Supreme Court Creates New Exception To Hearsay Rule

Today, the United States Supreme Court ruled in a Michigan case and created a entirely new exception to the hearsay rule.  The 6th Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that a defendant has a right to confront the witnesses that will testify against him.  But in today's case, the Supreme Court announced that when the police are investigating an "ongoing emergency" they can ask a victim or a witness about what happened and use the statements they make in court against a defendant.  The case began when Detroit police went to a parking lot in response to a call that someone had been shot.  Anthony Covington told the police that he had been shot by "Rick" and told them where "Rick" lived.  Covington was taken to the hospital and later died.  The police went to Richard Bryant's home and found blood on the back porch of Bryant's home.  They also discovered that Bryant had previously been convicted of murder.  Bryant was convicted of Covington's murder after Covington's statement was used at the trial.  The Michigan Supreme Court overturned the conviction holding that Covington's statement was hearsay and should not have been used at Bryant's trial.  The United States Supreme Court overturned the Michigan Supreme Court and held that where the primary purpose of the police is to deal with an "ongoing emergency" as opposed to an investigation, statements made during the event can be used against the defendant.  Justice Scalia issued a scathing dissent in which he criticized the majority for "leaving the Constitution in shambles.  The only other judge dissenting was Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

The case is Michigan v. Bryant, 09-150.

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 Considering Important 10th Amendment Case

The United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments on a 10th Amendment case that is being carefully watched by tea-party activists and conservatives.  The question before the court is whether an individual can bring a legal challenge based on the 10th Amendment to the Constitution.  The 10th Amendment provides that states or "the people" retain powers the Constitution neither delegates to the federal government nor prohibits state governments from exercising.  Carol Anne Bond suffered an emotional breakdown after she found out that her best friend, Myrlinda Hayes, was carrying a baby fathered by her husband.  Bond, a microbiologist, repeatedly tried to poison Hayes with a mixture of chemicals.  Hayes was unable to get local authorities involved since her injuries were minor.  Hayes was able to pursuade federal law enforcement officials to investigate and they eventually charged Bond with violating the domestic enforcement statutes of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction, an international treaty signed by the United States in 1997.   Bond was sentenced under the statute to six years in prison, five years of supervised probation, $2,000 in fines and $10,000 in restitution.  Under Pennslvania law, Bond's punishment would have lasted between 3 to 25 months.  Bond appealed claiming that Congress lacked the authority to punish her for the chemical assaults.  The Third U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia ruled that Bond lacked standing to raise the claim and that only state officials had the right to raise this claim.  Bond appealed to the United States Supreme Court and the Justice Department refused to enforce the Third District Court's opinion that only the state officials had standing to raise 10th Amendment issues.  Both the Justice Department and Bond's attorneys agree that individual's should have the right to raise 10th Amendment issues.  They differ on how broadly this right should be applied.  In order to defend the Third Circuit Court's opinion, the Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules Inmate Blew Time For Appeal

The United States Supreme Court ruled that a man convicted of murder waited to long to appeal to the federal courts.  Charles W. Martin was convicted of robbery and murder in 1995 and sentenced to life in prison.  He appealed his conviction to state court and was denied.  In 2001 he appealed to the federal court.  The federal court turned his appeal back to the state court because he was trying to raise new arguments.  The lower courts denied his appeals because he had waited too long to bring up these new arguments.  However, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned those decision and the matter was taken up by the United States Supreme Court.  Today, the Supreme Court overturned the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and rejected Martin's attempt to raise these new arguments on appeal.

The case is Walker v. Martin, 09-996.

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 Rejects Appeal Over Non-Unanimous Jury Verdict

Today, the United States Supreme Court rejected an appeal by a man convicted of attempted murder on a jury vote of 10 to 2.  Only two states, Oregon and Louisiana, allow defendants to be convicted of some crimes despite some jurors disagreeing with the majority.  More than 80 defendants have been convicted in the past five years, including at least 24 in the past 16 months by non-unanimous juries in these two states.  Troy Barbour shot Donald Baker five times with a stolen gun.  Barbour claimed he acted in self defense and Baker claimed that Barbour shot him for no reason.  Barbour was eventually convicted of attempted second-degree murder after 10 jurors voted to convict and two jurors voted to acquit.  This decision establishes that the states can adopt their own rules and are not compelled to require unanimous jury verdicts.  But even in Oregon and Louisiana, to be convicted of first-degree murder, which could bring the death penalty, requires a unanimous verdict.

The case is Barbour v. Louisiana, 10-689.

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

Colorado Struggles Over Driving While High

The Colorado state Legislature is considering whether to adopt a blood-content threshold for marijuana that would be considered too impaired to drive.  There is currently a proposal before legislators that would make Colorado, a state that has legalized the use of medical marijuana, one of three states to adopt such a statute.  Under the proposal, drivers who test positive for 5 nanograms of THC, the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana, would be considered too impaired to drive.  Currently, twelve states have a zero tolerance for the presence of any illegal substance, including Illinois.  Minnesota has the same policy but specifically excludes marijuana.  Nevada and Ohio have a 2 nanogram THC limit and Pennsylvania has a 5 nanogram limit, but that is only a state Health Department guideline which the prosecution can use as evidence in a driving violation case.  Even the Colorado proposal is a rebuttable presumption.  Driver's will not be automatically guilty but will be allowed to argue their case.  It is hard to determine what it would take to reach the 5 nanogram threshold but it seems like you would have to smoke some very potent marijuana and be immediately stopped and tested to reach this level.  Some medical marijuana advocates are opposed to the proposal because they point out that medical users of marijuana may have higher tolerance levels that most people which would make more likely to have high levels of THC long after they have smoked the drug.  Many medical marijuana users may have higher levels of THC in their bloodstream because of their continued use of medical marijuana.  This would also support the argument that the proposed levels are too low for long term medical marijuana users.

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.

Clerk of Court Announces Layoffs

The Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County has announced that she will be laying off 170 employees.  This is all part of budget cuts expected to be approved by Cook County officials to try to cut into a $500 million Cook County budget deficit.  The Clerk of the Circuit Court is the official record keeper for all court records and files.  The Clerk's Office is a very important part of the court system.  No details were revealed about when and where the layoffs would be happening.  The Clerk's Office has been asked to cut their budget by 16 percent.  This means that the clerk's office would have to cut $12.4 from its budget this year.  The final budget for Cook County is expected to be approved on February 28.

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.

New Round of Layoffs Coming to Cook County States Attorneys Office

This week, Cook County States Attorney Anita Alvarez announced that her office would be laying off 101 administrative employees.  This was done in anticipation of a 10 percent cut to the offices budget that is expected to happen later this month.  The previous week, Alvarez had to layoff 7 court reporters for the same reason.  That brings the total number of layoffs to 108.  The new round of layoffs will include secretaries, clerks, victim-assistance workers and community outreach workers.  The layoffs will be based on seniority and affect all of the suburban courthouses.  The states attorneys budget for 2010 was $131 million dollars.  A total of 1,600 people are employed by the Cook County States Attorneys Office.

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.

Blizzard Impacts Red Light Tickets in Libertyville

The Village of Libertyville has refused to issue three red light ticket violations because of the treacherous road conditions caused by last week's historic blizzard.  A Libertyville police officer reviewed red light violations occurring after 3 p.m. on February 1 to 3 p.m. on February 2.  The officer reviewed four violations and decided to not issue violations for three of the instances.  The officer took into account the weather conditions, visibility, road conditions and speed and decided not to issue the violations.  The fourth violation was issued after the officer determined that none of the above factors contributed to the violation.

A big thumbs-up to Libertyville for doing the right thing.

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.

Lawsuit Filed Challenging Warrantless Search of Laptops At Border

A lawsuit has been filed in the Federal District Court in the Eastern District of New York that is challenging a Department of Homeland Security policy which allows border agents to search the laptop computers of people seeking to cross the border without any probable cause.  This lawsuit alleges that the policy violates the constitution by infringing on right to privacy and free speech.  After the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, the Bush Administration took on a very expansive definition of what was permissible at border crossings to stop suspected terrorists from entering the country.  In August of 2009, the Obama Administration affirmed the policy started by the Bush Administration.  The broad authority given to border agents allows them to review information stored in a traveler's laptop, cellphone or other electronic device even if the traveler is not suspected of any criminal activity.  The Plaintiffs are the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, the National Press Photographers Association, and Pascal Abidor, a 26 year old doctoral student with dual U.S. and French citizenship who was on a train from Montreal to New York when his laptop was searched and confiscated by border agents.  Abidor is studying Muslim studies at Montreal's McGill University.  Abidor frequently travels all over the world as part of his studies.  At an inspection point at the border of Quebec and New York he was asked to turn on his laptop and enter his password.  They saw photographs he had downloaded from the internet involving rallies by Hamas and Hezbollah and was asked why he had this stuff on his computer.  He was handcuffed and detained for three hours.  His laptop was returned to him 11 days later.  In exploring his computer he was able to determine that agents had looked through personal photographs and personal emails between him and his girlfriend.  In addition, they had searched an external hard drive which he had used to backup his files.  According to the lawsuit, 6,671 travelers with laptops were searched between October of 2008 to June of 2010.  45% of those were of U.S. citizens.  What is most disturbing about this policy is that agents are allowed to share the information found on the computers with other government agencies.  This was done 282 times from July of 2008 to July of 2009.

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.

Steady Decrease In City Crime Rate Continues

The overall crime rate in the City of Chicago dropped for the 25th consecutive month.  Compared to January of 2010 the overall crime rate decreased by 10.6%.  In 2010, the city had the fewest number of murders since 1965.  However, the number of murders in January of 2011 were more than in January of 2010.  In January of 2010 there were 22 murders and in January of 2011 there were 28 murders.  Every other category of violent crime decreased by double digits.  Ciminal Sexual Assaults decreased 13 percent, Aggravated Assaults dropped 11.3%, Aggravated Batteries dropped 10.1%, and Robberies dropped 10.4%.  Every category of property crimes, except car thefts, also had a substantial drop.  Car thefts were actually up by 21.8%.  General theft dropped 20.7%, Burglary dropped 6% and Arsons dropped 4.7%.  

Chicago Police Superintendent, Jody Weis indicated that police will continue to focus and guns and gangs saying that the majority violent crimes are caused by illegal guns.

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.

Aurora Expanding Use Of Red Light Cameras

Aurora is increasing its use of red light cameras.  By the end of January, Aurora had completed installation of its fifth set of red light cameras.  Cameras have been installed at the intersection of Ogden Avenue and Eola Avenue.  Starting January 15, the owners of cars that were caught on camera committing red light violations started receiving $100 tickets.  Aurora first has the photographs reviewed by a police officer who determines whether the violation will be mailed out.  The ticket is mailed to the owner of the vehicle and they will be given 30 days to pay the fine or contest the ticket by requesting an administrative hearing.  Red light cameras are also installed at the intersections of New York Street and Farnsworth Avenue, New York and Commons Drive, Farnsworth and Molitor Road and New York and Eola Road.  In 2010, Aurora issued 7,193 red light camera tickets.  Accidents are down at these intersections but the city plans to do another intense study this year to study the effect that red light cameras have had at the intersections where they have been installed.

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.

California High Court Ruling Creates Possible Supreme Court Review

The California Supreme Court has ruled that a police officer can look through the cell phone of someone that has been lawfully placed under arrest.  A Ventura County deputy conducted a warrantless search of the text messages of a man he had arrested for participating in a drug deal.  In a 5 to 2 ruling the California Supreme Court ruled that the police can search through items found on individuals that are arrested.  The ruling has the effect of extending the loss of privacy upon arrest beyond a persons body to include their personal property.  Gregory Diaz was arrested in 2007.  The detective that arrested him took Diaz's phone out of his pocket when he was arrested.  About 90 minutes after he was arrested, a deputy searched through Diaz's text messages and discovered evidence that Diaz was involved in the drug deal.  Diaz eventually pleaded guilty to the drug charges and was sentenced to probation.  However, in 2007, a Federal District Court Judge ruled that police need to have a search warrant in order to search through the text messages on a cell phone and the Ohio Supreme Court also ruled that police need a search warrant to look through the text messages on a cell phone.  The split opinions may cause the United States Supreme Court to weigh in on the issue and and issue a ruling.  We will keep an eye out on whether this case makes it to the Supreme Court.

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.

Oregon Medical Marijuana Gun Permit Case Goes To High Court

The Oregon Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case of a medical marijuana patient who has been denied the right to a concealed handgun permit.  Cynthia Willis is a medical marijuana patient.  In 2008, Cynthia applied for a permit to carry a concealed firearm.  Jackson County Sheriff Mike Winters denied Cynthia her permit by claiming that granting her a permit would violate federal laws prohibiting drug users from possessing firearms.  The Jackson County Circuit Court and the Oregon Court of Appeals ruled against Sheriff Winters.  The American Civil Liberties Union and Oregon Attorney General John Kroger have joined Cynthia in her fight against Sheriff Winters.

Oral arguments are scheduled to be heard on March 3, 2011.

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 Attorney Strategy On Murder Case Good Enough

The United States Supreme Court has ruled against a defendant who claimed that his attorney's failure to pursue a forensic examination of a pool of blood at the crime scene was ineffective assistance of counsel.  Joshua Richter was convicted of murder after shooting the victim in a robbery at the victim's house.  At no time did Richter's attorney ask for a forensic test of blood on the floor of the victim's house.  Richter claimed that a forensic test of the blood may have proven that the victim was killed in a crossfire and not shot as he slept on the couch.  The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals found that the attorney should have done tests on the blood instead of simply depending on the testimony of an expert witness at trial.  In a unanimous opinion, the Supreme Court overturned the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and found that the lawyer was not incompetent for using a strategy that did not include blood evidence.  

The case is Harrington v. Richter, 09-587.

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 Against Murder Defendant Claims Against Attorney

The United States Supreme Court has ruled against a man who claimed that his attorney should have tried to suppress his murder confession.  Randy Moore pleaded no contest to murder charges that involved a 1995 kidnapping.  He was sentenced to 25 years in prison.  After he was sentenced, he appealed his conviction and argued this his attorney should have tried to suppress his confession.  The Oregon courts ruled against Moore, but the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in his favor and found that his attorney had not acted reasonably by not filing a Motion to Suppress the Confession.  However, in a unanimous decision, the United States Supreme Court overturned the Court of Appeals.  The Court's opinion was written by Justice Anthony Kennedy.  Kennedy held that Moore was limiting his risk by accepting a plea agreement and not going to trial.  Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote a concurring opinion.  She pointed out that Moore never once said that he would not have accepted the plea agreement if his attorney had given him more information about his confession.

The case is Premo v. Moore, 09-658.

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 Agrees To Hear Another Miranda Case

The United States Supreme Court has agreed to hear another case involving the famed Miranda warnings.  The case involves Randall Fields, who told sheriff's deputies that he had sexual contact with a minor.  Fields made the confession in the same building where he was being jailed for unrelated charges.  The deputies never informed Fields that he could remain silent or have a lawyer.  They did tell him he could leave the room whenever he wanted.  The question presented in the case is whether investigators have to give a jail inmate his Miranda rights before questioning him on matters that are not related to the reason he is custody.  The Michigan Courts ruled in favor of Fields and the prosecutors are appealing the court's decision to the United States Supreme Court.

Oral arguments will take place later this year.

The case is Howes v. Fields, 10-680.

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.

Missouri High Court Sides With Illegal Immigrant In Adoption Case

The Missouri Supreme Court has ruled in favor of an illegal alien who had lost her child after she was jailed following an immigration raid.  The effect of the ruling is that the Missouri Supreme Court is holding that state adoption laws apply to illegal immigrants.  The mother, Encarnacion Bail Romero was arrested in an immigration sweep of a poultry plant and eventually sentenced to two years in Federal Prison for Aggravated Identity Theft.  Another couple was helping Romero's family take care of her son after his arrest.  The couple was contacted by another couple about adopting the child.  Their adoption was granted on the basis that Romero had abandoned her child.  Romero has been contesting the adoption since her release from prison in 2009.  The child was born in the United States and is a citizen.  The Missouri Supreme Court ruled that state adoption laws were not followed in this case when the mother's parental rights were terminated.  The Court ordered a trial regarding Romero's parental rights.

The case had generated a great deal of international interest.  The Guatemalan consulate and the ACLU had filed written briefs on the case and Guatemala's ambassador to the United States had watched the original arguments in November.  The court recognized that immigrants have the same parental rights as anyone else.

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.

2011 New Illinois Speeding Law

A new speeding law went into effect the beginning of this year which could drastically change the way traffic tickets have been handled throughout the State of Illinois for many years.  Speeding 30 mph over the limit is no longer simply a traffic offense.  It is now a Class B Misdemeanor which carries a maximum penalty of up to six months in the county jail and a maximum fine of $1,500.  Speeding 40 mph over the limit has always been a Class A Misdemeanor which carries a maximum penalty of up to one year in the county jail and a maximum fine of $2,500.  What has been changed about speeding 40 mph over the limit is that drivers can no longer receive court supervision if they are convicted of this offense.  Court supervision is a sentence that allows drivers to keep their criminal record clean and eventually expunge the entire matter from the public record.  The only sentence available for driver's convicted of speeding 40 mph over the limit is conditional discharge or a misdemeanor conviction.  But a skilled attorney may be able to avoid this harsh penalty by negotiating a plea with the prosecutor that would involve the state reducing the charge to speeding under 40 mph over the limit.

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.

Governor Ends 2010 By Granting 34 Pardons

Illinois Governor Pat Quinn ended 2009 by granting 34 pardons and denying 51 others.  Quinn has called the number of pardons on his desk a "massive backlog" which was made worse by the previous Governor, Rod Blagojevich.  Blagojevich did not act on any pardons.  There are currently over 2,500 pardon requests sitting on the Governor's desk.  The 85 pardons that were acted on at the end of 2009 date back from 2004.    Quinn has acted on a total of 895 pardon petitions since he took office in January of 2009.  He has granted 362 pardons and authorized eight people who he pardoned to obtain expungements of their convictions.  Unfortunately, there is no law that requires that a Governor act on a pardon request.  Petitioner's must simply wait for a decision.  Governor Quinn has made a habit of acting on pardon requests during major holidays, such as Easter, Thanksgiving and Christmas.  His office is beginning to make a dent in the tremendous backlog of pardons.

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.