|
Appeals Court Frees Schaumburg Manslaughter Defendant Pending Appeal
Schaumburg resident Bonnie Liltz walked out of a prison downstate today after an Illinois criminal appeals court order, The Chicago Tribune reports. A Cook County court convicted Liltz of killing her disabled adopted daughter Courtney. Liltz plead guilty to involuntary manslaughter after she gave Courtney a fatal dose of prescription medicine and then attempted to kill herself, ABC 7 Eyewitness News reports. The judge sentenced Liltz to four years in prison. After serving only 72 hours of her sentence, the appeals court ordered that Liltz could post a $5,000 bail bond pending her appeal. Liltz Killing “an Act of Mercy” Many observers of the case expected that the Cook County court would have given Liltz probation for her crime. Liltz told the court that she was facing severe medical issues herself, and acted out of fear for Courtney’s future. Advocates for Liltz described the killing as an act of mercy. It also seemed unlikely that Liltz would kill again. Liltz requires treatment for kidney problems that arose from chemotherapy for ovarian cancer several years ago. It would be difficult for her to obtain such treatments in prison. Illinois Appeals Court May Set Bail Pending Appeal It is unusual for an appeals court to grant bail to a defendant whom a lower court has sentenced to prison time. Illinois law does give the court the ability to set a higher bail or to let the original bail stand during the appeal. The appeals court has the power to review any errors that the lower court may have committed which significantly affected the rights of the defendant. If they find that such errors occurred, they can reduce the sentence, send the case back to the lower court, or overrule the conviction. Appeals Court May Reduce Liltz Sentence In a case like Bonnie Liltz’, it makes sense that the appeals court would take the unusual measure of allowing Liltz to go free on bail while her appeal is pending. Because Liltz requires specialized medical treatment, her supporters expressed concern that she would die in prison if she served her four year sentence. Given the nature of her crime, Liltz seems unlikely to kill anyone else. This means that there is little danger to allowing her to stay free on bail pending her appeal. Also, since Liltz is in poor health and requires regular medical treatment, she poses little or no flight risk. The court’s decision to grant her bail pending her appeal might also signal that the court is considering reducing her sentence to probation. Get Legal Help If you or someone you know has been wrongly convicted of a crime, you need expert legal help. Get in touch with an experienced criminal appeals attorney at Barney & Hourihane in Chicago today to get the justice you deserve. See Related Blog Posts CPD Moves to Fire 7 Cops for Lying about Davis Shooting
The Chicago Police department this week recommended firing seven officers for lying about the Laquan McDonald police shooting, according to The Washington Post. The officers made misleading statements to supervisors about McDonald’s behavior prior to the shooting, alleging amongst other things that McDonald lunged at officers with a knife before a police officer shot him. Police video that the department released after over a year of investigation showed that McDonald did not in fact lunge at officers. The department has relieved these officers of their police powers pending the review of the termination recommendation by the Chicago Police Board. Terminations Come After Chicago Chief Inspector Recommendations The Chicago Sun-Times reports that Officer Jason Van Dyke, who shot McDonald 16 times, is among the seven officers whose termination Superintendent Eddie Johnson has requested. The police dashboard camera video of the shooting shows that Van Dyke continued shooting McDonald even after McDonald fell to the ground. McDonald died of the gunshot wounds. Supt. Johnson is acting in response to a recommendation from the Chicago Inspector General that ten Chicago Police Department officers lose their jobs. Of the ten, two are already retired. The department disagrees with the Inspector General that the tenth officer should lose his job. The department is moving to terminate the officers based on their alleged violations of Rule 14, which forbids Chicago cops from giving false reports. Prosecutors charged Van Dyke with murder in November of last year. Plaintiffs in Civil Suits Against Police Can Discover Video Evidence If someone has suffered police brutality or misconduct in Illinois, they can sue the officer and their department for false arrest, assault, or other kinds of torts. But how can you prove that the officer broke the rules? In many cases it seems like it would come down to your word against that of one or more police officers. Since police officers tend to back up each other’s stories, especially in Chicago, it might seem hard to prove what really happened. It may be possible, though, if you can get the police video of the incident. During the discovery phase of a lawsuit, your lawyer can ask the court to require the police to provide access to evidence that includes video footage from police dashboard cameras and body cameras. This video might show a different side of events than the one given by the officers. Davis Family Could Have Uncovered Shooting Video In the Laquan Davis case, a report from CBS Chicago explains that the City of Chicago settled any possible wrongful death claim by Davis’ family with a $5 million settlement. One of the conditions of the settlement was that the video would remain secret for a year. If a wrongful death lawsuit had gone to court, however, the Davis family attorney would have had the chance to request discovery of any video documentation of the incident. If the video had gone before a jury, they almost certainly would have found that the officers lacked any reasonable fear for their lives that would have justified the use of force that killed Laquan Davis. Contact a Chicago Criminal Appeals Attorney If you or someone you know has been the victim of police misconduct, you need expert legal assistance. Get in touch with an experienced civil rights attorney at Barney & Hourihane in Chicago today to get the justice you deserve. See Related Blog Posts Federal District Court Overturns Brendan Dassey’s 2007 Conviction for Rape and Murder
The Eastern District Court of Michigan this past week released a decision to throw out the confession of Brendan Dassey, a Wisconsin man who has been serving a life sentence in prison after a conviction for raping and murdering a woman in 2005, according to The New York Times. Dassey was the 16-year-old learning disabled nephew of Steven Avery, who the court also sentenced to life for raping and murdering Teresa Halbach, a 25-year-old photographer. The court found that the detectives who interrogated Dassey pressured and led him to give an involuntary confession that he assisted in Avery’s rape and murder of Halbach. Without the confession, the state can either appeal the federal district court magistrate’s decision to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago, retry Dassey, or release him from prison. Dassey Investigators Used False Promises to Coerce a Confession Civil rights groups have already criticized Dassey’s conviction; he was even the subject of a Netflix original series called Making a Murderer. NBC 5 Chicago reports that the federal court magistrate found that Dassey’s investigators made false promises, and gave him the impression that he was not a suspect in the investigation and didn’t have to worry about criminal charges. Because of these misleading tactics and the fact that Dassey had a low IQ and no experience dealing with the police, the magistrate found that Dassey made an involuntary confession. Defendants May Suppress Involuntary Confessions Many criminal defendants make plea deals wherein they agree to accept a particular conviction in exchange for leniency from prosecutors. But these plea deals are different from an actual confession. A confession is when a criminal defendant to police that they committed criminal acts. Such a confession makes it very difficult for a defendant to avoid a conviction at trial. A defense lawyer may, however, exclude a confession from the trial if they can demonstrate that the defendant did not give the confession freely. The Illinois Code provides that the defense may move to suppress an involuntary confession. In determining whether or not the confession was voluntary, the court will examine the totality of the circumstances (every relevant fact), including both the nature of the interrogation and the character of the defendant. This can include how much pressure the interrogators used, the setting of the interrogation, its duration, and the age, experience and mental abilities of the defendant. Age, Intellect and Interrogation Make Dassey Confession Involuntary In Brendan Dassey’s case, the court had plenty of reasons to find that the confession was not voluntary. Dassey’s first interrogation did not result in any kind of confession. The investigators had to interrogate Dassey four times before he confessed. The investigators promised Dassey they were on his side and that he didn’t have to worry as long as he told the truth. Dassey was still a teenager at the time, had never dealt with the police, and had a borderline intelligence score. Many of the questions interrogators asked several times, and hinted strongly at what they wanted Dassey to say, even after he had changed his testimony several times. In the end, the picture emerges of investigators who manipulated a vulnerable person into telling them what they wanted to hear. Unfortunately, Dassey has already served almost a decade in prison. If he is released, it’s likely he will sue the state to compensate him for all he has suffered. Get Legal Help If you or someone you know has been wrongfully convicted, you need expert legal help. Get in touch with an experienced criminal appeals lawyer at Barney & Hourihane in Chicago today to get the justice you deserve. See Related Blog Posts Review of 2009 IPRA Decision Agrees with CPD Decision to Terminate Cops
In an appeal of an internal police misconduct decision, A state appeals court decided that two Chicago Police Department officers should lose their jobs because they assaulted a citizen while off-duty at a restaurant in 2006, according to The Cook County Record. The case was on appeal before the court after the City challenged a circuit court ruling that ordered the police department to reinstate the two former police officers involved, Jason Orsa and Brian Murphy. The Independent Police Review Authority recommended that the department fire Orsa and Murphy after they threatened and beat Chicago resident Obed DeLeon without following any threat to themselves or others. The police department fired the two after an extensive hearing in 2009. Orsa and Murphy Beat DeLeon and Violated Procedure The incident that led to this lengthy legal battle occurred at a Taco and Burrito King restaurant in Chicago. The Chicago Daily Law Bulletin reports that Orsa and Murphy along with another police officer and a non-officer friend sat at a table in front of DeLeon before pointing a service weapon at his head, pushing him against a wall and punching him repeatedly. The two later claimed that DeLeon was shouting gang slogans and threatening to kill police officers, but witnesses on the scene did not recall any such actions by DeLeon. When on-duty officers arrived, Orsa and Murphy did not make any statements that DeLeon threatened them. The officers did not file a tactical response report, which is a step that police procedure requires in police use-of-force situations. After the altercation, DeLeon filed a complaint with the Chicago Police Department’s Office of Professional Standards, which the Independent Police Review Authority replaced in 2007. IPRA Complaint Investigation Focuses on Community Relations The Independent Police Review Authority has the task of reviewing virtually all complaints of police misconduct, as well as situations that are likely to lead to such complaints. The IPRA receives complaints from Chicago citizens including excessive use of force, coercion (like when a police officer tries to force a suspect to confess), and verbal abuse of citizens on the basis of racial or other bias, by Chicago Police Department officers. They also receive notice from the department itself whenever an officer fires a service weapon or taser, or whenever there is an incident in one of the jails that the CPD administers. The Bureau of Internal Affairs (BIA) investigates all other allegations of police misconduct (like soliciting bribes or planting evidence). In this way, the IPRA acts as a kind of public relations shield for the CPD: they handle the kinds of complaints that are most likely to create political backlash against the City of Chicago. Civil Lawsuit vs. IPRA Complaint Should you take your complaint of police misconduct to the IPRA? It depends on what kind of outcome you hope to achieve. On the one hand, the IPRA can discipline an officer directly, and sometimes cause the officer to lose their job. On the other hand, the IPRA does not offer money damages to individuals who have suffered from police misconduct, such as excessive force. Also, the IPRA has a long history of being soft on police officers. While Orsa and Murphy lost their jobs, many other cops have gone unpunished or received light discipline, even for shooting suspects with little or no justification. If you hope to receive any financial compensation for injuries or distress you have suffered, and you want an unbiased hearing, you are better off suing the CPD and the City of Chicago in a court of law. Contact a Chicago Police Misconduct Attorney If you or someone you know has been the victim of police misconduct, you need expert legal help. Get in touch with an experienced civil rights lawyer at Barney & Hourihane in Chicago today to get the justice you deserve. See Related Blog Posts Police Made Arrest Based on Suspect’s Dress, Lawsuit Claims
A Muslim woman is suing the Chicago Police Department for unlawful search and other civil rights violations after they mistook her for a terrorist based on her religious dress, according to CBS News. The police officers detained Itemid Al-Matar last year on the Fourth of July as she approached a subway station. She argues that the officers stopped her because she was wearing a hijab or head scarf and face veil. Police officers handled her roughly at the subway station and later strip searched her at the police station. The police officers did not find any evidence that Al-Matar posed a threat, but charged with resisting arrest. Woman Resembled “Lone Wolf Suicide Bomber” -- Because She Wore a Backpack Ms. Al-Matar is a Saudi Arabian citizen who began studying English in the United States two years ago. Al-Matar says she was hurrying home to break her Ramadan fast when police stopped her. The Chicago Tribune reports that several officers grabbed her as she approached a CTA stop and ripped off her hijab. A security video that is now publicly available shows three officers holding a woman in a hijab down on a stair landing while two more officers stand by. The police report from the incident indicates that police officers believed Al-Matar was a “lone wolf suicide bomber” because she was holding her backpack and wearing objects that officers believed might have been “incendiary devices,” which turned out to be ankle weights. The complaint accuses the Chicago Police Department of excessive use of force, unlawful search, false arrest, the violation of Al-Matar’s freedom of religious expression, and malicious prosecution. Fourth Amendment Requires Reasonable Suspicion for Searches In most cases, a police officer needs one of three things to search or arrest someone: a valid search warrant, a valid arrest warrant, or a reasonable belief that a person has committed a crime. In order to stop and search someone, police need a reasonable suspicion that the individual has committed a crime or was in the process of committing a crime. Reasonable suspicion exists when a reasonable person would believe, based on the information available to the officer, that some kind of criminal activity was going on and that more investigation was necessary. To arrest someone, police need probable cause for arrest. Probable cause means that a reasonable person would believe, based on the information available to the police officer, that the suspect has committed a crime or is going to commit a crime. The Illinois Code provides that if an officer stops a person for questioning and then believes that they are in danger of an attack, they may search the person for any weapons. Police Likely Lacked Reasonable Suspicion to Search Al-Matar Did the officers in Al-Matar’s case violate her rights when they stopped and searched her? No one is arguing that the police officers in this case had a valid search or arrest warrant for Al-Matar. So the only argument that the search was legal is that the officers had reasonable suspicion when they detained her. Would a reasonable person believe, based on the information available to the officers, that some kind of criminal activity was going on? The evidence that officers argued provided reasonable suspicion included Al-Matar’s holding a backpack, walking briskly and wearing ankle weights. Would a reasonable person take this evidence to mean that a crime was afoot? Probably not. After all, how many people in a busy subway station are carrying backpacks or walking quickly? Without reasonable suspicion, the arrest violates Al-matar’s Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure. Get Legal Help If you or someone you know has been the victim of police misconduct, you need expert legal help. Get in touch with an experienced civil rights lawyer at Barney & Hourihane in Chicago today to get the justice you deserve. See Related Blog Posts Video Shows Officers Firing into O’Neal’s Car
The Chicago Police Department has decided to release video footage from the body camera of one of the officers involved in the police shooting of Paul O’Neal, an unarmed black teen, according to The Chicago Tribune. The department released the video footage on Friday, August 5. The shooting occurred on July 28, after O’Neal crashed a stolen Jaguar into the vehicles of multiple police officers who were pursuing him. Officers first shot into the stolen vehicle. Then, after O’Neal attempted to flee the scene on foot, one of the officers pursued him on foot as well and shot him in the back. O’Neal died of the gunshot. He was unarmed. Body Camera Footage from Shooter Still Missing The New York Times reports that the video footage of the police shooting that the department released on August 5 comes from the body camera of one of the police officers that was in a car that O’Neal struck with the Jaguar. The footage shows the Jaguar striking the police vehicle, then driving around the stopped vehicle, almost running over one of the police officers. The officer with the body camera gets out of the car and begins shooting at the Jaguar as it drives away. The body camera footage that the department released does not show the officer shooting O’Neal in the back. It does, however, show that the officers handcuffed O’Neal after he sustained the mortal gunshot wound and left him prone on the ground after the shooting. The police department states that they are investigating why the body camera of the officer who shot O’Neal did not capture the footage of the fatal shooting. Police Violated Procedure in O’Neal Shooting The Chicago Police Department has already stated that it appears that the officers violated police department policy during the events surrounding the shooting. Police use of force guidelines prohibit police from firing into a moving vehicle if the danger of the moving vehicle itself is the only threat to the police officers at the time. Illinois law allows police to fire at a fleeing suspect if they have a reason to believe that the suspect poses an immediate threat to the officers or the public. The video captured one of the officers stating that he believed that the suspect had fired at the officers, but neither the video nor any official police department statement indicates that O’Neal had a gun. O’Neal’s Family Suing City for Wrongful Death Because O’Neal was unarmed and running away on foot when he was shot, and because he was running away from officers when one of them shot him in the back, it seems that there is no real argument that he posed a threat to the officers at the time they shot him. If O’Neal was unarmed, then it also seems likely that he accomplished the theft of the Jaguar without using force. Although Illinois law allows officers to fire at a fleeing suspect if they believe the suspect has committed a forcible felony (a felony that included the use of violence, like a carjacking), this exception does not seem to apply in this case. A lawyer for the family of O’Neal have filed a wrongful death lawsuit in federal court. The lawsuit seeks money damages from the City of Chicago to compensate the family for the killing of O’Neal. The lawyer for the family believes that the police officer intentionally disabled his body camera before shooting O’Neal. Contact a Chicago Police Misconduct Attorney If you or someone you know has been the victim of police brutality, you need expert legal help fast. Get in contact with an experienced civil rights attorney at Barney & Hourihane in Chicago today to get the justice you deserve. See Related Blog Posts Court of Appeals Threw Out Several Corruption Counts
A criminal appeals court is set to hear arguments in the resentencing hearing for former governor Rod Blagojevich on August 9, according to The Associated Press. The court will decide whether to reduce the sentence of 14 years in prison that a federal district court handed down in 2011. Blagojevich originally received the sentence after the district court convicted him of 18 counts of corruption. Last year, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals threw out five of the counts of corruption that the district court conviction contained. Blagojevich has already served four years of the original sentence. His lawyers will argue that the sentence should be reduced to five years total, leaving only one more year. District Court Convicted Blagojevich of Attempting to Sell Senate Seat CNN reports that the corruption charges that the criminal appeal deals with originated from Blagojevich’s attempt to sell Barack Obama’s vacant senate seat in 2008. The counts included wire fraud, extortion, attempted extortion, and conspiracy to solicit bribes. When Barack Obama won the 2008 election and became the next President of the United States, he resigned from his post as United States Senator from Illinois in the middle of his term. The Illinois Constitution allows the Governor of Illinois to appoint a replacement senator in this situation. Blagojevich sought an appointee who would agree to provide some form of kickback, including contributions to Blagojevich’s campaign, appointing him to a lucrative non-profit post, or appointing his wife to a corporate board. Federal Appellate Courts Have Broad Authority to Change Convictions If a federal court convicts a defendant of a crime, the defendant can appeal to a federal appeals court. The court can hear any errors that the district court committed during the original trial if those errors substantially affected the rights of the defendant. The appeals court can send the case back to the district court with instructions for retrying the case, or it can directly change the outcome by reducing the sentence, throwing out specific counts, or even reversing the whole conviction. Bad Jury Instructions Led Court to Throw Out Convictions As The Chicago Tribune points out, some of the corruption counts that the appeals court threw out were related to Blagojevich’s attempt to sell Obama’s senate seat. The problem with these convictions was that the instructions to the jury in the original federal district court trial were not sufficiently specific. The instructions to the jury for whether or not Blagojevich was guilty of attempting to sell Obama’s senate seat would have treated all kickbacks alike, but the appeals court ruled that only specific kinds of kickbacks (like the award of private sector jobs) would count as crimes. The appeals court threw out the convictions that used vague jury instructions. Now the district court has to decide whether this change in the convictions means that Blagojevich should serve less time. Get Legal Help If you or someone you know has been wrongfully convicted of a crime, you need expert legal help. Get in touch with an experienced criminal appeals attorney at Barney & Hourihane in Chicago today to get the justice you deserve. See Related Blog Posts Officers Relieved of Police Powers after Shooting
The Chicago police officer who shot an unarmed teenager in the back last week was wearing a body camera, but the camera was not recording at the time of the police shooting, The Chicago Tribune reports. The Chicago Police Department is investigating why the camera did not capture the event, says department spokesperson Anthony Guglielmi. Initial investigations into the shooting indicated that the three officers involved violated department policy; the officers have had to turn in their badges. Police Officer Shot Fleeing O’Neal in Back The shooting occurred last Thursday, July 28th, after 18-year-old Paul O’Neal crashed a car into two police vehicles in Chicago’s South Side. The owner of the car, a Jaguar, reported the vehicle stolen. Two of the officers in the vehicles opened fire at O’Neal as he was still in the Jaguar. After crashing the car, O’Neal attempted to flee the scene on foot. According to The Wall Street Journal, the Jaguar sideswiped the first police vehicle and hit the second one while it was parked. A third officer who was in one of the police vehicles chased O’Neal on foot and shot him to death. The Cook County medical examiner stated that bullets struck O’Neal in the back. Footage from vehicle-mounted cameras captured parts of the incident, including police shooting at O’Neal while he was in the Jaguar. But the body camera of the officer who killed O’Neal did not capture the fatal shooting. More Chicago Cops Wearing Body Cameras The Chicago Police department began to use police body cameras and vehicle dashboard cameras in 2015. In response to recent high-profile police shootings and increased legal scrutiny, the department has increased its use of the cameras in recent months. Police officers now use the cameras in seven different police districts in Chicago, primarily on the South Side. Department policy requires police to release camera footage of police shootings within 60 days, with the option for the police department to seek a 30-day extension. Chicago Police Department May Be Liable for Wrongful Death In 2015, the Chicago Police Department revised its use-of-force policy to prohibit firing at a moving vehicle. The department’s Independent Police Review Authority recently released recommendations that would narrow the situations in which police can use force, especially against fleeing suspects. Illinois state law allows police to fire at a fleeing suspect if they believe that the suspect has committed a forcible felony. The recommendation would change the policy to prohibit firing at a fleeing felon unless the officer has reason to believe that the suspect poses an immediate danger to the officer or someone else. In a case like the O’Neal shooting, police may have already suspect O’Neal of stealing the Jaguar. If the theft involved the use of force (for example, if O’Neal had committed an armed carjacking), this suspicion may have allowed the officers to fire at O’Neal as he fled the scene under current state law. O’Neal also crashed the Jaguar into the police vehicles. If officers suspected that O’Neal intentionally crashed the car in an attempt to injure the officers, this may also have qualified as a forcible felony. If the cash was an accident, on the other hand, it would likely not count as a forcible felony. If the officers shot O’Neal in violation of state law, the officers and the department may be liable for damages in a wrongful death lawsuit. Chicago Criminal Rights Law If you or someone you know has been the victim of police brutality, you need expert legal help immediately. Contact an experienced civil rights lawyer at Barney & Hourihane today to get the justice you deserve. See Related Blog Posts Lawyer Argues for Exclusion of Canine Evidence A criminal appeals lawyer for an Aurora man is appealing his 2013 conviction for murder, arguing that the trial court should not have allowed some of the evidence in the trial, The Chicago Tribune reports. A jury convicted the man, Aurelio Montano, of murdering his wife. The wife, Maria Guadalupe, died in 1990. Montano’s lawyer argues that the trial judge should have excluded testimony about the use of dogs to search for the wife’s body. Montano, who is 60 years old, was already serving a prison sentence for two other murders in Aurora in 1996. Police Dogs Found Rug with Scent of Cadaver, but No Body Prosecutors charged Montano in 2008 with murdering his wife, Montano family members found a rug buried on the farm where they Aurelio Montano and his wife had lived and worked. Police investigators connected interviews with different family members that seemed to indicate that Montano had disposed of Maria Guadalupe’s body after she vanished. During the trial, the prosecutors also introduced testimony regarding dogs that police used to search for Maria Guadalupe’s body. They testified that the dogs found the scent of a human cadaver on a rug and in the hole where the rug was buried. Testimony from the family indicated that Aurelio Montano may have wrapped Guadalupe’s body in the rug before burying her. Montano’s lawyer argues that the judge should not have allowed the testimony about the dogs to come before the jury because there was not enough scientific evidence to show that the dogs were able to detect the scent of a dead body. Without such scientific evidence, the lawyer argues, the canine testimony is “unduly prejudicial”—that is, it distorts the jury’s perception of events without really proving anything. He also argued that, because police never found a dead body, there was not sufficient evidence to prove that anyone killed Maria Guadalupe. The state criminal appeals prosecutor argues in response that scientific research has established the ability of trained canines to locate the scent of a cadaver. According to The Guardian, the kind of dogs used to investigate Maria Guadalupe Montano’s disappearance cannot naturally detect the scent of a cadaver; police canine trainers must teach them how to do it. When Courts Allow Prejudicial Evidence, Defendants can Appeal Rule 403 of the Illinois Rules of Evidence states: “Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” In Illinois, a defendant may appeal a criminal conviction to the Illinois Appellate Court. On appeal, the convicted person’s lawyer may point out any errors that may have significantly affected the defendant’s rights in the original trial. This includes occasions where the trial judge violated rules of evidence by allowing testimony which the judge should have excluded. If the judge determines that the judge should have excluded the evidence and that the inclusion of the evidence seriously changed the outcome of the trial, the judge can order the trial court to retry the case, or even reverse the conviction. Contact a Chicago Criminal Appeals Lawyer If you or someone you know has been wrongfully convicted of a crime, you need expert legal help. Get in touch with an experienced criminal appeals lawyer at Barney & Hourihane today to find out more about your options. See Related Blog Posts |
Authors
Archives
May 2019
Categories
All
|
RSS Feed