Chicago defense lawyer

March 5, 2015

Cook County Jailer Charged with Sexual Misconduct

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

A female jailer at the Cook County Jail was arrested and charged with felony custodial sexual misconduct recentlyafter an internal investigation allegedly confirmed the jailer had sexual contact with an inmate. The arrest was part of an ongoing operation by the Cook County Sheriff’s Office to uncover corruption and inappropriate conduct at the jail.

Sexual Misconduct with Chicago Inmate

You may be wondering how it is possible that sexual contact between two consenting adults be a criminal offense – and a felony, no less. The answer lies in the fact that the jailer is in a position of authority over the inmate. Much like doctors, psychologists, lawyers, or any other professional in a position of trust and/or authority over another cannot have sexual relations with their patient/client, a prison guard is in a position of authority over all inmates, and the law deems the inmate incapable of granting consent to any type of sexual act.

The defendant is charged with custodial sexual misconduct. A prison guard or other penal system employee commits custodial sexual misconduct if she engages in sexual conduct or sexual penetration with a person in custody. Note that penetration is not necessary to be convicted of custodial sexual misconduct. Any type of sexual conduct – such as touching private parts above or underneath clothing – is considered sexual misconduct.

There are three possible defenses available to a defendant in this situation.

The sexual conduct never happened

The first is that the conduct never happened, and that the victim fabricated evidence. In this situation, the arrest was part of an ongoing investigation by the sheriff’s office looking for corruption within the jail’s ranks. It is unknown if inmates were offered any special privileges or offered reduced jail time if they cooperated with the investigation and/or helped uncover corruption. Any transcripts, recordings or notes of conversations between the victim and other prison officials would need to be examined, and the victim and officials he had contact with interviewed, to determine if he was promised anything in exchange for informing on allegedly corrupt officials. If any such evidence came to light, it would show that the victim had motive to make up a sexual encounter for his own self gain.

The defendant was the victim

The second possible defense is that the defendant was the victim, rather than the one who initiated the sexual conduct that resulted in the charge. If there is any evidence that she was coerced or threatened to engage in sexual conduct with the victim, then the charges would have to be dropped or a verdict of not guilty handed down at trial.

The defendant did not know the victim was an inmate

The third possible defense is if the defendant had no knowledge, and no reason to believe, that the victim was in custody. Evidence that could tend to prove the defendant did not know the victim was an inmate include:

Where the encounter took place (i.e., if he was granted privileges that allowed him to be out of the general population), or
Whether he was wearing a prison-issue uniform during their encounter, or attire that could have made the defendant think he was either another guard or a civilian

If none of these defenses are feasible based on a review of all the evidence, then it may be in the defendant’s best interest to negotiate a plea for a lesser charge.

February 25, 2015

Child Endangerment for Death of Chicago Child by Third-Party

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

A Chicago woman was charged with child endangerment following the beating death of her 16-month-old son at the hands of her boyfriend. The mother was charged after evidence showed that she had been aware that the boyfriend was allegedly burning her son while he cared for him, but did not get treatment for the injuries and continued to leave the boy in her boyfriend’s care.

Illinois Child Endangerment and the Requirement of Knowingly

A person endangers the life or health of an Illinois child when she knowingly:

Causes or permits the life or health of the child to be endangered, or
Causes or permits a child to be placed in circumstances that endanger his life or health

As I have discussed in posts on other crimes, whether the defendant’s action was done “knowingly” is a specific element of the crime. In order to gain a conviction, the prosecution must be able to prove that the defendant left her son with the defendant knowing that his life and health were in danger.

In this case, the defendant’s family members on different occasions noticed the burn marks on the child and suggested she take the boy to the hospital. After her arrest, the defendant said she did not follow their advice because she was afraid child protective services would take him and her other three children away from her. She believed the burns were from a space heater in the family’s home. An autopsy on the boy showed a brain injury, broken and fractured ribs and internal damage to organs.

But just because the defendant was aware of the burn marks does not mean she was aware that her son’s life was in danger at the hands of her boyfriend. Nor does the presence of these other injuries prove that she was aware that her son’s life was in danger. There are a number of different factors that could show that the defendant had no idea her son was being harmed by her boyfriend. Such factors, which could be uncovered following an extensive review of the evidence and witness interviews, include:

Whether the other children showed evidence of injury;
Whether the burn marks on the child’s body looked to be caused by accidental touching of the space heater;
Whether the boy was born prematurely or had other birth trauma, which could explain some of the brain injuries;
Whether the fractures, broken bones and brain injuries occurred on the day of death or prior;
Whether the boy exhibited any changes in behavior that could have alerted his mother to the fact that he suffered a brain injury, or;
Whether the child had recently been in a car or other accident that may have accounted for the internal injuries.

The presence of any one of these factors would raise reasonable doubt as to whether the defendant knowingly caused or permitted her son’s life to be endangered, and could be enough to win an acquittal or reduction of charges.

February 20, 2015

Chicago Woman Charged with Domestic Violence Murder

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

A Chicago woman was charged with the October domestic violence related murder of her boyfriend. The woman, who stabbed her boyfriend in the chest shortly following what police called a domestic violence altercation, was charged with first-degree murder.

Defense of Domestic Violence Murder Charge

Any murder charge is a serious offense that requires an aggressive defense to avoid the possibility of a lifetime spent in prison. But murders that result from a domestic violence altercation usually come with a unique set of circumstances that mean there are a variety of defense strategies available.

Self Defense

The first line of defense in any violent crime stemming from a domestic violence altercation is self-defense. The defense would explore all of the circumstances leading up to the stabbing to see if the evidence supported the idea that the defendant felt her life was in danger when she stabbed the victim. Evidence that may support this defense would include:

Cuts, scrapes, bruises, sprained or broken bones, defensive wounds, or other evidence that showed that the victim physically attacked the defendant prior to the stabbing;
Testimony from neighbors who overheard the altercation and could testify that the defendant was being attacked;
Evidence that the defendant had physically assaulted the defendant in the past, such as a prior criminal history of domestic violence or past protection orders;
Whether landlines had been cut or the victim’s cell phone otherwise tampered with, to prevent her from calling for help, or;
Evidence showing that the victim had his hands on the knife or another weapon at the time of the stabbing, such as his fingerprints on the knife or another object that could have been used to cause death or serious bodily injury.

If the evidence showed that the defendant feared for her life when she stabbed the victim, it could result in the prosecution dismissing the charges, or in an acquittal from the jury.

Imperfect Self-Defense

Imperfect self-defense, as I have discussed in the past, is when the victim believed she was acting in self-defense, but that belief was unreasonable. If the defendant can prove she acted in imperfect self-defense, then the charge would be dropped to second degree murder.

Much of the same evidence that would be used to prove self-defense would also be used to prove imperfect self-defense. In cases where the victim of domestic violence murdered her batterer, the victim was not in immediate danger of being seriously injured or killed. Instead, it is the past actions of the batterer, coupled with statements made shortly before the murder, that make her reasonably belief that her life is in danger and requires the use of deadly force to protect herself.

For example, the longer a couple is together, the less the need for actual physical violence to keep the victim “in line”. A certain look, or just a few harsh words, from the abuser are enough to let the woman know that she is in danger, even though those same actions would mean nothing to an outside party. So while her actions would seem unreasonable to outsiders, to her they were completely reasonable. Evidence of the couple’s history, including any documented incidences of abuse, could sway the jury to acquit based on self-defense. However, for those jurors who feel that a first-degree murder charge is too much, but an outright acquittal is not punishment enough, a charge of second-degree murder can sometimes be a reasonable compromise for them.

February 18, 2015

Chicago Man Held on $100,000 Bond for Theft by Deception

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

A Chicago man was charged with six counts of theft by deception for allegedly obtaining merchandise through telephone solicitations and then turning around and selling it for cash.

Defense of Chicago Theft by Deception

The article does not clarify the alleged deception, but one likely scenario (and the one we will assume for purposes of the discussion in this post) is that the defendant posed as an employee of a charitable organization and called homes and/or businesses soliciting donations. Upon being offered items of significant value, collected the items and turned around and sold them for cash.

Regardless of the details of how the alleged crime unfolded, theft requires that the defendant “knowingly” obtain control over another’s property by deception. So defense against the charge would focus on raising reasonable doubt as to whether the defendant’s actions were done with proper intent – whether he knew that he was obtaining control over another person’s property through the alleged deception. Factors that would need to be considered in determining whether the defendant had the requisite knowledge include:

Did the defendant make the phone calls soliciting the property;
If the defendant made the phone calls, was it at the direction of a third-party for what he believed was a legitimate, legal purpose, and;
If the defendant sold the property at the direction of a third-party, did he know it was obtained through deception.

If the defendant made the phone calls and sold the property under the direction of a third party, and was led to believe that the solicitation and sale of the property was for a legitimate purpose, then he did not knowingly obtain control over the property with the intent to deprive the owner of his control. Instead, he himself was under the false assumption that the solicitation was genuine and not for the purpose of illegally obtaining the victim’s property.

If, however, the evidence tends to show that the defendant did knowingly obtain the property through deception, then it would be to his advantage to negotiate a plea agreement with the prosecutor. The defendant was charged with six counts of theft ranging from $300 to $1,000 per instance. Assuming that five of the six charges were for $1,000, the maximum value of stolen property would be $5,300.

Going to trial for a string of thefts of such a small amount – and in cases where the victims willingly gave away their property, albeit under false pretenses – would be a waste of time and resources for both the prosecution and the court system to have a case this size go to trial. These types of cases are prime examples of how the skill and expertise of an experienced Chicago theft crimes attorney can mean the difference between a lengthy prison term – theft of less than $10,000 in property is a Class 3 felony, and conviction on each charge carries the possibility of between two and five years in prison – and a concurrent sentence or even probation. Continue reading

February 13, 2015

Chicago Man Charged with Arson on Red Line

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

A Chicago man was charged with arson last week for allegedly throwing a lit matchbook into a recycling bin in an El station before boarding his red line train.

Chicago Arson Defense

Under Illinois law a person commits arson if he knowingly damages another person’s personal property, if that property is valued at $150 or more.

Arson is a specific intent crime, which means that the prosecution must prove that the defendant knew that his actions would cause a fire, or intended to do so. So “knowingly” is an important element of every arson charge. Without it, the prosecution has no case and the charges must be dropped or a not guilty verdict handed down in court.

When building a defense in an arson case, it is important to consider not only the defendant’s actions, but any other factors outside of the defendant’s knowledge that could have caused the property to burn. Evidence that would go against an arson claim include:

Whether the defendant knew the matchbook was still lit when he tossed it;
Whether he purposely tossed it, or whether it was tossed as a reflex because the flame touched the defendant’s hand;
Whether weather or other conditions inside the El station could have caused a just extinguished match to reignite;
Whether there was any other evidence of fire or smoldering in the recycling bin that ignited coincidentally with the defendant’s tossing the matchbook;
Whether the matchbook in question belonged to, and was used by, the defendant – fingerprint analysis, if the matchbook was not destroyed in the fire, could be used to prove ownership;
Whether the defendant smoked, which could cast doubt on why he’d have a matchbook;
Whether defendant actually tossed the matchbook into the recycling bin, or whether he tossed it on the ground and a passerby innocently (or purposely) tossed it into the bin, or;
Whether any flammable material had been tossed into the recycling bin that would have caused the flames and damage from the fire to be more extensive than it would have been otherwise.

A negative to answer to any of these questions would tend to cast doubt on the idea that the defendant knowingly set out to cause the fire.

A second key element to arson is whether the value of the property damaged is $150 or more. The recycling bin itself was full of trash, and although the city may then sell the recycled material to scrap yards, this is not true personal property. And even if the court were to rule that it counts, depending on the extent of the damage it may be impossible to determine how much the city could have sold the material for, since it is now burned rubbish.

Depending on the type of recycling bin, there may be minimal damage. A steel or metal bin may have gotten scorched but could likely still be used, so although damaged, there wouldn’t be the need to replace or repair it. If it was a plastic bin, the defense would need to determine the cost of the bin.

Even if it could be proven that the property damage exceeded $150, the jury could be swayed into delivering a not guilty verdict because the property had no personal value to anybody – it was simply trash and a trash bin, not a vehicle or prized family possession. Continue reading

February 10, 2015

Kidnapping Charge for Cook County Woman Held in Own Home

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

A Cook County man was arrested last week and charged with felony aggravated domestic battery after allegedly grabbing a female friend and dragging her in to her garage and refusing to let her call for help for almost 24 hours. Although arrest documents include a kidnapping charge, the Cook County state’s attorney only charged the defendant with battery.

Illinois Kidnapping Laws

The word kidnapping makes most people imagine a person being snatched off the street, moved to a secret location and held for ransom. And while those actions do constitute a kidnapping, it is not the only way the crime can be committed.

Under Illinois law a kidnapping can be committed if a person “knowingly and secretly confines another against his or her will.” The facts of this case make it possible for a kidnapping to have occurred, but only if the defendant knowingly confined the victim against her will. This means that he had to have intended to confine her in the home. The fact that she felt she was unable to leave, absent some outward showing by him that she was unable to, is insufficient to support a kidnapping charge. In other words, her belief that she was held against her will must have been reasonable based on all of the circumstances.

In defending against a kidnapping charge similar to this, we would look closely at the following to determine whether the defendant “knowingly” confined the alleged victim:

His intent;
Whether he said anything that could have reasonably caused the victim to feel that she was unable to leave;
Whether he physically prevented her from leaving, either by the use of restraints or blocking the doors and windows;
Whether he cut or otherwise disabled the landline phone to prevent her from calling for help, or;
Whether he hid her cell phone or kept it on him so that she couldn’t get it, or whether it was out in the open and easily accessible.

If the answers to these questions are no, then the likelihood is high that a jury could be convinced that the victim’s belief that she could not leave the home were unreasonable, and the defendant could not be convicted of the crime.

At this point it is unclear why the state’s attorney did not indict on the kidnapping charge. The victim indicated that the defendant left her home at 10:45 a.m., approximately 9 hours after the battery was committed. The fact that he voluntarily left her home without causing any additional harm raises doubts that he intended to confine her. It seems likely that upon further investigation, the prosecutor found that the answers to at some of the questions posed above raised reasonable doubt as to whether the defendant knowingly confined the victim, as required under the statute, and declined to file kidnapping charges because there was insufficient evidence to support it. Continue reading

October 9, 2014

Rules of Criminal Procedure

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

An Aurora man convicted of murder in 2009 will have a second chance at post-conviction relief after the Illinois Supreme Court ruled that a judge’s dismissal order was filed one day too late.

Illinois Post-Conviction Relief and People v. Perez

Ivan Perez was convicted of the 2004 murder of Francisco Reyes, and the conviction was upheld all the way to the Illinois Supreme Court. Perez then filed a pro-se (without representation) petition seeking post-conviction relief.

Post-conviction relief can be granted if the court finds evidence of a “substantial denial” of the defendant’s Constitutional rights in the proceedings that resulted in the conviction. Once the petition is filed, the trial court has 90 days to enter an order either granting or dismissing the petition.

The court wrote an order dismissing Perez’ petition as frivolous on the 90th day. However, the clerk of court did not file-stamp the order until the 91st day. Perez appealed the dismissal, arguing that it was not done within the 90-day period.

The Illinois Supreme Court agreed with Perez, and ruled that an order is “entered” not on the day the judge signs it, but the date it is file-stamped by the court clerk. Because of this, the trial court’s dismissal was not timely, and Perez is entitled to proceed to the second stage of post-conviction relief proceedings.

Illinois Rules of Criminal Procedure

The press and public often talk about criminals getting off on, or a conviction being reversed because of, a technicality. But these ‘technicalities’ are extremely important to ensure that every defendant gets a fair trial. This is especially important in cases where conviction can result in lengthy prison terms (Perez was sentenced to 60 years) or even death.

If you think of court as a game, then these technicalities are the rules by which the game is played. And legally, they are called just that – the rules of criminal procedure. Rules such as the defendant’s right to remain silent, his right to a speedy trial, the right to cross-examine witnesses, and even the prosecution’s burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, are all in place to ensure that the game is played fairly.

Even with these rules, the key players try to cheat. Police fabricate evidence and use intimidation and harassment to obtain false confessions. Prosecutors withhold evidence that sheds doubt on the defendant’s guilt. Witnesses lie. Imagine how much more flagrant these behaviors would be if the rules of criminal procedure were not in place, and the players could act as they pleased.

The majority of the time, these so-called “technicalities” do not result in the defendant being acquitted or the charges against him being dismissed. Instead, as in Perez, the result is the defendant getting a second chance at the trial being done right. But it also means that the prosecution gets a second chance to gain a conviction as well. Most of the time, the outcome in the second trial is the same as the first – the defendant is acquitted and sentenced.

And sometimes, the defendant is innocent. Since 1998 the Center on Wrongful Convictions at Northwestern University School of Law has helped to exonerate 40 innocent men and women. These people spent time in prison for crimes they did not commit, many due to wrongdoing by law enforcement and prosecutors who believed they were right and didn’t want “the rules” to get in the way. These innocent men and women cannot get back the time they lost with their family and friends, or the time they lost building their career. They were traumatized not just by the false conviction and years of damage to their reputation, but by the horror of being in prison.

It is these innocent people that the rules of criminal procedure are in place to protect. Imagine how many more would be falsely imprisoned if the rules were not in place. Continue reading