Title IX of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 states that “No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” Sadly, the civil rights of students are violated every day, even here in Chicago. Northwestern University has recently come under fire for such violations, according to CBS Chicago. A student was sexually assaulted in her dorm room in 2015 by an alumni. Despite going to the authorities, no charges were pressed due to lack of evidence. She had to pay out of pocket to switch dorm rooms and change classes, as her professors were unwilling to work with her in order to meet deadlines for papers and exams. Without anywhere to turn for support, she filed a Title IX civil rights complaint against the university.
To What and Whom Does Title IX Apply? The Office for Civil Rights (OCR) enforces, among other things, Title IX, which was adopted in 1972 to ensure that women were given the same rights and opportunities as men within any federally funded education program. As such, Title IX applies to 16,500 local school districts and 7,000 postsecondary educational institutions. It also applies to for-profit schools, vocational rehabilitation agencies, charter schools, libraries, education agencies among all 50 states and territories of the U.S., and even museums. Anyone who attends an educational program, such as the examples listed above, is protected under Title IX from sexuall discrimination and has the right to seek legal action if their rights are violated. Some of the following are education administrative obligations and key components that must be addressed by Title IX in order to prevent sexual discrimination:
Simply stated, if women are not given the same treatment and opportunities as men, their rights under Title IX may have been violated. Moreover, retaliation against an individual for standing up to an unlawful practice or what they believed to be an unlawful practice, under Title IX, is strictly prohibited, similar to the laws of workplace retaliation under the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The Office for Civil Rights, under the Department of Education, investigates and helps to resolve complaints and allegations of sexual discrimination. However, if your civil rights have been violated in any way, we strongly urge you to speak with an attorney as soon as possible. It is not necessary to file a complaint with the OCR in order to file a lawsuit against the negligent party itself. We can help you achieve a sense of justice and repair damages caused to you through financial compensation. If in any way your civil rights were violated under the protection of Title IX, please do not hesitate to contact the experienced Chicago civil rights attorneys of Barney and Hourihane at 312-854-0906 today for immediate assistance. Watch enough television and movies and you will know about the Miranda rights. Every fictional police officer repeats them when taking a suspect into custody. Stemming from the 1966 landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States, Miranda v. Arizona, many people can recite the warnings by heart.
“You have the right to remain silent. Anything you do say may be used against you in a court of law.” “You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed to you by the court.” “Do you understand your rights as they have been conveyed to you?” Once the police take you into custody or for questioning, they must read you your rights as above. They are not allowed to continue questioning or hold you in custody without first warning you of your rights. There are no exact words needed, only the substance of the rights need be explained. The Miranda rights are a protection under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. They are enforceable in all U.S. jurisdictions, including Will County, Illinois. The Miranda ruling is not absolute. There is a public safety exception. The Miranda rights can be waived at any time by a suspect in custody. This may be accomplished by merely continuing to answer police questions. To be sure, most police departments will employ a written waiver. It is always best for a suspect to specifically state their intention to utilize their rights and not to waive them. According to recent case law, any ambiguity on the subject favors the police. Put Them into Practice When encountering the police, always remember your Miranda rights. They may be the difference in saving yourself from getting into more trouble. If you find yourself in police custody or under questioning, don’t do or say anything without first considering your constitutionally protected rights. Make sure to invoke your Miranda rights. You don’t want to make a mistake and do something that may be considered a waiver of your rights. You don’t want to say something that may be later used against you. Keep silent under questioning. Too many people make the mistake of trying to talk their way out of trouble. Your failure to speak may not be used against you in a court of law. In fact, as the Miranda rights state, the opposite is true. What you do say can be used against you in court. Get Legal Help Do not be afraid of looking guilty by requesting an attorney. It is the smart, not guilty, thing to do. Your attorney will be able to negotiate with the police regarding your release from custody and/or other matters. Always remember your right to remain silent and your right to an attorney. If in any way your civil rights were violated do not hesitate to contact the experienced Chicago civil rights attorneys of Barney and Hourihane at 312-854-0906 today for immediate assistance. A few months ago police dashboard footage was released of a white police officer killing a black teenager. In the video, taken in October, 2014, the officer, Jason Van Dyke, shot a black teenager, Laquan McDonald, 16 times. Van Dyke was charged with first-degree murder after the footage was released, and posted a $1.5 million bail last November.
Footage Release There have been many questions about why the footage was not released for such a long time. The footage was only made public after a judge ordered it be released. The order was the result of a lawsuit brought by a journalist, who argued that the video was in the public record. The city argued that release of the footage would compromise a federal investigation and a probe by the state’s attorney, but the judge ruled for the journalist. The officer in the video has a history of complaints made against him, though he was cleared in nearly all of them. Most of the complaints alleged excessive force, with one allegation of a racial slur. But there have been no apparent criminal proceedings brought against him until recently, when the footage was released. Call for Resignation In the midst of rallies and protests, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel has asked Chicago Police Superintendent Garry McCarthy to resign. He cited shaken trust in police, stating that police officers are not effective if they are not trusted. Mayor Emanuel stated that he asked for McCarthy’s resignation in order to confront the challenges facing the police department. He then described a new task force on police accountability, formed to review the training and oversight of the city’s police officers. University of Chicago Threat The call for McCarthy’s resignation is not the only major event facing the city as a result of this recent shooting. A 21-year-old student was arrested Monday, November 30, for allegedly threatening to kill students and staff at the University of Chicago in revenge for McDonald’s death. This student reportedly posted the threat on social media, saying that he was going to kill 16 white male students to correspond with the number of times McDonald was “killed,” then die himself, killing as many white police officers as possible in the process. In response to the threat, the university closed its Hyde Park campus, cancelling all classes and activities, asking students and nonessential staff to stay away from campus, and asking students in on-campus housing to stay indoors. The aforementioned student has been charged with transmitting a threat in interstate commerce, an offense punishable by up to five years in prison. If you have been arrested for or charged with a criminal offense, you need experienced legal representation to help you defend your rights. Please contact the skilled Chicago civil rights attorneys at Barney & Hourihane for a free initial consultation Tribune Report Covers Hundreds of Shootings Since 2011
The Chicago Tribune has released never-before-seen data about Chicago Police Department officers and police shootings over the last six years, covering over 400 shootings. The paper was able to acquire information about the shootings, including the shooters and victims, after a long legal battle with the City of Chicago. The report shows that officers fired over 2,000 bullets over the six year period, injured their targets in over two hundred instances, and killed 92 people. As WGN-TV 9 points out, the report shows that about four in five of the victims of these police shootings were black. Most Police Shootings on South and West Sides The sheer scale of police violence in the city of Chicago is staggering. There are more police shootings in Chicago than in any other American city, including Los Angeles and New York. The picture that the data provides is complex. Not only were most of the victims of shootings minorities, but also a majority of the police officers who shot them. The vast majority of the shootings occurred in Chicago’s South and West Sides, while some neighborhoods, such as The Town Hall District (which includes part of Uptown, Wrigleyville, part of Lakeview, Lincoln Square and part of Lincoln Park) had zero police shootings. Minority Cops Can Be Guilty of Racial Profiling One question that the statistics that The Chicago Tribune has compiled and release raise is, “Is it still racial profiling if a minority police officer does it?” It’s worth thinking about the legal answer to this question. Racial profiling by police most often occurs when a police officer chooses to detain, search, or arrest a suspect on the basis of their race or ethnicity. The United States Supreme Court has ruled that it is a violation of the suspect’s constitutional rights if a police officer stops and searches them on the sole basis of their race. The court’s reasoning was that police need a reasonable basis for suspicion before they stop and search someone. The court did not make a distinction between white cops and minority cops: this rule applies to every police officer. So even if a police officer is black or Hispanic, they can’t stop, question or search you just because of the color of your skin. Chicago Cops Can’t Stop, Search or Shoot on the Basis of Race How does this rule apply to the patterns that The Chicago Tribune has published? It seems clear that police officers are much more likely to stop, question, and shoot at black men than any other category of person in Chicago. While in some cases they may have a reasonable suspicion, in many cases they may only be approaching a suspect because the suspect is a black man. Several of the victims of police shootings in Chicago over the six year period have successfully sued the City. Regardless of the officer’s race, they need a reasonable basis for their suspicions, not just where you live or how you look. Get Legal Help If you or someone you know has been the victim of police misconduct, you need expert legal advice. 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 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 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 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 |
Archives
May 2019
Categories
All
|