The typical course of a criminal case in Illinois is arrest, arraignment, court appearances, and finally a trial. At trial, both the state and the defendant offer evidence about the case, and then the jury renders a verdict. If the jury is convinced of the defendant’s guilt, he or she is convicted of the crime. Whether the case is a misdemeanor like theft or driving under the influence, or felony such as robbery or murder, all cases go through this process. But just because the jury has come to a verdict, that doesn’t necessarily mean the case is over. Defendants are entitled to pursue a review of their convictions before the Court of Appeals of Illinois.
Grounds to Appeal a Criminal Conviction in Illinois Broadly speaking, a criminal appeal in Illinois must show one of two things. The defendant must show the appellate court that either the trial court committed a serious error that caused a wrongful conviction, or that the evidence was not sufficient to support the verdict. Examples of a serious error on the part of the trial court include admitting a piece of evidence that was illegally obtained by police, or misinterpreting case law when ruling on a motion by the defendant. Often, these errors are quite obvious to attorneys. However, demonstrating that evidence was not sufficient to support the verdict is a much tougher argument on appeal. The court of appeals is quite deferential to the verdicts of juries. However, as the recent reversal of a murder conviction and 26-year prison sentence shows, the court is willing to vacate convictions for serious crimes when there is clearly not enough evidence in the record to support a conviction. Pursuing a Sentencing Appeal in the State of Illinois One other basis for appeal is not to seek a reversal of the conviction, but instead to seek a change in the sentence. Criminal sentences in Illinois are based on a variety of factors. All statutes state a maximum punishment, but judges decide on the appropriateness of a specific sentence based on additional factors, such as prior criminal history, previous convictions for the same crime, as well as mitigating factors such as provocation. Judges will sometimes misinterpret these guidelines, resulting in a sentence much lengthier than what is appropriate given a defendant’s crime and background. In these cases, the only recourse a defendant has is to seek a review of the sentence by a higher court that can reduce it. Contact a Chicago Defense Lawyer Going through the criminal justice system is difficult enough. It’s even worse if you put your trust in the system only to be convicted due to an error. You do not need to tolerate a wrongful conviction on your record or an excessive sentence. An experienced appellate attorney can petition the Illinois Court of Appeals to have your conviction vacated or sentence reduced. For more information, contact the Chicago offices of Barney & Hourihane today for a consultation. Audio and video surveillance of police officers while on duty should substantially reduce reports of police misconduct in Chicago. However, time and time again, police have not reported it to their superiors when dashcams are not properly working, or they have failed to upload footage when their shifts end, as departments require. These oversights have made it difficult, if not impossible, to determine whether police are violating the civil rights of innocent Chicago residents. However, the city of Chicago is now finally getting more serious about pursuing cases of police misconduct in the city by using a $1.1 million grant from the U.S. Department of Justice to purchase more than 450 body cameras for Chicago police officers.
How Chicago Police Will use the New Body Cams The use of body cams by Chicago police officers began in 2015 as part of a pilot program. Initially confined only to Logan Square and West Town, the new body cameras will also be used by police officers in Washington Park, Hyde Park, and Kenwood, among other neighborhoods. All in all, officers on patrol in about one-third of the city should be outfitted with body cams when the new cameras arrive later this spring. Officers will be required to upload any footage taken by the cams to department computers at the end of each shift. Police officers on patrol have expressed some concerns that the cameras are an invasion of privacy, however, rather than infringing on the rights of police officers, anecdotal evidence offered by city officials indicates that complaints against police officers have dropped dramatically in the Shakespeare District where the cameras have been used by officers for more than a year now. Some city officials have also said that the cameras are a way for police officers to rebuild trust with the community. While the city of Chicago hasn’t released any statistics on the use of body cameras, these stories seem to confirm the results of a 2014 study in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology which found that when police officers are required to wear body cams while on duty, force is used in the course of duty 50 percent less often, and complaints against police are reduced by 90 percent. Put simply, body cams work at reducing incidents of police misconduct, and should police officers violate the rights of citizens, these cameras can provide invaluable evidence for pursuing and ultimately resolving a civil rights lawsuit. Contact a Defense Lawyer Spurred by near-daily reports of excessive force, police departments around the country and in Illinois are finally getting serious about police misconduct. Requiring every police officer to wear a body cam while on duty will go a long way toward reducing police misconduct in Chicago, but it won’t completely eliminate it, or help those who have already been victimized by it. If your civil rights have been violated by police misconduct, you’re entitled to seek relief through the judicial system. For more information, contact the Chicago offices of Barney & Hourihane today for a consultation. A video released last year showing Chicago police officers shooting a 17-year-old 16 times has continually raised questions about the actions of Chicago police and spurned thousands of Chicagoans to take to the streets to protest against police misconduct. As a result of the public outcry that the video has caused, Chicago’s mayor last year set up a Police Accountability Task Force to issue a report on how reforms can be instituted that will reduce instances of police misconduct and hold officers who do violate the civil rights of suspects accountable for their actions.
Earlier this month, a near-final draft of the report was released to Chicago media. Its findings are both deeply disturbing about the department’s current state of affairs, yet optimistic about how it can be improved. Report Finds Long History of Chicago Police Misconduct The report characterizes recent protests against police misconduct not as a reaction to the release of a single video, but as the final result of decades of forced confessions, physical, and verbal abuse that police officers have directed against minority suspects in Chicago. Despite years of complaints about these incidents, the city has done little to rein in the abuses of some police officers. Task Force Recommends Civilian Oversight of Chicago Police So how can the city of Chicago fix a badly broken police department? According to task force’s report, the first step is to disband the department’s Independent Police Review Authority, a badly funded and understaffed agency that is responsible for investigating misconduct of Chicago police officers. Yet despite this organization’s important function, the task force found that in recent years IPRA hasn’t even been able to fully investigate 40 percent of the complaints that come before it. And there is no system in place to hold IPRA accountable for its decisions. The task force recommends that the city of Chicago replace IPRA with a transparent Civilian Police Investigative Agency that can better investigate complaints of police misconduct. The report also criticizes the city’s current collective bargaining agreement with the police department, which, in tandem with state law, bars anonymous complaints about officers and requires signed affidavits to pursue claims of misconduct. Time will tell whether the city of Chicago takes action to implement the recommendations of the task force, but overhauling IPRA and the department’s collective bargaining agreement would be welcome steps toward remedying Chicago’s rampant police misconduct problem. Need Legal Help? The results of the Police Accountability Task Force’s report show that there are serious problems with how the Chicago Police Department treats many suspects, and how allegations of police misconduct are handled. In many cases, the only way for a suspect to protect his civil rights and receive compensation for injuries sustained while in police custody is to file a civil rights lawsuit. An experienced civil rights attorney can help you pursue your case against the Chicago Police Department. For more information, contact the Chicago offices of Barney & Hourihane today for a consultation. A recent settlement illustrates how an attorney knowledgeable about police misconduct can help suspects who have been mistreated by police receive compensation for injuries caused by misbehaving law enforcement officers. In early April, the city of Chicago announced that it had settled a lawsuit with a man who accused Chicago police of using excessive force against him for $4.9 million.
The Philip Coleman Lawsuit In the lawsuit filed in federal court, the family of a deceased man recounted how in 2012 he died shortly after he was taken into custody by Chicago police officers following a mental health episode at home. An autopsy discovered that the man’s entire body was covered in bruises and he had experienced severe physical trauma. A video of the man’s time in Cook County jail soon came to light, showing how he was dragged from his cell, Tasered repeatedly, and beaten with a baton by a Chicago police officer. The officer’s supervisor did nothing to stop what a federal judge called unnecessary “brute force.” In depositions, other officers who witnessed the incident stated that the officer’s supervisor could have easily ordered the use of brute force stopped, and that the man could have easily been carried out of his cell, rather than dragged out. With the introduction of uncontroverted video evidence showing Chicago police badly beating this man with provocation, the city saw no choice but to settle the case for nearly $5 million rather than risk a lawsuit where a jury award could have potentially been even higher. A Victory for Opponents of Police Misconduct Winning a civil victory over Illinois police is not easy, as officers have “qualified immunity” that requires plaintiffs show that any injury caused by the police wasn’t just negligent, but “willful and wanton conduct.” This means showing that the conduct of the police could not have possibly served any need to protect the public. The case resulting in a $4.9 million verdict for a man who died while in the custody of the Chicago Police Department was one such clear case of willful and wanton conduct, as the video evidence showed. Many other cases of police misconduct are not nearly as egregious, but the fact remains that any injury caused by police officers who are in dereliction of their duties should be compensated. This latest case shows that with more attention than ever paid to police misconduct in Chicago, the city is now more willing to settle these cases. Need Legal Help? Holding police liable for misconduct is not easy. The department, police union, and the city behind them will do everything in their power to stand up for officers and fight allegations that police broke the law. But this recent case out of Chicago shows that with an attorney knowledgeable about civil rights on your side, you can be compensated for damages sustained as a result of police misconduct. For more information, contact the Chicago offices of Barney & Hourihane today for a consultation. The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution protects U.S. citizens from unlawful search and seizure by law enforcement officers, but the definition of what exactly constitutes an illegal search has changed quite a bit in the past few decades. Perhaps no change has had greater ramifications on how the average person interacts with police than Terry stops.
What is a Terry Stop? Terry stops, also known as stop and frisks get their name from the 1968 U.S. Supreme Court case Terry v.Ohio. The case involved a police officer stopping and frisking two men he suspected of pickpocketing. The officer located concealed weapons on the men, and at trial they moved to suppress the evidence as illegally obtained. When the case reached the Supreme Court, the justices held that police may detain individuals who they have a reasonable suspicion are involved in criminal activity. The Court also held that police may pat down the outer garments of a suspect if there is a reasonable and articulable suspicion that the suspect is armed and dangerous. When is a Terry Stop Illegal? The first limitation on Terry stops is that police must have reasonable suspicion to initiate them. More often than not, however, it is questionable whether police in Illinois properly initiate Terry stops. The ACLU of Illinois found that in 2014 Chicago police stopped and likely frisked more than 250,000 people, but made no arrests and issued no citations from these stops. The second limitation on Terry stops is that police are not automatically entitled to go on a fishing expedition for contraband. If a weapon or drugs are obviously discovered in the course of a stop and frisk, this evidence is admissible in court, but police may not conduct a lengthy and intrusive pat down to search for these items. Police are limited to a pat down that would discover a weapon. Finally, while there is no set time limit on how long a Terry stop may last, with courts instead relying on a reasonableness standard, police are not authorized to engage in a Terry stop that lasts for hours upon hours. At some point the police must determine whether the stop has given them probable cause to make an arrest. If no probable cause exists, the suspect must be released. A Terry stop must meet all of these requirements in order to produce evidence that is admissible in court. If the stop is lacking in any of these ways, it may be grounds to dismiss the charges or have a conviction set aside on appeal. Need Legal Help? While the police are responsible for protecting the public, that never gives them the right to violate the civil rights of innocent civilians. If police inappropriately performed a Terry Stop on you or held you for an excessively long period of time in order to discover evidence against you, you may have a viable legal claim for to seek an appeal of your conviction. For more information, contact the Chicago offices of Barney & Hourihane today for a consultation. It’s long been settled that the government can force a defendant to turn over property associated with a crime, but in recent years prosecutors have tried to grab more and more property from defendants who have not been convicted of any crime. And often it hasn’t matter whether that property is associated with any crime either. If that sounds wrong to you, it’s rubbed many defense and appellate attorneys the wrong way too, and last week the U.S. Supreme Court put the brakes on the practice by holding that the state cannot order a defendant to forfeit money that has nothing to do with an alleged crime.
Luis v. United States and the Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel In Luis v. United States, the defendant was accused of running a massive $45 million scheme between her two companies to defraud Medicare. However, by the time an indictment was brought against her, she only had $2 million in assets. The government moved to freeze these assets as “"property of equivalent value.” A district judge granted this petition, effectively leaving the defendant destitute and unable to afford the attorney of her choice. The issue is that even the government admitted that the money it sought to freeze wasn’t directly connected to the alleged criminal activity. As the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right to counsel of the defendant’s choice, a plurality of Supreme Court justices took issue with the government’s action. By cutting off access to all funds for the defendant, she was unable to defend herself as she wished, with money that was legally obtained. The justices went out of their way to point out that this holding still doesn’t apply to assets connected to a crime. For example, the government still order the forfeiture of money believed to be taken in the course of a bank robbery, but the government cannot seize a bank account completely unconnected to any crime. The final vote of the Court was 5-3, with four justices backing one analysis of cases such as this, and the fifth justice writing in favor of a slightly different test. While this could lead to circuit splits down the line, the general law of the land is now that a court cannot freeze money that is unconnected to a crime, as it deprives a defendant of the counsel of his or her choice. Even though this case went through the federal courts, it also now applies to state criminal cases through the Fourteenth Amendment, so Illinois courts will be required to follow this precedent. Need Legal Help? Luis is now the law of the land, and makes it harder for prosecutors to seize money before a trial commences. This means you may now be eligible to have money returned to you while your case is pending, or you could possibly file an appeal of a previous order to forfeit assets to the state. For more information, contact the Chicago offices of Barney & Hourihane today for a consultation. A recent Illinois Supreme Court illustrates how prosecutors can overcharge crimes, resulting in harsh penalties for minor infractions, but that an experienced appellate attorney can have these charges reduced or even thrown out by challenging the interpretation of a statute.
People v. Bradford The case in question People v. Bradford, in which a defendant was accused of stealing from a Walmart in Bloomington, Illinois. The defendant allegedly took two DVDs from the electronics section and returned them at the customer service for a gift card. He was accused of then taking a hat and shoes without paying for them and using the fraudulently obtained gift card to pay for the purchase of a friend who ran from the store when police arrived. If that sounds like a pretty clear cut case of shoplifting to you, that’s because it is. Each day, hundreds of people are charged with misdemeanors for similar crimes. In Illinois, such crimes are defined as retail theft, and punishable by up to a year in prison, but usually just result in probation. However, in this case, prosecutors sought to charge the defendant with burglary, a felony that he was ultimately convicted of. Under 720 ILCS 5/19-1, burglary is defined as “when without authority he or she knowingly enters or without authority remains within a building… with intent to commit therein a felony or theft.” The classic example of a burglary is of course someone breaking into a home or building at night when no one is around to steal cash or valuables. But in this case, prosecutors attempted to extend the meaning of burglary to argue that the defendant was within the Walmart “without authority” once he improperly obtained the gift card from the store. They argued that anything he took after this, such as the shoes and hats, amounted to a burglary. Both the trial court and the appellate court sided with the state. The problem with this argument was that the state could never pinpoint exactly when the defendant lost his authority to be in the store. No employee approached the defendant until after he attempted to take the items of clothing. He was only within the store during business hours. He was never accused of entering the store when it closed or accessing a part of it that wasn’t normally open to the public. The Illinois Supreme Court saw that this argument made no sense as it would then become impossible to distinguish a burglary from a retail theft, two crimes that the legislature has clearly intended to be charged separately. The defendant’s conviction was reversed, and if he faces additional charges related to the incident, they will be much less serious than burglary. Contact a Chicago Criminal Appeals Lawyer Prosecutors make mistakes, and sometimes those mistakes mean that defendants face lengthy punishments that are unnecessary and unfair. An appellate attorney can review your case and determine whether you have grounds to have your criminal conviction reversed. For more information, contact Barney & Hourihane today for a consultation. The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states that “no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." The founding fathers were so concerned with the right to privacy and preventing law enforcement from barging into private residences for any reason that they clearly enshrined it in the Constitution. While the Fourth Amendment still guides how police officers in the 21st century obtain warrants, courts have interpreted the amendment to allow for several exceptions over the years, so it’s important to understand when the actions of police and have or have not violated constitutional protections.
How Police Obtain Warrants As outlined in the Fourth Amendment, police officers today still obtain search warrants by providing information to a neutral and detached magistrate that either through their own observations or from information provided by witnesses or a confidential informant, they have probable cause to believe criminal activity is occurring at a specific place. If these requirements aren’t met, the warrant is not valid. Once issued, police can only search the place described in the warrant. If the warrant is only for a backyard of a home and not the home itself, police are restricted to only search the backyard. When It’s Not Necessary for Police to Obtain a Warrant While police in Illinois need a warrant to conduct most types of searches, courts have recognized the following exceptions to the warrant requirement: · Consent- If police ask you if they can take a look around your home, you are consenting to a search without a warrant. You may limit the area of the home that police search, but courts have some discretion in determining just how far that limitation goes. You may also refuse to consent to a search. Refusing to consent to search alone does not give police probable cause to search a home. · Plain View- If you open your door to speak with police and illegal contraband is in plain view of the officer when the door is opened, police do not need permission to enter your residence to confiscate the contraband. · In Connection with an Arrest- Police may search the immediate area of an arrest, or conduct a sweep of a residence if they believe an accomplice may be hiding therein. However, the purpose of this sweep must be to protect others, not to search for evidence. · Emergency- If police reasonably believe a person is in danger or evidence related to a lawful arrest may be destroyed if they take the time to properly obtain a warrant, they may enter a residence without a warrant for the purpose of public safety. Contact a Chicago Defense Lawyer The right to be free of a warrantless search in America is sacrosanct. If you believe that police officers in Illinois have violated your right to illegally obtain evidence against you, an experienced attorney can petition a court to have this evidence suppressed. For more information, contact the Chicago offices of Barney & Hourihane today for a consultation. If a trial court has refused to allow an eyewitness expert to testify at your criminal trial, it may be grounds to appeal for a new trial according to a decision that came down earlier this year from the Illinois Supreme Court. While eyewitness experts have long been considered important witnesses who are regularly allowed to testify in other states and federal court, it wasn’t until this recent decision that the highest court in the state recognized that judges also need to allow these experts into Illinois courtrooms
People v. Lerma Overturns Longstanding Illinois Precedent People v. Lerma was an appeal from a first-degree murder conviction from the city of Chicago. The victim was shot and killed outside of his home. Before dying, the victim, as well as a friend who was with him identified the defendant as the shooter by a nickname. While testifying before a grand jury, the friend stated that she recognized the defendant because she had seen him across the street about ten times, but at the jury trial she admitted that in fact she had only seen him a couple times in the past. Other than her witness identification, there was no evidence to link the defendant to the murder. The defendant sought to have two experts in eyewitness identification testify at trial, but the Cook County court refused to allow the experts to testify on the grounds that the witness had previously known the defendant. This was somewhat in line with a prior case, People v Enis, in which the Illinois Supreme Court urged lower courts to use caution before allowing eyewitness experts to testify at trial. But in Lerma, the Illinois Supreme Court noted that the Enis decision came down 25 years ago when eyewitness expert testimony was a fledgling field and its reliability was unclear. In the more than two decades since that time, use of eyewitness experts has become widely accepted in courts around the country, resulting in numerous acquittals. While trial courts have a large amount of discretion in allowing any type of expert to testify at a trial, the Supreme Court found that it was a clear abuse of discretion in Lerma not to allow an eyewitness expert to testify, particularly one who was also familiar with the issue of misidentification of persons previously known to a witness. Lerma is an important case in allowing defendants to introduce additional evidence that may cast light on their guilt, but it also opens the door for defendants who were previously convicted after eyewitness experts were barred from testifying to appeal their convictions. Need Legal Help? Once you’ve been convicted of a serious crime, that doesn’t have to be the end of the road for your case. Prosecutors or the trial judge may have committed an error, such as not letting an eyewitness expert testimony, that is grounds for appeal and reversal of your conviction. For more information, contact Barney & Hourihane today for a consultation. The police have a tough job. Often suspects get violent, or officers are put in dangerous situations where the lives of innocent people are at risk. In those situations, police are legally justified to act with a certain level of force to protect the public from harm. However, there are certain legal restrictions on how much force police can use when dealing with any type of situation, and unfortunately sometimes officers exceed that appropriate amount of force for a given situation. Defining excessive force exactly is a difficult proposition, but there are some guidelines for understanding when excessive force is being used by police in Chicago and the rest of the state of Illinois.
Not All Force is Excessive Generally, the appropriate use of force by a police officer is measured against the amount of force a reasonable police officer would use in a similar circumstance. This is an extremely difficult way to determine what is excessive. Few people would argue that an officer’s use of force is excessive to take down and pin a suspect who attempts to strike the officer during a lawful arrest. However, use of a firearm would certainly be excessive in this situation. If the police officer used a Taser to detain such a suspect, and that resulted in serious injuries, whether the use of force was excessive would be something of a gray area that would likely be determined by a court. However, Some Types of Force are Always Excessive Excessive force by police officers has justifiably received a large amount of media attention in recent months, particularly the use of chokeholds to detain suspects. Chokeholds are extremely dangerous maneuvers to use on anyone in any circumstances as these maneuvers reduce oxygen and blood flow to the brain. As documented in many media reports, a chokehold by police can result in serious permanent injury, or even death. As a result, in 2015 the governor of Illinois signed into law a bill that bans the use of chokeholds by law enforcement officials in Illinois. Chokeholds of course are just one type of excessive force. Any use of force out of proportion with the circumstances of an arrest is excessive. For example, police officers should never fire their weapons at a suspect unless there is a legitimate threat of serious bodily injury or death to another human being. To determine whether you have a valid complaint that police used excessive force, you should consult with an attorney about the circumstances of your encounter with police. Need Legal Help? The effects of excessive force can be devastating from both a physical and mental perspective. There are of course high medical bills to deal with for injuries that never should have been inflicted, but there is also the emotional toll from having the trust of law enforcement violated by police misconduct. Both types of injuries are entitled to compensation under the law For more information, contact Barney & Hourihane today for a consultation. |
Archives
May 2019
Categories
All
|