning the conviction.    Continue reading

by

In a previous post I discussed the right of every Illinois criminal defendant to a speedy trial and touched on how in some cases, it may be to the defendant’s advantage to waive that right.  An arrest warrant issued earlier this month against a 41-year old Rolling Meadows, Illinois man on charges of second-degree sexual assault and false imprisonment is an excellent example of a time when waiver of that right may prove favorable to the defendant.

Advantage to Not Invoking Chicago Right to Speedy Trial

In 2012, a Rolling Meadows, Illinois man known by the street name “Joker” allegedly locked a then 16-year-old girl at a party, threatened to kill her if she screamed and then sexually assaulted her. After the defendant left the bathroom, the girl went home and slept; several hours later she told her mother what happened and went to the hospital for a rape examination. The defendant had distinctive tattoos that helped police eventually determine his identity.

So what is it about this case that would recommend that the defendant waive his right to a speedy trial?

It has been two years since the alleged crime occurred – and it could be even more before the defendant is arrested. In her statement to police just a few hours after the alleged attack, the girl stated that she could not remember all the details of the attack. Memories fade, so the more time that passes between the alleged attack and the criminal trial makes the girl’s testimony, which was weak to begin with, only weaker. The testimony of other potential witnesses, including the girls’ friends who helped her return home and the girl’s mother, will also suffer from the passage of time.

The passage of time may also impede the prosecution’s ability to convince the girl to cooperate and provide testimony. If the assault did in fact occur, she may not want to relive the incident by going through a trial, especially since an experienced sex crimes attorney would use her admission that she cannot remember all the details of that evening to poke holes in her testimony.

As far as the girl’s friends who were with her at the time of the incident, the prosecution may be unable to locate and secure their testimony for trial as well. They may have started over in a new city, enrolled in college, or started families – all things that could make them unwilling to cooperate. The circumstances surrounding the incident – accepting an invitation to a party with adult men they did not know – may also be embarrassing to them in their new lives and not something they would not willingly revisit. Already their memories are tainted with the passage of time – add hostility to the mix and you have a witness with the potential to react negatively in court, making her testimony all the more suspect.

In this case, where the alleged victim’s memory was already shaky within hours of the crime occurring, the passage of time can only help in the defense, and it would be more advantageous to not invoke the right to a speedy trial.  Continue reading

by

Illinois law enforcement began issuing permits earlier this year under the state’s new concealed carry law, and already it appears that law enforcement is singling out Cook County residents with any type of domestic violence history.

Police Objection to Illinois Concealed Carry Permit

The Illinois concealed carry law grants law enforcement the right to object to the issuance of a concealed carry permit if they have a “reasonable suspicion” that the applicant is a danger to himself or others, or is a threat to public safety.

When the application review process began on January 5 of this year, the Cook County Sheriff’s Department opposed 217, or 1%, of those submitted because the applicants had a history of domestic violence or were the subject of protection order; that number has since risen to 581, or 2.5% of all applications received to date. Gun crimes were the next highest reason for objections, with 378.  An objection does not guarantee that the concealed carry permit will be denied; instead, it grants the police up to 90 days to submit information to the Concealed Carry Licensing Review board supporting their objection.

The report notes that there is crossover amongst the objection categories, as some applicants had arrests for more than one crime, prompting the objection. Thus it is unclear whether any of the 581 objected applicants had convictions or charges for other crimes, such as drug crimes or assaults, which would have bolstered law enforcement’s objection. But with domestic violence being the highest objectionable category, it appears that individuals with these histories are being targeted. This is especially troubling when the basis of the objection was an order of protection.

Illinois Orders of Protection Not Evidence of Crime

Orders of protection can be obtained in criminal court in conjunction with a criminal charge of domestic violence. But they are most often obtained in civil court. A petition for an order of protection can be filed even if there is no arrest for domestic violence. While domestic violence is a serious issue, the protection order process is unfortunately abused, sometimes for personal gain, and other times for retaliation.

If your partner or ex-partner tries to get an order of protection against you, you may decide against fighting it, instead choosing to distance yourself from the situation. But given the potential rights that can be taken away if the order is issued, this is the wrong mindset.

If an order of protection is issued against you, it could negatively impact your ability to get custody of your children. You may have to list it on future job and housing applications. You will also need to include it on the application for a concealed carry permit, and in just the short time the licenses have been available, law enforcement has been trying to keep guns out of the hands of anybody who has any type of domestic violence in their past, even a non-criminal order of protection. Continue reading

by

A Chicago man was charged in mid-May with felony aggravated assault, among other charges, for threatening to kill a police officer with an ice pick. Unfortunately for him, in Illinois assault of a police officer is immediately classified as an aggravated offense and carries stiffer penalties than if the crimes were committed against an ordinary citizen.

Illinois Assault Charges

Police in Riverside received a call about a “suspicious” man who was banging on the front door of a residence and repeatedly ringing the doorbell. An officer responded and approached the man, asking why he was banging on the door. According to police reports, he told police he would not show them his identification (although it is unclear if the officer had even requested it), and then allegedly reached into his pocket, pulled out an ice pick and threatened to kill the officer. The man fled the scene when the officer pulled his gun and ordered him to drop the ice pick. He struggled when police caught up with him, but was quickly subdued.

In Illinois a person commits assault if he knowingly “places another person in reasonable apprehension of receiving a battery” – or in everyday language, if the alleged victim had a reasonable fear that the defendant was about to cause him physical harm. Simple assault is a Class C misdemeanor punishable by less than 30 days in jail and a maximum fine of $1,500, or between 30 and 120 hours of community service if no jail time is imposed.

But the victim in this case was a police officer, and on January 1, 2011, the law­ was changed to impose stiffer penalties in Illinois assault and battery cases where a police officer is the victim.

Assault of Illinois Police Officer

In 2010 the Illinois legislature passed a law that imposed harsher penalties on individuals who committed assault or battery against an on-duty officer. When the law went into effect on January 1, 2011, simple assault was immediately upgraded to aggravated assault if the victim was a police officer. The assault did not have to be any more menacing for the charge to move up to aggravated – it just had to be committed against an officer of the law. With the upgraded charge came increased penalties: a Class 4 felony and up to three years imprisonment and/or a $25,000 fine.

But while the charge was reclassified and the penalties increased, mounting a defense against a charge of aggravated assault of a police officer is not much different than defending against a charge of simple assault against an ordinary citizen. Aggravated assault against a police officer occurs if the officer was assaulted:

  • While performing official duties;
  • To prevent performance of official duties; or
  • In retaliation for performing official duties.

Defenses against this charge could include whether the defendant was aware that the assaulted person was a police officer; for example, if the officer was dressed in plain clothes, if he didn’t identify himself on approach, or if he was in an unmarked police cruiser. If it was impossible for the defendant to have known the victim was a police officer, it may be possible to have the charge reduced to simple assault.

Whether the charge is reduced to simple assault or remains at aggravated, defense against the assault portion would be the same whether against a police officer or an ordinary citizen. The basis of an assault charge is whether the alleged victim could have reasonably feared being physically injured.

Whatever the circumstances and whomever the alleged victim, an attorney will scrutinize all of the evidence and witness testimony to get the aggravated assault charges against you reduced or dismissed entirely. Continue reading

by

A McHenry County, an Illinois judge sentenced Oliver Woodstock to 36 years in prison this week for three counts of sexual assault. A jury found Woodstock guilty in February on one count of sexual assault. He entered into a plea agreement with prosecutors in March; in exchange for prosecutors dropping five additional cases against him, Woodstock would plead guilty to two additional charges of sexual assault. Prosecutors also agreed not to file any more charges against Woodstock if they uncovered additional victims in video recordings seized from his home.

The Woodstock case is unusual in that the victims were all prostitutes whom Woodstock had paid for services prior to the assault.

Illinois Craigslist Rapist

Woodstock was originally charged with sexually assaulting eight women, each of whom he had met on Craigslist and other online dating sites, with the intent of paying them for sex. Woodstock did, in fact, pay the women. According to trial testimony, what began as a consensual encounter quickly turned ugly.

Two women testified to similar stories at trial. Woodstock picked them up and brought them to his home, where he immediately escorted them to his basement. The women testified that Woodstock threatened to report them to the police as prostitutes, and became violent before escorting them upstairs to his bedroom, where he videotaped the sexual assault. The women could be heard saying “No” on the video recordings, and repeatedly asked Woodstock to stop because he was scaring them. Woodstock could be heard telling the women that he didn’t have to stop because he “paid them.” He also threatened to “hunt them down,” as he had their license plate numbers, if they reported the assault to the police.

Withdrawal of Consent as Defense to Rape

The defense argued that the encounter was a business transaction. The woman was a prostitute who was paid for sex, and thus the encounter was consensual. Because consent is always a defense to rape, Woodstock did not in fact commit sexual assault. Instead – for whatever reason – the woman changed her mind at some point during the encounter and decided to claim it was rape.

In some cases though consent can be withdrawn. In Illinois, consent can even be withdrawn while the sexual act is being committed.

In this case, it was clear from video recordings that the woman had withdrawn her consent to the sexual encounter: she repeatedly asked him to stop, and she indicated that she was afraid of him. In addition, he repeatedly threatened to report the woman to the police for prostitution. (Though not raised in this case, the argument could be made whether that threat was one that should have been taken seriously. Had Woodstock reported the woman to the police for prostitution, he would be placing himself in jeopardy of being charged with solicitation as well).

Had the above been a single isolated incident, the defense may have been able to convince the jury that consent was not withdrawn, but that this was a case of “buyer’s remorse.” But the prosecution had eight different women who testified to similar stories – and because Woodstock had recorded the sexual encounters, it also had the evidence to back the women up. In this case it was the pattern of behavior the videos documented – violence, threats, and each woman asking him to stop – that helped sway the jury that although the encounter started off consensual, that consent was ultimately withdrawn, making the encounter a sexual assault. Continue reading

by

Chicago police received 48,141 reported incidents of domestic violence in 2013, including reports of assault, battery and unauthorized use of a motor vehicle. During that same time period they received 171,077 domestic violence-related calls. Domestic violence is a serious issue that affects not only the parties involved, but collateral victims as well, most notably the children. Most of the focus on domestic violence revolves around men as the batterer and women as the victim. But a recent Chicago murder highlights the fact that men can also be victims of domestic violence.

Chicago Domestic Dispute Ends With Woman Fatally Stabbing Boyfriend

killer-hand-1-1153640-mMiata Phelan, a 24-year-old pregnant woman who lives in Chicago, stabbed and killed her boyfriend, 28-year-old Larry Martin, on Cinco de Mayo. Why? Because he allegedly purchased gifts for his eight-year-old son and his cousin on a trip to the mall and nothing for her, even though her birthday was the next day.

Prior to the stabbing, Phelan reportedly kicked and scratched Martin in the car as punishment for his selfishness, and then took off with the vehicle when Martin stopped to run another errand, forcing him and his eight-year-old son to walk home, where he found the front door of the house locked. When he was finally able to get inside, Phelan stabbed him in the side with a knife – in full view of his son – screaming, “I hope you die.”

 

Martin died a few hours later at the hospital; Phelan was charged with first-degree murder.

Multiple Domestic Violence Charges in Single Incident

Although Phelan is charged with murder, this incident contains many elements of domestic violence and highlights the escalation of abuse, albeit in a compacted time frame. Each action on its own could be a crime under Illinois’ domestic violence laws:

 

  • Verbal abuse: screaming and calling Martin selfish because he seemingly failed to buy her a birthday present gift
  • Battery: kicking and scratching
  • Theft: driving away in Martin’s car
  • Aggravated battery:the stabbing
  • Murder:end result of the stabbing

Like many domestic violence cases, the violence escalated from verbal to physical abuse, with this case ending on the most extreme end of the physical abuse scale. In this case that escalation seemingly occurred in the same episode, although it is unclear if Phelan had a history of escalating domestic violence against Martin, and this was the culmination of months of abusive behavior.

Had Martin survived – and assuming he left her – Phelan’s actions would have subjected her to civil penalties as well as criminal. Martin would have most likely been able get an order of protection against Phelan, which could have resulted in her being forced to move out of the couple’s home, and could have caused her to lose her job. Her ability to gain custody of the couple’s unborn child would also have been adversely affected, as violence against one parent is a factor the court considers when making an award of child custody.

Absent the murder, this case is typical of many domestic violence incidents and demonstrate how much a single incident of domestic violence can impact numerous aspects of a person’s life. A skilled criminal defense attorney understands these long-lasting ramifications and is experienced in defending against domestic violence charges and civil orders of protection. Continue reading

by

A Palatine man faces charges of first-degree murder and hiding a corpse in a 17-year-old homicide case. The alleged murderer, James Eaton, was arrested in early April after DNA evidence from a discarded cigarette linked him to the 1997 murder of 14-year-old Amber Creek, a ward of the state who had run away from the juvenile residential facility where she was living.  Illinois has no statute of limitations on murder, which is why Eaton can still be charged and potentially convicted of the 17-year-old crime.

Illinois Murder Investigations  revolver-704729-m

Eaton was charged with first-degree murder, which means that the prosecution will have to prove that he either intended to kill Amber Creek or knew that his actions would cause her death. There is also evidence that Amber was sexually assaulted prior to her death which, if proven, would be an aggravating factor that would result in a stiffer penalty if Eaton were to be convicted.

An Illinois murder conviction carries a mandatory minimum sentence of 20 years in prison; the existence of aggravating factors, such as if the murder was committed during the commission of another violent felony, such asrape, can add another 15 years to the sentence, or possibly result in the death penalty.

While murder is a serious charge no matter when it occurred, cold case murders raise a number of evidence and proof issues that an experienced attorney can use to poke holes in the prosecution’s case to raise reasonable doubt. An experienced attorney can work closely with forensic experts who are experienced in analyzing DNA evidence. DNA samples can deteriorate over time, and forensic experts can help determine if the DNA sample from the victim’s body allegedly linking her to the defendant was of sufficient quality and sample size to pinpoint the defendant as the murderer.

If the integrity of the DNA sample can be brought into question, an attorney’s team of private investigators would look into whether there was a possibility that the defendant and victim’s paths had crossed prior to death, which could provide an innocent explanation for his prints being on the bag – for example, since she had recently run away, he gave her (or she took from him) a bag to carry her belongings. Or perhaps eyewitnesses who had not come forward during the initial murder investigation have information showing that the victim was seen alive after her encounter with the defendant, which would decrease the likelihood that the defendant was the murderer.

Although the goal is to exonerate the defendant and get an outright dismissal of charges where possible, if it appears that the defendant did commit the crime, or that the prosecution’s evidence is so overwhelming as to make a conviction likely, a skilled attorney will work with prosecutors to get a reduction of the charges. While sex with a minor is a crime regardless of consent, a defense attorney can review the sexual assault law in effect in 1996 to determine if the sexual encounter could have been legal at that time, assuming consent on the victim’s part. He will also review the evidence to determine if there are any mitigating factors that could decrease any possible prison sentence or avoid imposition of the death penalty, such as was the murder intentional or could it have been manslaughter or possibly even self-defense. The defense attorney will use any piece of evidence that could raise reasonable doubt to help gain a dismissal or reduction in charges. Continue reading

Contact Information
Chicago Office
70 W Madison St
#1450
Chicago, IL 60602
Phone: (312) 560-7100
DuPage Office
140 Butterfield Rd
#1500
Oakbrook Terrace, IL 60181
Skokie Office
5250 Old Orchard Rd
#300
Skokie, IL 60077

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2025, Law Offices of David L. Freidberg, P.C.
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design