TELEPHONES ANSWERED 24 HOURS A DAY
FREE CONSULTATION
312-629-0669
Recent Blog Posts
What is Post-Conviction Relief?
A criminal conviction has serious and lasting consequences for a person accused of a serious crime. Many convictions are based on circumstantial and incomplete evidence. In some cases, evidence discovered after trial may serve to prove a defendant's innocence, or at least raise reasonable doubt about the conviction. For that reason, Illinois law does make it possible for convicted defendants to seek post-conviction relief if there is evidence of “actual innocence.”
The Illinois Post-Conviction Hearing Act establishes a three-stage process for determining whether a defendant is entitled to relief. In the first stage, a judge must decide if the defendant's petition is “frivolous” or wholly without merit. If it is not, the petition proceeds to the second stage, where the defendant must make a “substantial showing” that his or her constitutional rights have been violated. The second stage is not an evidentiary hearing. Rather, the judge must decide whether the defendant has offered sufficient new evidence which, if true, would justify setting aside the conviction.
Illinois Court Reverses DUI Conviction Due to Improperly Admitted Breath Test
Police administration of Breathalyzer tests is standard procedure in driving under the influence (DUI) arrests. Illinois law makes it unlawful for a driver to operate a motor vehicle if his or her blood-alcohol level is 0.08 or higher. A Breathalyzer test, properly admitted into evidence before a judge, can prove that a driver exceeded this legal limit.
It is important to understand “drunk driving” is not limited to passing or failing a Breathalyzer test. The law prohibits a person from driving “under the influence of alcohol.” This influence may be observed by police, or even other drivers, and does not necessarily require a blood-alcohol test.
Appeals Court Rebukes Judge for Ordering Jury to Convict Drug Defendant
The right to a trial by jury is the foundation of the American legal system. Both the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and the Illinois Constitution guarantee every person accused of a crime the right to present a defense to an “impartial jury.” No prosecutor or judge may waive or take away that right on behalf of a defendant.
Unfortunately, in the government's zeal to convict individuals charged with serious drug offenses, even the right to a jury trial may be compromised. Recently a federal appeals court reversed the drug conviction of a defendant after the judge ordered the jury to return a guilty verdict. While there are cases where a judge may enter such a “directed verdict” in favor of a defendant (if the prosecution presents insufficient evidence to convict) no judge should ever unilaterally convict a defendant who has pleaded not guilty and asserted his or her right to a jury trial.
An Untimely Confession
The case involved a defendant accused of conspiring to distribute cocaine and other related offenses. The defendant pleaded not guilty and demanded a jury trial. At trial, the defendant's attorney argued his client initially agreed to participate in the illegal drug conspiracy, but ultimately withdrew before any illegal drug deal took place. However, the defendant later took the stand in his own defense, against the advice of counsel, and confessed to all of the charges against him.
Study Shows Chicago Police Continue to Make Large Number of Arrests for Misdemeanor Marijuana Possession
The movement towards legalization of marijuana has gained steam in recent years with successful initiatives in Colorado and Washington state permitting residents to possess a small amount of the drug for “recreational use.” But marijuana possession remains a serious crime under federal and most state laws. In Illinois, law enforcement takes illegal marijuana use quite seriously, as detailed in one recently released study.
The Illinois Consortium on Drug Policy (ICDP), a project of Roosevelt University in Chicago, recently analyzed statewide police practices with respect to arresting and ticketing persons accused of misdemeanor marijuana possession. The ICDP found widespread inconsistencies in enforcement among localities. Over 100 Illinois cities and municipalities afford police the option of ticketing, rather than arresting, for misdemeanor marijuana possession. But this has produced a “patchwork” approach to law enforcement, according to the ICDP, leading to a system where “[g]eography, not justice, determines whether marijuana possession results in a fine or arrest.”
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.
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.
