Criminal Damage to Property Charges Reduced

Chicago criminal defense attorney, James Dimeas, succeeded in having felony charges of Criminal Damage to Property reduced from a felony to a misdemeanor at the Cook County Circuit Court, Branch 48 at 51st Street. The client was at a bar one evening with friends. He apparently had too much to drink and got into an argument with some of the patrons in the bar. He was asked to leave the bar and in a fit of anger, keyed four vehicles belonging to some of the patrons he had gotten into an argument with. There were numerous witnesses to this incident as well as a video tape showing the client damaging the vehicles. The damage to vehicles exceeded $2,800.00.

The client had no criminal background. He was employed full time and the single father of young children. A felony conviction would have had dramatic life long ramifications for the client. Recognizing this, Chicago criminal defense attorney James Dimeas, negotiated with the prosecutor and was able to have the felony charges reduced to a misdemeanor. The client paid to repair the vehicles he had damaged and agreed to not have any contact with any of the bar patrons in exchange for some community service and a $200 fine.

As a result, the client avoided having a felony conviction which would have drastically complicated his life.

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.

Domestic Battery Charges Dismissed in Markham

Chicago criminal defense attorney James Dimeas was able to have domestic battery charges dismissed in the Markham Courthouse. Mr. Dimeas's client was charged with striking his girlfriend as they were driving down the street in a car. The client's girlfriend exited the car and flagged down the police and the client was arrested. They client has a sensitive job with a security contractor working for the United States government. Anything less than an outright dismissal of the charges would probably have resulted in the client losing his job. Chicago criminal defense attorney James Dimeas arranged to have his client sign up and attend some Anger Management classes and the client's girlfriend was satisfied that her boyfriend had received the counseling and treatment he required. As a result, she agreed to allow the prosecutor to drop the domestic battery charges.

As a result, the client gets to keep his job and his relationship with his girlfriend survives this unfortunate ordeal.

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.

Convicted Felons Challenging Gun Laws

Ever since the United States Supreme Court struck down the Washington, D.C. law prohibiting the ownership of firearms, criminal defense attorneys are mounting challenges to Federal laws which prohibit convicted felons from possessing firearms. Many defendants who have previously been convicted of felonies and are now charged with possession of firearms are arguing that last month's Supreme Court decision gives them the right to own firearms for protection in their homes. Challenges such as these are a sign that legal challenges to laws prohibiting the possession of firearms will continue to increase as criminal defense attorneys start to explore the boundaries of the Supreme Court's decision. People on both sides of the issue expect many attacks on state and federal gun laws in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision. What will happen to attempts by cities to prohibit gun ownership in public housing projects? Why would someone be deemed to be untrustworthy of owning a gun just because they live in a public housing project? While a law prohibiting a person convicted of a violent felony from owning a firearm will probably not be struck down, what will happen to an individual charged with a non-violent felony? And what about the 50 or 60 year old individual convicted of stealing a car when they were a teenager? Why should they not be allowed to own a firearm? In the fall, the Supreme Court may address this issue. There is a case on the Court's fall docket, People v. Hayes, in which the Defendant, Randy Hayes, was convicted of possessing a firearm as a felon based on a 1994 conviction for a Domestic Battery in which he received one year of probation. The Supreme Court will decide whether the 1994 Domestic Battery conviction could serve as a bases for denying Randy Hayes the right to own a firearm.

The Supreme Court has opened the door to numerous legal challenges which will call into question gun laws throughout the United States. Some cases are simple, but some are more complicated and will be the subject of interesting arguments which will change our gun laws.

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.

Domestic Battery Charges Dismissed

Chicago criminal defense attorney, John Ioakimidis negotiated the dismissal of a Domestic Battery charge for his client at the courthouse located at 555 W. Harrison in Chicago. The client, who had served time for a violent felony in the past, was looking at potential jail time if convicted. The State alleged that John's client punched the complaining witness in the face and slammed her against a car door requiring hospitalization. It turned out that the complaining witness was beaten by her boyfriend and tried to blame it on John's client. The case was dismissed and the order of protection was terminated immediately.

On the same day, John also negotiated the dismissal of another Domestic Battery case for another client at the same courthouse. The order of protection was also terminated immediately.


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.

Domestic Battery Dismissed

Chicago criminal defense attorney, John Ioakimidis, negotiated the dismissal of a Domestic Battery Charge for his client at the Markham Courthouse on the first court appearance. The State had charged that John's client had committed a battery to his wife. It turned out that the wife was drunk during the episode and actually attacked John's client first.

The dismissal was important because his client has a substantial criminal history. A conviction would likely have led to jail time and a complete disruption in his client's life.

The client was truly grateful, thanked John and was free to enjoy the 4th of July weekend with piece of mind.

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 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.