Profile cover photo
Profile photo
David Freidberg
2,160 followers -
An aggressive Chicago criminal defense attorney
An aggressive Chicago criminal defense attorney

2,160 followers
About
Posts

Post has attachment
13 CR 13610

Case Conclusion Date: 07.11.2017

Practice Area: Criminal defense

Outcome: Felony reduced to Misdemeanor

Description: This is one of my favorite recent cases, and it wasn't a trial. To give some background, my client was charged with ten counts, most of which were aggravated unlawful use of weapon charges. This was the situation. My client's elderly father was involved in an altercation with another party while in the drive-thru lane at a McDonald's. His father felt threatened and called his some to come help him. Well, unfortunately, my client came to his aid while in the possession of an illegal firearm. No matter what the circumstances, if you do not possess a FOID card, you cannot possess a firearm in the City of Chicago. The penalty, upon a plea or finding of guilty, is a sentence in the Illinois Department of Corrections, otherwise known as prison. Probation is not an option. The case started in 2013. After about a year or so, after reviewing all of the evidence and having a few of the counts dismissed, I prepared a mitigation packet for the State's Attorney to review in the hope of obtaining a reduced charge of some sort. It took over 2 years for the State to finally make a determination as to my client's fate. Part of this was due to changes in personnel at the court level but the main factor was the change of the State's Attorney herself, from Anita Alvarez to Kim Foxx. Once Kim Foxx was sworn into office, she allowed her Assistant State's Attorneys more discretion on how to dispose of their cases. After reviewing my mitigation packet and my client's lack of background, they offered my client a reducer from a felony to a misdemeanor. No prison time whatsoever!

Post has attachment
17 OP 72882 Order of Protection
Case Conclusion Date: 10.04.2017
Practice Area: Criminal defense
Outcome: Order of Protection DENIED
Description: This was a fairly simple one. The Respondent, my client, was being accused of stalking his neighbor. The Petitioner was alleging that: (1) my client accosted her because she was parking in a guest spot at their townhouse compound and as a result, his contractors were unable to park their vehicles, thus preventing them from working on my client's unit and charging him extra fees for a return trip. This was the reason for his visit to her unit. (2) she alleged that he was walking back and forth in front of her window, calling her out and making threats that she would be removed from the building. Stalking requires more than one event or occurrence under the statute. The Petitioner was unable to show that my client was stalking her in the first instance because all he was doing was trying to talk to her about the parking issue. Regarding the second allegation, the Petitioner was not even allowed to get into it as a result of the fact that her witness was never disclosed to the Respondent and she herself could not testify as to what occurred. The Court correctly ruled that the Order of Protection should be denied.

Post has attachment
17-199937 Battery
Case Conclusion Date: 10.05.2017
Practice Area: Criminal defense
Outcome: Not Guilty
Description: In this matter, my client is the Assistant Manager of a hotel located in downtown Chicago. The allegations were that while she was reprimanding an associate, she grabbed him by the shoulders, shook him violently and shoved him into a doorway, causing injury. The State offered my client deferred prosecution, which means that if she were to have completed what was required of her, the case would be dismissed. Once she learned that the “victim” was suing her employer as a result of this incident, she rejected the offer and the matter was set for trial.

There is no better defense to a charge of battery than being in possession of a video that depicts the entire incident, which the hotel had. After the complaining witness/victim testified, the State's Attorney played the video for the Court. The video clearly showed that my client did in fact touch the victim on the arm but in no fashion did she grab him or shove him. The Court found the testimony of the victim to be incredible and granted my motion for directed finding. Not Guilty!

Post has attachment
16 OP 78304
Case Conclusion Date: 07.25.2017
Practice Area: Domestic violence
Outcome: Order of Protection DENIED

Description: Another Order of Protection (OP) denied! As usual, I represented the Respondent in an OP pending at 555 W. Harrison in Chicago. In this matter, my client was accused of cyberstalking a woman he used to date. The problem with her case is that the alleged "stalking" came from posts he allegedly made on Instagram that she felt were directed towards her. The interesting issue with this is that Instagram is not like other social media sites. First, someone can only post pictures on Instagram with hashtags placed underneath the pictures. Second, you can only view the pictures and hashtags IF you decide to follow that poster or just view their page(s). In this case, the woman had to avail herself to those posts on purpose to even be able to see what was posted. I argued that even if my client was the person behind the posts, she had to make the effort to actually view the posts and even then, the posts were innocuous and her name was never even mentioned. I argued to the Court that if she was so traumatized by these posts, which occurred for over a month, why was she even looking at them? The judge agreed that the only stalking that was being performed, was by her!

Post has attachment
Case: 17 OP 50267 Order of Protection
Case Conclusion Date: 06.21.2017
Practice Area: Domestic violence
Outcome: Order of Protection DENIED
Description: Luckily my client had a witness! My mild-mannered 64 year old client, the Respondent, was accused of grabbing his 61 year old brother, the Petitioner, by the throat. What started as a routine visit to the home where the Petitioner was residing at the time, escalated into a verbal argument. A physical altercation ensued and as a result, the Petitioner pushed my client and grabbed him by the throat first. My client did in fact react in kind, which is generally termed mutual combat. Thankfully, the sister of both parties witnessed the fight but only after it started, so she could not say who was the instigator, thus, she was more than reliable as she did not give the appearance of choosing sides during her testimony. The Petitioner also complained that Respondent injured his hand so severely that he required medical attention and rehabilitation. Fortunately for my client, his sister went to lunch with the Respondent about an hour after the incident, whereby the Respondent made no complaint whatsoever about his severely injured hand. The Court found her testimony credible, unbiased and believable and ruled in favor of my client. Order of Protection was DENIED.

Post has attachment
I am honored to be nominated as one of the top 20 Criminal Defense Attorneys in Chicago!

Post has attachment
Case: 16 CR 134 – Possession of Controlled Substance
Case Conclusion Date: 02.28.2017
Practice Area: Criminal defense
Outcome: Case Dismissed
Sometimes things go well when you have a great judge. A gentleman called me last week regarding a warrant for his arrest. Turns out he was offered the State's Attorney's drug school program on a possession of controlled substance charge but did not complete it. This program is for first time offenders and requires the attendance of 4 drug school treatment classes. If the classes are in fact completed, then the case is dismissed and no conviction is entered. On the other hand, if the classes are not completed, then the case is assigned a felony trial judge and moves forward. In this case, my client did not complete the classes but did an outpatient treatment program elsewhere. Unfortunately, he was not able to notify the State's Attorney of this, his charges were not dismissed, and when he did not appear in court thereafter, a warrant was issued for his arrest. In this case, my client was unaware of these factors and only recently became aware of the warrant. I took the necessary steps of contacting the State's Attorney handling his case, provided him with a copy of my client's drug treatment, and filed a motion to quash the warrant and recall the bond. When this was heard today in front of the judge, she could not have been more accommodating in quashing the warrant. The State then completely dismissed my client's case. Perfect result.

Post has attachment
Case: 16-210301 Battery Charge
Case Conclusion Date: January 31, 2017
Practice Area: Criminal Defense
Outcome: Not Guilty

Description: Young man walks into a bar with a friend and walks out with a new one...at least that's how it started out. He met a girl at a bar, they had drinks, went to another bar for a few more and she invited him back to her place for a bottle of wine. Things get sketchy from there. They get into some type of innocuous argument and she asks him to leave. While he's leaving, he's still trying to talk to her but she starts pushing him out of her apartment. After she opens the door, she follows him into the hall and pushes him down a stairwell. As my client gets up he sees her at the top of the stairs still in a fighting stance. He grabs her and pushes her to the ground to prevent her from pushing him again, and that's when her neighbor, hearing the fight, runs up and grabs him and calls the police. Client was arrested for battery. Not wanting to admit guilty for something he didn't do, my client went to trial today. Judge heard all of the evidence and testimony from the victim and witness. Somehow the witness, two months AFTER the incident, went to the police station to add information that my client was unbuckling his belt as he was on top of the victim. Clearly the witness was trying to add fuel to the first. The judge completely discounted the witness’s testimony and found my client NOT GUILTY.

Post has attachment
Case: 16121027501 Concealed Carry/Airport
Case Conclusion Date: December 5, 2016
Outcome: Not Guilty at Trial

Description: I was retained by someone who was charged with carrying a loaded handgun into the airport, which was discovered during routine security screening. It seems obvious that someone is not permitted to carry a weapon into an airport, or any other government building, and it is safe to say my client was aware of this. And my client was in possession of a valid concealed carry license, but again, even with the license, carrying a weapon into an airport is still a crime. The issue was that he did not realize he had left his gun in his bag when he packed for a business trip. The State's Attorney offered my client court supervision, which is not a conviction and could be expunged from his record two years after the supervision period ends. I recommended we set the matter for trial as there was no possible way the State could prove he had knowledge that the gun was in his bag. Turns out I was correct, the Court found that not only was the State’s Attorney unable prove knowledge, they couldn't even prove it was my client's bag as they called the wrong witness to testify at the trial. The State called the Chicago Police Officer that arrived on the scene after the bag was taken from my client. The State should have called the TSA Agent that discovered the weapon. And as a bonus, I was able to have the Court order that my client's weapon be returned to him.

Post has attachment
Case: 05 C6 66021401 UUW Vacated
Case Conclusion Date: December 9, 2016
Outcome: Conviction for Aggravated UUW Vacated

Description: Quite often, people convicted of a weapons charge do not realize that it might be possible to erase that conviction. A gentleman contacted me about a different issue, and when I asked about his prior criminal history, he informed me that he had a previous conviction for Aggravated Unlawful Use of Weapon, which is a felony, and cannot be expunged from you record. This conviction was preventing him from obtaining more promising employment among other issues. Since his case was prior to 2013, and the Court in People v. Aguilar found that the statute under which he was convicted was unconstitutional, I informed him that I could most likely have that conviction vacated. Well, exactly that outcome occurred today! My client is no longer a convicted felon and is free to pursue whatever opportunities come his way.
Wait while more posts are being loaded