Supreme Court Rules on Right to Bear Arms

The Supreme Court today, in a 5-4 decision, held that the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution protects an individual’s right to have a gun, not just the right of the states to maintain militias. Justice Antonin Scalia writing for the majority of the Supreme Court said that “the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home” is unconstitutional.

The significance of the decision is that the Supreme Court for the first time acknowledged that that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right that belongs to the people and not just the States. The case struck down a Washington DC law that prohibited ownership of handguns. The decision is going to have a significant impact in places such as Chicago, San Francisco and other cities that have hand gun prohibitions.

However, the Court did state that "the decision does not mean, for instance, that laws against carrying concealed weapons are to be swept aside" (or) . . ."the court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

Unfortunately the Court did not give guidance as what are reasonable restrictions are constitutional. However, the Court acknowledged that one decision alone can not address all of the issues associated with gun control. It appears that there will much more case law in the coming future to iron out what restrictions are and are not constitutional.

Although the decision and the dissent was 157 pages long, the Court placed a great deal of emphasis on the fact that hand guns are used by Americans to defend themselves and their families in their homes and the 2nd amendment in no way limits the right to self protection and self-preservation.

For more information about the Chicago criminal defense attorneys at Legal Defenders, P.C., visit us at www.thelegaldefenders.com or call us anytime at 1-800-228-7295.

Supreme Court Affirms Right to Confront Witnesses

In a decision reaffirming a defendant's right to confront witnesses, the United States Supreme Court overturned a murder conviction because the jury had heard statements made by the victim before she was murdered. Dwayne Giles had been arrested and charged with the shooting death of his girlfriend Brenda Avie. Several weeks before she was shot and killed, Brenda Avie had told the police that Giles had assaulted her and threatened to kill her. At the murder trial of Dwayne Giles, the jury heard from the police that Brenda Avie had told them about the threats before the murder. Giles was convicted and in his appeal claimed that the jury should not have heard these statements because he could not cross examine her and that his right to confront his witnesses had been violated. In a 6 to 3 decision, the United States Supreme Court agreed and overturned his conviction because the jury should not have heard the out of court statements of the victim. Justice Antonin Scalia said in his majority opinion that domestic violence, though "an intolerable offense," does not justify "abridging the rights of criminal defendants. In dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer said the court should have ruled that defendants forfeit their constitutional right to confront witnesses when they are responsible for the witness' absence from trial. Justice Breyer argued that the defendant now gets to benefit from killing the witness by not having the witness available to testify and now their statements cannot be used. He claimed that this is a "windfall" for defendants.

The importance of this decision is that defendants can continue to rely on their constitutional right to confront all of the witnesses against them and this decision maintains a sense of fairness to the judicial process.

For more information about the Chicago criminal defense attorneys at Legal Defenders, P.C., visit us at www.thelegaldefenders.com or call us anytime at 1-800-228-7295.

Supreme Court Bans Death Penalty for Child Rapists

Today, the United States Supreme Court struck down a Louisiana law which provided for the imposition of the death penalty for defendants convicted of raping children under the age of 12. In addition to Louisiana, five other states have similar laws. This decision by the United States Supreme Court invalidates those laws as well. This was a 5 to 4 decision. The majority opinion was written by Justice Anthony Kennedy. The fact that nobody has been executed in the United States in 44 years for a crime not involving murder weighed heavily in his opinion. In ruling that the death penalty is only appropriate for crimes involving murder, Justice Kennedy wrote that "the death penalty is not a proportional punishment for the rape of a child." The victim in the case was an 8 year old girl who had been raped by her stepfather in a small town just outside of New Orleans. Justice Kennedy stated that the death penalty should be reserved for the most heinous crimes but left intact the imposition of the death penalty for crimes against the state, such as treason, espionage and terrorism.

For more information about the Chicago criminal defense attorneys at Legal Defenders, P.C., visit us at www.thelegaldefenders.com or call us anytime at 1-800-228-7295.

Supreme Court Rules On Right To a Lawyer

Walter Rothgery had moved to Gillespie County, Texas for a new job. He had only been in Texas for three weeks with his wife when he was arrested and charged with carrying a gun as a convicted felon. He posted the only money he had, $500, to bail himself out of jail. By being charged with such a serious offense, he was unable to find a job. Six months later he was indicted by a grand jury, his bond tripled and found himself locked up in the county jail. The only problem was that the computer used by the local police had made a mistake and Walter Rothgery did not have a felony record. A sympathetic local jail guard hired an attorney for Walter and the attorney was able to show that his client did not have a criminal record and his client was released from jail after the charges were dropped. However, Walter Rothgery's life was in shambles after such a horrible ordeal.

Walter Rothgery sued Gillespie County claiming that they failed to provide an attorney for him at the beginning. If Gillespie County had provided him with an attorney, the attorney would have been able to determine that a mistake was made and he would not have been incarcerated. Texas is one of the few states that does not provide attorneys to indigent defendants from the beginning of the process. In an 8 to 1 decision, the United States Supreme Court held that the Sixth Amendment Right to a Lawyer begins the minute a defendant appears in court because the adversarial process starts at that moment.

This decision affirms the sanctity of the Sixth Amendment Right to a Lawyer.

For more information about the Chicago criminal defense attorneys at Legal Defenders, P.C., visit us at www.thelegaldefenders.com or call us anytime at 1-800-228-7295.

Traffic Camera Citation Dismissed

Chicago criminal defense attorney, James Dimeas, succeeded in having a ticket issued by the Village of Rolling Meadows for failing to stop for a traffic light at an intersection where cameras were set up to record vehicles that failed to stop for the red light. Chicago criminal defense attorney, James G. Dimeas, was representing an individual who received a traffic citation in the mail from the Village of Rolling Meadows containing a photograph of his client's vehicle at the intersection of Rohlwing Road and Kirchoff Road which purported to show the vehicle failing to stop at the red light. The ticket also contained a photograph of the license plate of the client's vehicle. Chicago criminal defense attorney, James G. Dimeas, obtained a copy of the Village Ordinance. Article IV, entitled "Automated Traffic Law Enforcement System" contains all the requirements for issuing tickets by camera. Section 3-70(k) of the ordinance provides that "the date, time and place of the administrative hearing at which the charge may be contested on its merits, a date that shall be no less than 15 nor more than 40 days from the mailing or other service of the notice of violation." The violation date on the ticket was April 4, 2008. The hearing was being held on June 19, 2008. The date between the violation date and the hearing date far exceeded the 40 day time limit spelled out in the Village Ordinance. As a result, the Hearing Officer dismissed the citation for violating the time limits contained in the ordinance. In doing so, Chicago criminal defense attorney, James G. Dimeas, exposed a serious flaw in the Village of Rolling Meadows Ordinance which will probably result in the Village of Rolling Meadows having to rewrite the ordinance. Most of the people who appeared before Chicago criminal defense attorney, James G. Dimeas's case was called had been issued citations around the same time as his client. However, Chicago criminal defense attorney, James G. Dimeas, was the only one to raise this defense.

For more information about the Chicago criminal defense attorneys at Legal Defenders, P.C., visit us at www.thelegaldefenders.com or call us anytime at 1-800-228-7295.

Drug Charges Dismissed

Chicago criminal defense attorney, John Ioakimidis, successfully negotiated with the prosecutor to get charges for Possession of Drug Paraphernalia dismissed at the Skokie courthouse against a 21 year old college student. The dismissal of the charges was significant because the client is on Court supervision on prior cases and a conviction would likely have violated her supervision exposing the client to potential jail time if she had violated her probation.


For more information about the Chicago criminal defense attorneys at Legal Defenders, P.C., visit us at www.thelegaldefenders.com or call us anytime at 1-800-228-7295.

Criminal Sexual Abuse Charges Dismissed by Prosecutor

Chicago criminal defense attorney, James Dimeas, successfully negotiated with the prosecutor to get the charge of Criminal Sexual Abuse dismissed at the Markham courthouse. The client, a 17 year old young man, with no criminal background, was charged with having sexual relations with a younger girl. Initially, the young girl was claiming that the client, and his cousin, had forced themselves on her. The police investigated the claims and initially considered charging the client with Criminal Sexual Assault, more commonly known as Rape, but decided that they would not be able to prove that the younger girl did not consent to the conduct. After throroughly negotiating with the prosecutor and family of the younger girl, the family and the prosecutor decided to dismiss the charges.

While Criminal Sexual Abuse is a Class A Misdemeanor, the potential punishment for a conviction can have serious life-long consequences. If the client had been convicted he was facing up to one year in jail and may have been required to Register as a Sex Offender. The family of the client was extremely grateful for efforts of Chicago criminal defense attorney, James Dimeas.

For more information about the Chicago criminal defense attorneys at Legal Defenders, P.C., visit us at www.thelegaldefenders.com or call us anytime at 1-800-228-7295.

Not Guilty for Domestic Battery After Trial

Chicago criminal defense attorney James Dimeas obtained a verdict of not guilty on a Domestic Battery charge after a trial at the Rolling Meadows courthouse today. The client was charged with striking and grabbing his girlfriend by the neck and violently removing her from a bowling alley. The client was facing serious penalties if he had been convicted due to his extensive criminal background with included at least one prior DUI, two Violations of Order of Protection and prior Domestic Batteries and a prior Battery conviction.
Thanks to the extensive cross examination efforts of Chicago criminal defense attorney, James Dimeas, the client was found not guilty and has avoided the possibility of serious consequences.

For more information about the Chicago criminal defense attorneys at Legal Defenders, P.C., visit us at www.thelegaldefenders.com or call us anytime at 1-800-228-7295.

John Ioakimidis - Guest Speaker at Lincoln Park High School

John Ioakimidis, Chicago criminal defense attorney, was invited to speak as a guest speaker by Lincoln Park High School to advise students of their rights. The areas of the law that were covered included the 4th, 5th and 6th amendments of the US Constitution. The staff was so enthused by the participation of the students that John has been invited again to speak at the beginning of the next school year. Young adults sometimes do not realize that stupid mistakes may ruin their lives with permanent criminal records so it is imperative that they understand the full consequences of their actions.


For more information about the Chicago criminal defense attorneys at Legal Defenders, P.C., visit us at www.thelegaldefenders.com or call us anytime at 1-800-228-7295.