Posted on July 08, 2013 in Your Rights

The fourth amendment to the U.S. Constitution is one of the most important protections against governmental intrusion. It guarantees the “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” In other words, the fourth amendment requires that searches or seizures be reasonable. “So, what is reasonable?” one may ask. Courts have interpreted reasonableness to require a warrant supported by probable cause. Thus, before law enforcement officials can search something or someone, or arrest someone, they need to go in front of a judge with enough evidence and obtain a warrant.

However, the Supreme Court of the United States has recognized certain exceptions to the warrant based on probable cause requirement. For example, in what are known as Terry stops (named after the Terry v. Ohiocase), law enforcement officers may briefly detain someone and quickly perform a pat down search if the officer observes unusual conduct which leads him reasonably to conclude in light of his experience that criminal activity may be afoot. These searches, however, are meant to ensure the safety of law enforcement, i.e. if the officer has a reason to believe that the suspect is carrying a weapon, he should be allowed to ensure that the person is not a danger to the officer. Terry stops, however, are not supposed to be a fact gathering expedition.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on July 05, 2013 in Divorce

In our last post we discussed a divorce involving a wife who was found to have dissipated marital assets during the divorce proceedings. In her appeal, the wife also challenged the trial court's maintenance determination.

When awarding maintenance, Cook County courts look at several factors including the income and property of each party, their needs, future earning capacity, among other things. Like many stay-at-home mothers, the wife in this case had both an undergraduate and a graduate degree, but chose to stay at home and raise the couple's children because her physician husband made enough to support the entire family.

Although the wife's employment consisted of working low-paying part-time jobs, the court found that her education weighed against a larger maintenance award for her.

The court found that under Illinois law, the wife had a duty to seek and accept "appropriate" employment. The wife had a law degree and the court decided that the wife should have sought employment as a lawyer after losing custody of her children instead of pursuing another advanced degree.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on July 04, 2013 in Criminal Defense

Most convictions require that the prosecution prove the defendant had a criminal intent to commit the crime. Absent an outright admission, prosecutors have to rely on circumstantial evidence to prove criminal intent. Some defendants have attempted to negate criminal intent by turning a blind eye to criminal behavior.

For example, A, a person with a reputation of being a drug trafficker, asks B to transport a package. Because of A’s reputation, B suspects that the package’s contents may be illegal, but decides to transport it anyway while purposely avoiding knowledge of the package’s contents. This is called ‘willful blindness’ and it has landed many people in jail.

The seminal case holding that willful blindness will not preclude a finding of criminal intent is U.S. v. Jewell. In that case, like the example above, the court had to decide whether ‘positive knowledge’ is a requirement for conviction of a crime that requires criminal intent before a jury can find someone guilty. In Jewell, there was a dispute whether the defendant actually knew that the vehicle in which he was traveling contained marijuana. Defendant argued that he purposely avoided knowledge of any potential drugs in a secret compartment of the car. This so called ‘ostrich defense’, i.e. purposely burying one’s head in the sand to avoid knowledge, did not fly. The court held that there was enough evidence to support a conclusion that defendant was aware of a “high probability” that the vehicle contained an illegal substance. The fact that he did not have ‘actual knowledge’ was not enough to avoid a conviction.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on June 30, 2013 in Criminal Defense

When Miriam Conrad graduated from Northwestern University’s journalism school, she likely did not think that she would be the defense attorney for one of the highest profile cases in the nation. Well, she is. Ms. Conrad, who is the head of the Federal Public Defender’s office in Massachusetts, is going to represent Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, who is accused of using a weapon of mass destruction that resulted in three deaths and hundreds more injured in the Boston bombings.

Ms. Conrad is not new to high profile cases, but representing Tsarnaev will be tricky not only because of the gruesome nature of the attack, but also because of the attention the case has gotten from the media worldwide. It will be difficult for Ms. Conrad to find an untainted jury pool that can keep an open mind for whatever defense she may devise.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on June 28, 2013 in Division of Property

Dissipation of marital assets is a serious issue that often arises in Chicago divorce cases. The dissipation of marital assets is defined as the use of marital property by one spouse for his or her own benefit for a purpose unrelated to the marriage during a time when the marriage is breaking down.

The dissipation of marital assets is often relevant in the division of a marital estate and can be used to lower a spouse's property award. What constitutes a dissipation of marital funds depends on the facts of a particular divorce case.

One recent case involves the dissipation of funds during divorce proceedings. The dissipation occurred in association with false accusations made during the divorce.

False accusations are common in acrimonious divorce cases. One recent Cook County divorce case involved a wife who was married to a doctor who she accused of sexually abusing her children. The abuse allegations were taken seriously by a court which ordered all of the doctor's visits to his children be supervised.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on June 27, 2013 in Criminal Defense

The United States seems to have a great government and justice system, but it can only be kept that way if the people working for our country are kept in check just as any business would keep its employees in check. Recently, Illinois found that it had a bit of work to do to keep it’s law enforcement system running smoothly, when it was found that evidence from rape cases were not being submitted for testing in labs.

The Illinois State Police were sent 51 sexual assault kits from previous cases after they were found untested in the Robbins Police Department evidence room, according to Tom Dart, Cook County Sheriff.

Dart said, “The victims should know they will have their cases heard, and they will be treated like they should have been treated. My goal is to bring justice to these folks.”

He added that the untested kits date back as far as 1986 and they were found alongside guns that were supposed to be sent into the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to trace the ownership for cases as well.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on June 22, 2013 in Criminal Defense

The whole country was turned upside down not too long ago when the Boston Marathon was bombed and there were many injuries and three deaths. The entire nation followed the news and awaited the results of the FBI’s search for those who caused it, then when and if the FBI could catch them and shut down any of their future plans.

Although much of the fuss has died down following the Boston Marathon bombings, terrorism has not stopped. Recently in Illinois, a teenager was charged with and pleaded not guilty to terrorism, according to ABC World News.

The 18-year-old boy, Abdella Ahmad Tounisi, is from a Chicago suburb and has supposedly attempted “to join an al-Quaida-linked militant group fighting Bashar Assad’s regime in Syria,” reported ABC news.

The alleged terrorist stood in court recently with his attorney, who pleaded not guilty on his behalf. The criminal act that Tounisi was charged with is attempting to provide material support to a foreign terrorist group and lying about the operation when questioned by federal authorities.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on June 20, 2013 in Alimony

Last month we covered a high asset divorce case involving a wife who was awarded 20 percent of her husband's bonuses between $50,001 and $100,000. The wife recently appealed her case calling the court's division of her husband's assets an "abuse of discretion."

In a decision that became final today, an appeals court found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in not awarding the wife any of her husband's bonuses above $100,000.

Divorce courts in Illinois have broad discretion in dividing property and allocating maintenance awards. Appeals courts generally do not overturn maintenance awards absent a clear abuse of discretion, which is defined as an "arbitrary, fanciful or unreasonable" ruling. This is a high burden for an appellant to meet, especially because unreasonableness is defined as a decision that is so outside of the norm that "no reasonable person could find as the trial court did."

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on June 19, 2013 in DUI/DWI

Being arrested and charged with a DUI can be a frightening experience particularly for a person who had no knowledge that a crime was committed. An incident that took place back in December resurfaces in recent news when a woman takes a plea agreement.

The 34-year-old woman admitted to driving while under the influence. Her actions caused the death of a 60-year-old man driving a scooter. However, she claims she did not know she had hit anyone. She thought she had hit the curb only.

Some might say that she was fully aware of what she was doing, getting behind the wheel under the influence and with a revoked license. In addition, the woman denied driving the vehicle but later confessed.

The police say that the woman ran a red light and hit a man on a motorcycle who later died of his injuries. She was later arrested the day of the incident at about 7:00 am, two hours after the incident. She was sentenced to eight years in prison.

Continue Reading ››

 Posted on June 15, 2013 in Criminal Defense

The Chicago Sun Times recently reported that an Illinois police chief from the southwest was accused in early May of two felony misconducts for supposedly misusing a pickup truck that was seized in a drug case.

56-year-old Caseyville Police Chief J.D. Roth was accused of not only driving a 2003 Dodge Dakota Ram 1500 pickup truck for police business, but also for personal use instead of selling the truck in an auction as he was instructed to do.

Roth was instructed to get bids from local car dealers and sold it for $7,500 to a dealer whose owner is friends with Roth. He then bought the car back soon after. The state law requires, however, that the vehicle must be sold for the benefit of the public.

Roth has also been accused of personal use of luggage that he bought with public funds.

Although both the luggage charge and the truck charge are each punishable by a fine of $25,000 and five years in prison, Roth’s attorney is confident that his 26 year police career will help to prove Roth’s innocence.

Continue Reading ››