TELEPHONES ANSWERED 24 HOURS A DAY
FREE CONSULTATION
312-629-0669
Recent Blog Posts
Restitution in a Criminal Case
Restitution is a common punishment in federal criminal cases. A judge may order a convicted defendant to compensate the victims of his or her crimes. While we commonly think of victims as individuals, the government itself may also be a victim. In fact, as a recent decision by a federal appeals court in Cincinnati demonstrates, a criminal's restitution to the government may be significantly higher than that owed to an individual victim.A Costly Error in Judgment
The crime in this case may not sound like much at first glance. The defendant pleaded guilty to a single charge of “making a false report of a boat in distress.”he is a pilot. According to the court opinion, one night in 2012, as part of an aviation training program, the defendant flew from Bowling Green, Ohio, to Cleveland and back again. During his return flight to Bowling Green, he thought he saw a flare arising from a watercraft on Lake Erie. The defendant, who was training to become a Coast Guard pilot, reported this apparent finding to the airport in Cleveland.
Bank Robbery, “Dangerous” Weapons and Due Process
According to the most recent statistics from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, there are more than 5,000 bank robberies each year. Many of these robberies involve the use (or threatened use) of a firearm. While there are only a handful of injuries, including death, as the result of bank robberies, the federal government nonetheless punishes offenders severely, especially if the a weapon is brandished by any of the robbers.Many bank robberies are carried out by groups of two or more individuals. In the eyes of the law, anyone who participates in a conspiracy to rob a bank is equally guilty, even if some of the conspirators do not take part in the actual robbery. This issue came up in a recent case involving a convicted bank robber in Illinois, who unsuccessfully argued for a more lenient sentence after he “got cold feet” and abandoned his co-conspirators in mid-robbery.
United States v. Bey
What Is a “Speedy” Trial?
The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution famously guarantees a criminal defendant's right to “a speedy and public trial” before a jury of his or her peers. But how “speedy” is speedy? Congress and the United States Supreme Court have established certain time limits that prosecutors must obey in bringing charges against a defendant. This does not always guarantee a speedy trial however, as many criminal cases can drag on for months or years depending on the circumstances.The Speedy Trial Act
In 1974, Congress passed the Speedy Trial Act, which sets various milestones for criminal prosecutions. For example, the act requires the government to issue an information or indictment within 30 days of arresting or serving a summons upon the defendant. The trial must then begin within 70 days of the latter of the date of the indictment or the defendant's first court appearance. In order to give a defendant adequate time to prepare a defense, the act further stipulates the trial may not begin within the first 30 days following the initial court appearance.
Lying to the Court Means Additional Prison Time
If you have engaged in illegal activity, it may be in your best interest to enter plea negotiations with the government, accepting responsibility in exchange for a reduced sentence. It is also important to understand that you must tell the truth as a part of any plea bargain. Prosecutors and judges will treat a defendant more harshly if he or she has lied or misled them during the plea bargaining process. A recent decision from the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago underscores this point.United States v. Hargis
Lori Hargis faced a common problem among many homeowners in a down economy. She wanted to sell her Kentucky residence but could not find a buyer. She decided to burn the house down and collect on the insurance covering her as a homeowner. In 2007 she hired Leslie White to set the house on fire, which he did in December of that year. Hargis subsequently filed an insurance claim for $866,000 to cover the value of the house and its contents.
Fugitive Ponzi Schemers Receive Harsher Prison Sentences
The worst thing you can do when facing federal criminal charges is to run. The law will eventually catch up with you—and punish you more severely. Nelson and Janet Hallahan learned that lesson all too well.The “Mini-Madoffs”
The Hallahans lived in Peoria, Illinois, and were known for their wealthy lifestyle. It turned out that lifestyle was financed through fraud. They ran a Ponzi scheme for nearly six years during the mid-1990s, using new investors to finance phantom returns paid to existing clients. A 2012 Huffington Post article referred to the Hallahans as “mini-Madoffs” for their scheme.
Like most Ponzi schemers though, the Hallahans were eventually caught. In 2000, the couple pleaded guilty on charges of conspiracy to commit bank fraud and money laundering. In exchange for their confessions, federal prosecutors dismissed more than a dozen additional charges and recommended a relatively lenient sentence.
Illinois Judge Ordered to Explain Child Pornography Sentence
The possession and distribution of child pornography is a serious federal criminal offense. The emotionally charged nature of these cases often prompts harsh sentencing from federal courts. All defendants, even those charged with possession of child pornography, are entitled to due process under law. Recently the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago ordered a trial judge to re-sentence a defendant in a child pornography case. The appeals court found that the judge failed to follow the law in imposing his initial sentence.United States v. Poulin
Matthew Poulin moved to Illinois in 2011 with his minor son. Poulin resided in the basement of his mother's house in Moline. About a month after moving in with his mother, law enforcement used file-sharing software to access Poulin's computer. Poulin used the software to distribute child pornography. Police then executed a search warrant and discovered child pornography on Poulin's computer and attached hard drives.
Supreme Court Expands Scope of “Domestic Violence” Charges That Affect the Right to Own a Gun
It is a violation of federal law for a person to possess firearms if he or she “has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.” As Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor recently observed, “This country witnesses more than a million acts of domestic violence, and hundreds of deaths from domestic violence, each year.” In a March 26 opinion authored by Justice Sotomayor, she said that any “offensive touching” constituted “domestic violence” for purposes of federal firearms laws.United States v. Castleman
This particular case began with the 2008 arrest of James Castleman in Tennessee. In the year 2001, Castleman pleaded guilty to causing “bodily injury” to his mother’s child. Seven years later, federal authorities discovered that Castleman had been selling firearms. He was charged, among other things, with illegally possessing firearms following a misdemeanor domestic violence conviction.
Castleman argued the Tennessee conviction should not count against him because the “bodily injury” did not involve the use of “physical force.” The trial court agreed and dismissed the charges. A divided federal appeals court upheld the trial judge's decision. The majority said the law required evidence of “violent force,” whereas Tennessee’s law might permit a conviction for “a slight, nonserious physical injury with conduct that cannot be described as violent.”
Craigslist Ad Leads to 11-Year Prison Sentence
Because of its global nature, the Internet can turn a local crime into a federal offense. This is especially true when it comes to sex crimes involving minors. A defendant faces a minimum of 10 years in prison if he or she uses “the mail or any facility of interstate or foreign commerce”-- including the Internet—to solicit sex from a minor. One defendant recently attempted to test the scope of this law and failed.Using an Adult to Get to the Child
Harry McMillan was a law school student in Carbondale. One day in 2010, he posted an ad on the popular classified website Craigslist. In the ad, he invited parents to “sell me your teenage daughter.” This caught the attention of undercover detective Mike Andrews. Andrews, now a local police chief, was part of an Internet Crimes Task Force that included the Illinois Attorney General's office and the United States Secret Service.
Andrews posed as a willing father and answered McMillan's ad. Andrews promised McMillan access to his (non-existent) teenage daughter. They arranged a meeting at a movie theater. Andrews appeared with an adult female posing as the daughter. Andrews then spoke with McMillan, who requested nude pictures of the “daughter.” Andrews handed McMillan an envelope, and the minute he opened it, McMillan was arrested.
Can Police Use GPS to Track My Vehicle Without a Warrant?
GPTechnology makes police surveillance much easier and, consequently, personal privacy much more difficult to retain. Courts struggle to define the scope of personal privacy protected by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Even the United States Supreme Court is divided on the issue, leaving lower federal courts to struggle with the implications of increased police monitoring.United States v. Jones
In the 2012 case United States v. Jones, the Supreme Court held that police must obtain a warrant when attaching a Global-Positioning-System (GPS) tracking device to a vehicle. Federal and state police agencies commonly use such devices to monitor criminal suspects. All nine justices of the Court agreed this constituted a “search or seizure” requiring a warrant under the Fourth Amendment.
But the justices disagreed on their reasoning. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the Court's principal opinion, said it was a question of property rights. Since the FBI had to physically attach a GPS device to a suspect's car, that constituted a form of trespass, which under a historical reading of the Fourth Amendment required a warrant. Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Samuel Alito wrote separately to emphasize their broader concerns over privacy. Justice Alito's opinion, which was joined by three other justices, said the “trespass” issue was “relatively minor” and the real problem was the government's “use of a GPS for the purpose of long-term tracking.” Such surveillance should require a warrant, Justice Alito said, even if there was no physical trespass like attaching a GPS device.
Chicago Anti-Gang Efforts Make City Streets Safer
The city of Chicago set the record for homicides in 2012 with over 500, and 2013 ended at 415-the lowest total in almost 50 years. However, Chicago homicide rates are still much higher than those of any other city in the U.S. Chicago officials have made it clear that they believe this decline is the result of altering police tactics, as well as the increase of after-school jobs and mentoring for young people.
The new approach to combating gang violence began with a “gang audit”-a collection of information about specific gangs and their members, which allowed officers to begin to focus on specific gangs and members, as well as quickly locate and arrive at areas where gangs were likely to attack each other.
Police Superintendent Garry McCarthy told The Associated Press, “We identified gang turfs, membership, who’s in conflict with who, put it into a database and put that into the hands of beat officers.”
Chicago’s police department has also taken to providing known gang members with information about social services, sometimes having them meet the parents of murder victims so that they may see the consequences of their actions.
120 N LaSalle St, Suite 2600,
Chicago, IL 60602
TELEPHONES ANSWERED
24 HOURS A DAY
312-629-0669
Chicago Criminal Defense Attorney120 N LaSalle St, Suite 2600,
Chicago, IL 60602312-629-0669
Contact Our Firm
The use of the Internet or this form for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form.
I have read and understand the Disclaimer and Privacy Policy.
