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

Elgin police are asking local legislators to enact legislation that would make it easier to arrest individuals convicted of Illinois sex crimes who fail to comply with sex offender registration requirements. Illinois law requires all registered sex offenders to notify local law enforcement within three days of moving. But Elgin police complain that a 2013 Illinois Appellate Court decision makes their job harder and requires the utilization of too many resources in order to enforce the registration requirements. They are asking local legislators to create a new law that would in effect overturn the Appellate Court’s decision.

Illinois Sex Offender Registration Requirements

Illinois residents convicted of a sex crime must register as a sex offender:

  • Every year for 10 years for a ‘regular’ sex crime;
  • Every 90 days for life, if you are adjudicated sexually dangerous or sexually violent;
  • Every year for life if you are classified as a sexual predator; or
  • Every 90 days for the remainder of the registration period if you are convicted of violating the registration requirement.

In addition, registered sex offenders must notify local law enforcement of their residence within three days of moving. Law enforcement is required to verify each registrant’s address at least once per year.

Failure to comply with the registration requirements is a Class 3 felony for the first offense; additional offenses become Class 2 felonies.

People v. Robinson – Increasing the Burden of Proof in Sex Offender Registration Cases

In People v. Robinson, the defendant was convicted by the trial court for failing to inform law enforcement of a change in his address. Defendant appealed, arguing that the prosecution had only shown that he was not present at the address he had listed on his sex offender registration, and not that he had established a new fixed residence for more than five days, as the statute required.

The Illinois Appellate Court agreed with the defendant and reversed the trial court’s decision. In its ruling, the court stated that a conviction for failure to register under the sex offender registration law required that the defendant have a change of address AND that he lived at the new address for more than five days. The police did not fulfill its “affirmative obligation to investigate the charge,” instead assuming that because the defendant had apparently not resided at the registered address, he was residing somewhere else.

Elgin police claim that being required to prove that a registered sex offender has been living someplace other than his registered address for more than five days is burdensome. They cited one case where they expended 25 man hours to conduct surveillance and record-checking to determine where the registrant was living.

But given that a conviction for failing to comply with registration requirements may impose additional prison time and increase the burden of registration, the amount of resources expended by police in order to prove a registered sex offender has moved is a small inconvenience for them to pay. Continue reading

by

A Will County, Illinois man whose conviction on charges of predatory sexual assault was overturned by the Illinois Appellate Court, lost on his bid to have the re-trial on those same charges dismissed due to concerns that the prosecution violated his right against double jeopardy.

Double Jeopardy in Illinois Sexual Assault Case

In People v. Ventsias, the defendant was convicted of one count of predatory sexual assault of a child and sentenced to 11 years in prison; he was acquitted on one count of aggravated criminal sexual abuse. The Illinois Appellate Court reversed the conviction due to a finding of juror bias, and ordered the defendant to stand trial again on the predatory sexual assault charge only.

Prior to the start of the new trial in 2012, the defendant agreed to a plea agreement whereby he would plead guilty to the charge of aggravated criminal sexual abuse – the charge which the jury had initially acquitted him of committing – in exchange for the prosecution not pursuing the predatory sexual assault charge.

Following the defendant’s entry of the guilty plea, the prosecution moved to vacate the plea due to concerns raised by the trial court that the plea may have been invalid due to double jeopardy concerns. Namely, the court was not convinced that Ventsias could waive his right to plead guilty to aggravated criminal sexual abuse, since he had already been acquitted.

The prosecution then moved for a second trial on the charge of predatory sexual assault of a child. Ventsias objected and filed a motion to dismiss, claiming that double jeopardy attached due to the prosecution’s prior agreement to no longer pursue the charge.

When Double Jeopardy Attaches in Illinois Criminal Cases

In a previous blog I discussed a recent United States Supreme Court case, Martinez v. Illinois, in which the court ruled an Illinois defendant could not be retried because double jeopardy attached. In that case, the prosecution refused to participate in the trial, and the trial court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the dismissal, citing the long-held rule that “jeopardy attaches when the jury is sworn in.”

Like Martinez, the jury in People v. Ventsias was sworn in. Why, then, did double jeopardy not attach to Ventsias, when it did in Martinez?

Because there are exceptions to when double jeopardy attaches.

If the defendant’s conviction is overturned on appeal, the prosecution is generally free to re-prosecute the case. This is because, unless the reversal was due to insufficient evidence proving guilt, the reversal is usually due to some error made during the trial, whether the admission of inadmissible evidence or some other violation of criminal procedure that interfered with the defendant’s ability to obtain a fair trial. In these cases, although technically the defendant is being retried for the same crime, the first trial is considered null and void because the parties involved did not play by the rules.

In Ventsias, the defendant’s acquittal was overturned on appeal due to juror bias, and not because the appellate court found insufficient evidence of his guilt. So although the jury had been sworn in, double jeopardy did not attach.

Ventsias argued that double jeopardy attached when the prosecution agreed not to re-file the predatory criminal sexual assault charges. Therefore, even though the plea agreement was dismissed, according to Ventsias the prosecution could not re-try him for predatory criminal sexual assault.

The appellate court dismissed Ventsias argument, stating that the basis for the plea agreement was unconstitutional. According to the court, double jeopardy is a right so fundamental to our criminal justice system, that a defendant cannot waive it. Therefore, because his waiver was unconstitutional, the prosecution was not bound by its earlier agreement to not re-prosecute Ventsias for predatory criminal sexual assault.

It remains to be seen whether the defendant will appeal the court’s decision, and whether, if accepted, the Illinois Supreme Court would rule on whether a defendant can waive his right to double jeopardy.

Criminal laws are in place to protect the rights of the accused. While the state cannot infringe upon those rights, the defendant should have the right to waive them if, pursuant to his attorney’s advice, it is in his best interest to do so.

In this case, a conviction on a charge of aggravated sexual abuse carries a maximum prison term of seven years – four years less than what Ventsias had been sentenced to under the predatory sexual assault charge. So it was in Ventsias’ best interest to waive his double jeopardy protection and plead guilty to the lesser charge, even if he had already been acquitted. It does not seem right that the court can take that away from a defendant.  Continue reading

by

Hundreds of pictures and more than a dozen videos found on a Chicago man’s computer have led to charges of possession of child pornography, a class 2 felony. If convicted, the charge carries a mandatory minimum of four to 15 years in prison, or 30 years if any of the images are of children under age 13. Conviction of possession of child pornography also requires registration as a sex offender.

Illinois Possession of Child Pornography

An Illinois resident commits the crime of possession of child pornography if he has in his possession any film, video or photographs (“photos”) of children under the age of 18 participating in any type of real or simulated sexual act. The person must know that the photos in his possession depict sexual acts, and he must know, or reasonably should know, that the children depicted are under the age of 18.

Defense against Illinois Charge of Possession of Child Pornography

Just because the police located images or videos depicting child pornography on your computer or other electronic device does not mean you have no defense. Evidence of photos on your computer are just that – proof that the images exist on the device. As discussed above, conviction for possession of child pornography requires that the defendant knew that the images were child pornography, and that the people depicted were under the age of 18. Without proving both of these facts, the prosecution cannot make a case against the defendant, and the result is an acquittal.

When building a defense against a Chicago charge of possession of child pornography, a defense attorney  will examine all of the evidence to determine whether the prosecution can prove that you knowingly possessed child pornography, and that you were aware that the persons depicted were children. When examining the evidence, a criminal defense attorney will consider:

  • Whether the search warrant was legally obtained and not based on false evidence;
  • Whether the images were placed on the defendant’s computer during a time that the computer was in his possession and control. For example, an attorney’s forensic experts will examine computer records to determine whether the images could have been placed on the computer following the defendant’s arrest, or when it was at a computer repair shop;
  • Whether anybody else had access to the defendant’s computer and could have downloaded the photos;
  • Whether it can be proven that the defendant actually looked at the files, or was in any way aware they were on his computer. For example, could they have been downloaded on to his computer as part of a Trojan horse, malware or other computer hacking program;
  • Whether a reasonable person would have known that the people depicted in the photos were under the age of 18, and;
  • Whether it can be proven that the defendant downloaded or otherwise placed the images on his computer or other electronic device.

In any criminal case, our goal is to obtain an acquittal or outright dismissal of the charges. If, after a careful review of all of the evidence, either of those scenarios seem unlikely, then our goal is to work with the prosecution to win a reduction in charges or enter in to a plea agreement. Conviction on a charge of possession of child pornography is serious, and the Law Offices of David L. Freidberg, P.C., will work diligently to achieve the best possible outcome.  Continue reading

by

The United States Supreme Court strengthened an individual’s right to be free from unlawful search and seizures last week when it ruled that, barring certain limited exceptions, law enforcement may not search a criminal suspect’s cell phone without a warrant.

Riley v. California Bans Warrantless Cell Phone Searches

Riley v. California involved two defendants, David Riley and Burma Wurie.

Riley’s car was impounded in California after he was pulled over for having expired registration tags and driving with a suspended license. His car was impounded, and a routine inventory search uncovered concealed and loaded firearms. Riley was then arrested, and an officer seized and searched his cell phone, which showed evidence of gang-related activity. The evidence found on the phone resulted in Riley being further charged with attempted murder, assault with a semi-automatic weapon and firing at an occupied vehicle.

In the second case, Wurie was arrested after police observed him making a drug sale from his car. At the police station, officers seized his phone and, after noticing several calls coming in to the phone from a caller identified as “my house,” opened and searched the phone until they determined the number associated with “my house.” They traced the number to an address and obtained a search warrant, where they uncovered drugs and firearms.

Both Riley and Wurie sought to suppress the evidence obtained as a result of law enforcement’s search of their cell phones, arguing that it violated their protections against unlawful search and seizure.

Law enforcement may stop and frisk an individual if they believe the person was, or is about to, commit a crime, and the frisk may only be to search for weapons to protect the officer’s safety or to prevent evidence from being destroyed. Known as a search incident to an arrest, the Court pointed out that cell phones do not fall within this exception.

In prior cases, the Court had ruled that searching a crumpled cigarette pack found in a suspect’s pocket was reasonable. However, the Court refused to extend that standard to cell phones, which the court noted contain massive quantities of private data, and a search of an arrestee’s phone is much more invasive than looking in a cigarette pack taken from his pocket.

Furthermore, the court noted that there is no danger of an officer’s being harmed from a cell phone (while the cigarette pack could have contained unknown weapons). Without the risk of harm, a search of the cell phone – even if done following a lawful search and seizure – is not allowed without a warrant.

Chicago Search and Seizure of Cell Phones

How does the Supreme Court’s ruling affect residents of Chicago and the rest of Illinois? United States Supreme Court decisions that deal with constitutional issues apply to every state. Therefore, the Court’s ruling prevents Chicago area law enforcement from lawfully seizing and searching your cell phone or other similar digital device without first obtaining a warrant.

Keep in mind, however, that the Court’s ruling does not prevent law enforcement officers from asking an arrestee if they can search his phone, or from searching it if they have consent. So if a Chicago police officer stops you and asks to see your cell phone, whether you have been arrested or not, your answer should always be no. If you consent, anything law enforcement finds on your phone can be used against you in court.

If an officer searches your phone without a warrant, it is important that you contact a criminal defense attorney with experience handling search and seizure cases. It may be possible to have the charges brought against you dismissed if any evidence is in any way related to a warrantless search of your cell phone.  Continue reading

by

A Chicago man was charged with aggravated battery, aggravated discharge of a firearm and aggravated discharge of a firearm near a school in late May following a shooting of a man near a Lawndale elementary school.

Chicago Aggravated Discharge of Firearm

You can find an in-depth discussion on the differences between battery and aggravated battery on my website, and last week I discussed one aspect of aggravated discharge of a firearm on the blog, as it pertains to firing at a vehicle. Discharge of a firearm is also automatically upgraded to ‘aggravated’ if the discharge occurs within 1,000 feet of school property or any school activity, regardless of whether school is actually in session.

As odd as it seems, in this case if the shooting had occurred 1,001 feet from the school, the defendant would have been charged simply with aggravated battery and discharge of a firearm. But because the shooting occurred closer to the school, he was slapped with the additional charge of aggravated discharge of a firearm, all because of the location.

Aggravated discharge of a firearm near a school is a Class X felony, punishable by no less than 10 and no more than 45 years in prison.

Defense Against Aggravated Discharge of a Firearm near School

As in any criminal defense, the first step is to determine whether the evidence supports a conclusion that the defendant was in fact the shooter. Eyewitness testimony is often unreliable. If that is the only evidence tying the defendant to the scene of the crime, it can often be successfully disputed in court, particularly if other evidence tends to disprove the prosecution’s contention that the defendant committed the crime.

If the charges were based in whole or in part on forensic evidence, it is important that a team of forensic experts examine the evidence in order to determine whether the prosecution’s experts came to the right conclusion. For example, if an arrest was made based on forensic evidence linking the gun to the defendant, we would want to examine:

  • Whether the defendant’s fingerprints were found on the weapon;
  • Whether any other fingerprints were found on the weapon, and;
  • Whether gunpowder residue matching the weapon was found on the defendant.

Lack of fingerprints or gunpowder residue linking the defendant to the weapon, or the presence of another set of fingerprints on the weapon, would help plant doubt on the prosecution’s assertion that the defendant was in fact the shooter.

Aggravated discharge of a firearm requires that the defendant intentionally fired his weapon. Our team of forensic experts would also examine whether there is any possibility that the gun could have been discharged due to a malfunction. If this were the case, it would negate the intentional requirement and result in a dismissal of the charge.

Aggravated discharge of a firearm in Illinois also requires that the defendant knowingly discharged the firearm near the school. If it can be shown that the defendant did not know that he was in a school zone when the shooting occurred – for example, if there were no signs at the location of the discharge indicating that he was in a school zone – then it may be possible to have the charges dismissed. Continue reading

by

A Berwyn woman was convicted in May of three felony counts of criminal neglect in the 2011 death of her 14-year-old son, who was disabled. She had originally been charged with child endangerment, but those charges were dropped.

The son, who had been found in the front yard of the family home after paramedics were summoned, died of pneumonia. His mother said she was treating him for an illness with antibiotics intended for animals. Police reported that the woman’s house was filthy, overrun with animals (some reportedly dead), and had no running water or working appliances. The woman and her mother, who also lived in the home, denied that the home was unlivable.

Criminal Neglect of Disabled in Illinois

Because of their vulnerability, Illinois law provides special protection to the disabled by making criminal neglect of the disabled a separate offense. In Illinois, the caregiver of a disabled person may be charged with criminal neglect if it can be proved that he or she knowingly:

  • Acted in a manner that caused the person’s life to be endangered, his health to be injured, or a pre-existing condition to deteriorate;
  • Failed to perform acts he knew, or reasonably should have known, were necessary to maintain the disabled person’s life or health;
  • Abandoned the person;
  • Physically abused, harassed, intimidated or interfered with the person’s personal liberty; or
  • Exposed the person to willful deprivation.

The caregiver cannot be charged if she made a good faith effort to provide for the disabled person’s needs, but was unable to provide that care through no fault of her own.

Criminal neglect is a Class 3 felony, unless the neglect resulted in the disabled person’s death, in which case it is a Class 2 felony. If prison time is imposed, it may be anywhere from three to 14 years.

Defense Against Cook County Charge of Criminal Neglect

Defending against charges of criminal neglect of the disabled is a sensitive area. The vulnerable in our society need extra protection, since they either lack the physical or mental capacity to care for themselves. But caring for the disabled can be overwhelming, particularly in the case of the Berwyn mother: she was a single parent raising three other children while simultaneously taking care of her elderly mother.

While being overwhelmed does not excuse failing to provide for a disabled person’s basic needs, it also does not paint a portrait of someone coldly indifferent to the needs of the person in her care. In the case of the Berwyn mother, there were additional factors that likely led to the jury’s decision, namely the home being full of living and dead animals. But for others, the overwhelming task and lack of services could offer mitigating circumstances that could either sway a jury to acquit or cause a judge to impose little to no prison time.

It is a complete defense to criminal neglect of the disabled if the caregiver can show that she tried to provide for the disabled person’s needs but, through no fault of her own, was unable to meet those needs. Illinois consistently ranks in the bottom five in national surveys for access to disability services, meaning well-intentioned caregivers could find themselves suddenly overwhelmed with no place to turn for help.

Other factors that may show that the caregiver was not at fault for failure to provide services could include:

  • Lack of health insurance, or health insurance that does not cover the disabled person’s needs;
  • Lack of income to provide for medical needs not covered by health insurance, or;
  • Documented attempts to acquire services from social service agencies.

Continue reading

by

A Chicago man was charged on July 1 with murder, which police believe was gang-related. The suspect was arrested on a warrant and allegedly confessed.

Defense in Illinois Murder Case

Defending against an Illinois murder charge is multi-faceted. The prosecution’s case must be attacked from all sides, beginning with the arrest and police interrogation.

Illinois Arrest Warrant

In order to be arrested in Illinois the police must have a warrant of arrest (or arrest warrant), or must reasonably believe that the person arrested committed a crime.

A warrant of arrest is issued by a court. If the arrest warrant was issued based on deliberate lies or a reckless disregard for the truth, it may be possible to have the warrant dismissed, along with any evidence the police may have uncovered when executing the warrant. In any murder defense, we will closely examine the arrest warrant to make sure the facts that resulted in the court’s issuance of the warrant are true.

Admissibility of Confession in Illinois Murder Case

The first line of defense in any murder case is challenging the prosecution’s assertion that they have caught the right man. In this case the defendant allegedly confessed to committing the murder. But that does not mean this is an open and shut case.

Any confession requires careful examination of the circumstances surrounding the defendant’s arrest and leading up to confession. If police failed to follow proper procedure, the confession may be considered inadmissible. If the prosecution filed charges based solely on the confession, having it ruled inadmissible in court may result in the charges being dismissed outright.

Factors that could lead to the defendant’s confession being deemed inadmissible include:

  • Failure of the police to read the defendant his Miranda rights prior to conducting the interrogation;
  • Failure to provide the defendant an attorney following a request for one;
  • Continuing to question the defendant following his request for an attorney;
  • Continuing to question the defendant out of the presence of his attorney once he has obtained one;
  • Questioning the defendant under harsh or inhumane conditions, such as a four-day interrogation with no breaks;
  • Whether the police or prosecution promised the defendant leniency in exchange for the confession, or;
  • Whether the police fabricated evidence to obtain a confession.

Validity of Confession in Illinois Murder Case

If the police followed proper procedure in obtaining the confession, given that this is a gang-related case, we would look at whether it was a false confession. It is not uncommon in gang cases for members to take the fall for those higher-up in the gang, as a show of solidarity or as part of initiation.

If other evidence tends to dispute the fact that the defendant committed the murder, then the validity of the confession would be called into question. Such factors that may help prove the confession was false include:

  • Lack of forensic evidence linking the defendant to the crime;
  • Forensic evidence of another person found on the alleged murder weapon;
  • Threats of harm made to the defendant or his family;
  • Evidence calling into question the defendant’s ability to be at the murder scene at the time the murder was committed, or;
  • Eyewitness descriptions of the murderer that do not match the description of the defendant.

Other factors that come in to play in a murder defense include:

  • Deciding whether to invoke your right to a speedy trial;
  • Whether we can work with the prosecution to come to a plea agreement, if a review of the evidence looks like a conviction is likely, or if you do not want to take your chances before a jury, or;
  • Whether it is possible to obtain immunity from prosecution in exchange for testifying against someone else (for example, the head of the gang).

Continue reading

by

A Chicago man was charged last week with aggravated discharge of a firearm after firing shots at another vehicle on the Dan Ryan Expressway. The victim’s car sideswiped a second vehicle, causing it to crash into a center divider. Additional charges are expected to be filed.

Chicago Aggravated Discharge of Firearm  

A person commits the crime of aggravated discharge of a firearm in Illinois if the firearm is discharged “in the direction of a vehicle he or she knows or reasonably should know to be occupied by a person.” Aggravated discharge of a firearm is a Class 1 felony, and carries with it the possibility of 4-15 years in prison.   car-accident-2-774605-m

There is no need to prove intent to harm in order to be convicted of aggravated discharge of a firearm. Just having fired the weapon in the direction of a vehicle is enough.

The police indicate that additional charges may be filed. One potential charge may be for aggravated battery. This crime occurs when a person discharges a firearm and causes injury to another person. In this case, the alleged shooter could potentially face two counts of aggravated battery – one against the person the shots were fired at, and a second for injuring the driver of the second vehicle.

The alleged shooter can be charged with aggravated battery in this case – even though he did not directly cause the injury to the second driver – because his action of discharging the firearm set in motion the chain of events that caused the second driver to be injured.

Defenses to Illinois Charge of Aggravated Discharge of Firearm

In this case, as the firearm was discharged toward a moving vehicle, it would seem there is little room to make the argument that the defendant did not reasonably know the vehicle fired at was occupied. However, that does not mean there are no available defenses.

In any criminal case, the first line of defense would be to determine whether the eyewitnesses identified the correct individual. In this case, the shooting happened while the vehicles were driving on the expressway at high speeds. It also occurred at night. Both these facts tend to make it more difficult for the eyewitnesses to identify the shooter, so a careful review of their testimony is necessary to ensure the police arrested the right man.

Close examination of the forensic evidence in this case is necessary to ensure that the prosecution charges the correct person. In this situation, the vehicle from which the shots were fired was occupied by the alleged shooter and a passenger. A team of experts would examine the forensic evidence to make sure there are no other possible explanations regarding the shooter’s identity.

Evidence that may be present to cast doubt on the shooter’s identity could include:

  • Gunpowder residue found on the passenger’s hands, which could indicate that she was the shooter;
  • Lack of gunpowder residue found on the alleged shooter’s hands, which could disprove that he was the shooter;
  • The passenger’s fingerprints being found on the weapon, and;
  • Lack of the alleged shooter’s fingerprints on the weapon.

While acquittal is always the goal, if it seems unlikely from a review of the evidence that acquittal is possible, an attorney would seek to reduce the charges to reckless discharge of a firearm. This would require review of the weapon to determine if the evidence can support a conclusion that the discharge was unintentional and due to a defect or other mechanical problem with the weapon. Forensic experts would assist in examining the weapon to determine whether the discharge was due to a weapon malfunction. Continue reading

by

About 100 Illinois inmates who were sentenced to life in prison for murders they committed as youths will have the opportunity to have their sentences re-visited thanks to a 2012 Illinois Supreme Court decision.

Illinois Supreme Court Rules Life in Prison for Juvenile Murder Offenders Unconstitutional

Before People v. Williams, Illinois provided mandatory life sentences without the possibility of parole for all defendants convicted of murder. The mandatory minimum applied whether the murder was convicted by hardened criminal with prior arrests for violent crimes, or a first-time youth offender. The defendant was not allowed to offer evidence detailing his upbringing, the circumstances that led to commission of the crime, whether he had been the victim of trauma or abuse, his education, or any other information that would tend to prove why life without the possibility of parole was too harsh.

That changed in People v. Williams, in which the court ruled that mandatory life sentences without parole for juveniles who committed murder violated the constitutional ban against cruel and unusual punishment. The Williams decision took its cue from the U.S. Supreme Court case Miller v. Alabama, which made the same ruling in 2012, stating that when dealing with juvenile murder defendants, the court must “take into account how children are different, and how those differences counsel against irrevocably sentencing them to a lifetime in prison.”

Illinois’ ban will apply retroactively. This means not only will future juvenile murder offenders be afforded the opportunity to provide evidence showing why a mandatory life sentence is too severe of a punishment, but those already serving life sentences for murders convicted when they were youths will have the right to have their sentences revisited.

Illinois Mandatory Minimum Sentencing

Certain crimes committed in Illinois – including murder, rape and aggravated assault – impose mandatory minimum sentences. First degree murder, for example, has a mandatory sentence of imprisonment for the defendant’s natural life. This does not include any additional time imposed for aggravating factors. Second degree murder carries a minimum of 4-20 years. The judge has little discretion when determining the type and length of the sentence. The judge can consider mitigating factors, which could provide a slight reduction in the length of the sentence, but for the most part the judge’s hands are tied.

In crimes that do not impose mandatory minimum sentences, the judge is responsible for determining the type and length of the sentence, which can run the gamut from probation to imprisonment. The judge’s sentencing decision is heavily influenced by prosecution and defense attorney arguments, including any mitigating factors the defense attorney can show that necessitate a reduction in sentence.

While the Williams decision is good news for the hundreds of Illinois inmates who were sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole for crimes committed as juveniles, mandatory sentencing highlights the importance of hiring an experienced Chicago criminal defense attorney who understands the need to begin mounting an aggressive defense immediately.

Because the judge’s hands are bound by the law, the real defense in mandatory minimum cases begins when charges are filed. The charges filed lie in the hands of the prosecution. That is why you need a criminal defense attorney who not only understands the law and can build a successful defense, but who is also a skilled negotiator who can work with the prosecution to get the charges reduced to one without a mandatory minimum sentence.  Continue reading

by

Chicago job applicants with a felony or misdemeanor on their record will no longer be required to include their criminal history on job applications under the Job Opportunities for Qualified Applicants Act. Known as the “ban the box” measure, for the box on job applications that asks applicants to check whether they have ever been convicted of a crime, the new law is expected to be signed by the governor and go into effect January 1, 2015.

Illinois Employers Prohibited From Inquiring about Criminal History

The law prohibits employprisoners with more than 15 employees from asking potential employees on the job application whether they have a criminal history. Instead, employers may only ask about a potential employee’s criminal history at the job interview or when a conditional offer of employment is made, if there were no interviews. Employers are also prohibited from conducting background checks on potential employees until the interview or job offer phase.

The new law is a necessary protection for job applicants with a criminal history, especially those convicted of non-violent crimes or crimes when they were very young and immature. Many of these individuals never get past the application stage, despite being qualified for the job, simply because of the hiring committee’s prejudice against ex-inmates.

The law will let qualified individuals proceed to the interview phase, where they will have the opportunity to explain the circumstances that led to their conviction, address the company’s concerns about hiring an ex-prisoner, and prove to the hiring committee that they will be a hard-working, dedicated employee.  Studies show that employers who meet with an ex-prisoner are four times more likely to hire them. Without this law, these individuals may never be able to gain meaningful, gainful employment sufficient to support themselves and their family, resulting in higher recidivism rates.

Although definitely a step in the right direction, the law underscores the need for obtaining quality, experienced legal representation from the moment you are arrested and charged with any crime, whether a misdemeanor or felony. Conviction of any crime has consequences that extend beyond prison time, fines and/or probation – it can adversely affect your ability to obtain a job or acquire housing. And while the law prohibits employers from inquiring into your criminal history until the interview phase or when a job offer has been made, it does not prohibit a potential employer from refusing to hire you because of that criminal history.

The only sure way to avoid losing a potential job is to not have a criminal history – and that starts with hiring a tough criminal defense lawyer who can get the charges against you dropped and win an acquittal in court. You want an attorney who knows how to find and exploit the flaws in the prosecution’s case. You want an attorney who works with a team of private investigators and forensic and medical experts to cast doubt on the prosecution’s evidence. With 18 years of experience successfully defending clients against all types of misdemeanors and felonies, you want David L. Freidberg.  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

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 © 2026, Law Offices of David L. Freidberg, P.C.
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design