People v. S.S.
When our client came to us, he had been to see other attorneys who gave him the advice that he would have to plead guilty to the offense with which he was charged, to surrender himself, and do time in the penitentiary. Years ago, our client had plead guilty to a sex offense and was required to register as a sex offender for ten years. At the time he came to see us, and after consulting after his other attorneys, he had been charged under an indictment in Cook County with being present in a school zone by a child sex offender. The state was seeking significant time in the penitentiary, and also requiring him to re-register as a sex offender for the next ten years to the rest of his life. We took a very aggressive approach to this. As a result of our representation, all charges against him were dismissed. He was not convicted of anything, did not have to plead guilty to anything, and he did not have to register as a sex offender. Our client was able to get on with his life as if nothing had occurred despite the advice he received from other attorneys.
Sex Offender Registration Case
People v. SM
When our client came to see us, he had completed his registration as a child sex offender after doing a lengthy period of incarceration in excess of eight years. He finished his obligation to register as a sex offender and had taken steps to go about leading a normal life. He was no longer required under the statute to register as a sex offender. He and his wife bought a home in the northwest suburbs, and after living in that home for three years, one afternoon, two police officers from the local police department showed up at his home and placed him under arrest, telling him that he was violating the sex offender registration laws for the state of Illinois by residing within 500 feet of a park and within 500 feet of a playground. When our client came to us, he faced the probability of being reincarcerated in the Illinois Department of Corrections and having to reregister as a sex offender for the rest of his life. In reviewing his case, we took our usual, aggressive approach to his defense and turned down all requests by the prosecution that our client plead guilty in exchange for a sentence in the penitentiary and a re-registration with the state for the rest of his life as a child sex offender. Instead, we investigated his case and prepared our defense. We proceeded to an actual trial in this matter. Our skillful cross-examination of the police officer found that he testified incorrectly about a number of matters, and in effect, we were able to show that the officer was untruthful in his testimony before the grand jury, which was used to obtain the indictment of our client. More than that, we were able to demonstrate to the court that our client was legally not guilty as a matter of law, that the indictment was defective and that the state had misstated the law in order to obtain the indictment of our client and that our client was actually innocent of the charges that had been brought against him. After listening to our cross-examination of the witnesses and the exhibits that we admitted into evidence, the court ruled in our favor, and our client was found not guilty after a contested matter. After having been wrongfully removed from his home, wife and three small children, we were happy to reunite our client with his family, who is now back living in his house free from harassment by the local police.
Aggravated Criminal Sexual Abuse
When our client first came to see us, he was represented by other attorneys. Our client was charged in a three count indictment, with the most serious offense being aggravated criminal sexual abuse involving sexual intercourse and other sexual conduct with a child under the age of eighteen. Our client had given a tape recorded confession regarding his acts with this child. The transcript was one hour in length. Based on the advice of his former attorneys, our client entered a plea of guilty to the charge of aggravated criminal sexual abuse, and was sentenced to three years in the Illinois Department of Corrections. As a result of his plea of guilty, he was also required to register as a sex offender for a period of ten years. Our client plead guilty because he was advised by his prior attorneys, that he had no chance of winning this case because of the taped confession that existed and also because of the existence of other witnesses, all of whom would have allegedly testified against him. When our client came to see us, however, we had a different view of this case. We believed our client when he told us that he was innocent of these charges and did nothing to this girl. We also believed our client when he said he was forced and compelled by the police department to make this one hour, audio taped recording of this confession. We aggressively represented our client and became proactive in his defense. We appeared before the judge who sentenced him, accepted his plea of guilty and sentenced him to the penitentiary, and convinced that judge that he should be allowed to withdraw his plea of guilty because we believed the evidence showed our client to be not guilty of any of this. Over opposition of the state, the judge accepted our representations to him and vacated the plea of guilty that our client had given and set the matter for trial. In our very aggressive defense of our client, we filed motions alleging that the audio taped confession take by the police department was, in fact, not a voluntary statement. We produced expert evidence showing that the audio tape was stopped four to six separate times and that the police department had committed purgery in their testimony before the court when they denied stopping the tape during the confession. We produced evidence that not only was the tape recorder turned off manually by the officers, but that the officers also threatened our client with a version of events to prevent them from going to the school where our client's children were and interviewing all of the teachers and children present in the school about our client being a sexual predator and asking everyone of the children and teachers if our client had ever molested them. This was a very small town in which our client lived, and that type of a threat would've been devastating to him, his wife, and his children. In order to save his family from such harassment and embarrassment, our client actually plead guilty to a crime he did not commit. However, with our aggressive representation, we were able to convince the trial court, not only to vacate the plea but that the police had, in fact, committed purgery. The bottom line is that all charges were dismissed against our client. He was never convicted of any criminal act, despite having plead guilty to a crime he did not commit. He had no conviction as a result of our representation of him, nor did he have to register as a sex offender for ten years. As a further step, we were able to prevent DCFS from becoming involved in this case by attempting to remove the client's children from his home. To top it all off, we obtained the expungement of our clients arrest record in this matter.
Aggravated Unlawful Use of a Weapon
Our client, who had no prior criminal arrest record, was arrested by the Chicago Police Dept. and charged with two felony counts of aggravated unlawful use of a weapon. When we first became involved in this case, the prosecutor's office had recommended that our client spend two years in the Illinois Department of Corrections. We obviously thought the offer was ridiculous and proceeded to aggressively investigate this case and defend it. We filed numerous pre-trial motions and actually did proceed to a contested hearing before the judge on our theory that the arrest of our client was completely bogus. The morning of the hearing, the state decided to change their mind and offer our client 24 months probation in exchange for his plea of guilty to this offense. We told the prosecutor's office what they could do with their offer and decided to aggressively pursue the defense of our client. Even if our client had accepted the offer of probation, he would've had a felony record that would've stayed with him forever. Instead, we rejected the state's offer. I had an opportunity to extensively cross-examine the arresting officer. At the close of the case, the judge agreed with us, that the arrest was bogus and without merit, and granted our motion to quash his arrest. After the judge's ruling, the state moved to dismiss all of the charges against our client. Our client was completely exonerated due to our aggressive stance and defense of him. His arrest record will be expunged.
People of the State of Illinois v. W. B.
Our client's family hired us to represent their 15-year-old son, who had been charged with the rape and murder of a 15-year-old neighbor. Their son had signed a confession in which he admitted to sexually assaulting the girl and killing her. Both parents were present at the time of his confession, and both parents also signed as witnesses to their son's confession.
Our client was tried as an adult for this offense and was offered 80 years in prison in exchange for his plea of guilty to the charges. We were able to prove that the confession was the product of police misconduct – that our client was actually hypnotized by the police into giving a false confession. After lengthy, contested hearings, a judge ruled in our favor and suppressed the confession. The state did not appeal the judge's decision and all charges, including murder, were dismissed. Our client never spent 1 day in prison and his arrest record was also expunged by us.
People of the State of Illinois v. L.M.
Our client, a young lady from California, was charged with three counts of aggravated battery to Chicago police officers in that she became involved in contact with uniformed Chicago police officers striking and kicking them in retaliation for performance of their official duties, aggravated battery for knowing this was a Chicago police officer engaged in his official duties and aggravated battery to a Chicago police officer knowingly trying to prevent that officer from performing his duties. Our client had no prior criminal background at all and refused the state's offer that she should plead guilty in exchange for a felony conviction and some jail time. The case proceeded to trial. After the trial, during which all of the witnesses testified, our client was found not guilty of all charges. She was subsequently discharged.
People of the State of Illinois v. A. V.
Our client, a 17-year-old, was charged with 2 counts of aggravated criminal sexual assault and 1 count of aggravated criminal sexual abuse of an 8-year-old girl, with 2 counts of aggravated criminal sexual assault and 1 count of aggravated sexual abuse of an 8-year-old boy and with 2 counts of aggravated criminal sexual assault and 1 count of aggravated criminal sexual abuse of a different 8-year-old boy.
He signed 3 written confessions, admitting his crimes to the criminal sexual exploitation unit of the state's attorney's office. His former attorneys told him he could not win in his case at trial, and they convinced him to plead guilty to all charges in exchange for a penitentiary sentence of 12 years, plus registering as a sex offender for 10 years.
He came to our office 7 days before he was to begin his 12-year sentence. He hired us, and we convinced the judge to set aside his guilty plea, his 12-year sentence, and the requirement that he register as a sex offender for 10 years.
We proceeded to a jury trial on his behalf, with the state now recommending a 30-year sentence upon conviction, 10 years for each child.
Each of his 3 confessions was admitted into evidence against our client, and all children testified against him, also, in addition to police officers, medical doctors, and the state's attorney who took the 3 confessions. The jury found our client not guilty of all 12 charges, in spite of the above evidence. Afterwards, we obtained the destruction of all criminal arrest records, fingerprints, and photographs pertaining to our client; and his arrest record has been completely expunged.
Our client never served even 1 day of the 12-year sentence he originally received, nor does he even have to register as a sex offender, which would have caused him even more significant problems after his release from the penitentiary.
People of the State of Illinois v. D.L.
Our client was charged in the Skokie courthouse with two count of criminal sexual abuse for having intercourse with a girl under the age of 17. The state offered our client a conviction on this offense as well as jail time. Our client refused to accept that offer and we proceeded to trial. All of the parties testified, and as a result of extremely aggressive cross-examination, our client was found not guilty at the end of the case, in spite of medical evidence indicating that the act of sexual conduct occurred. Our client was found not guilty of all charges and discharged from any and all responsibilities.
Solicitation of a Prostitute
People v. R.W.
Our client was an out of state businessman who came to us, having been charged with solicitation of a prostitute. His life was in ruins because of this arrest, and he was completely innocent of the charges. Although the state offered to give us a period of court supervision if we would plead our client to the charge of solicitation of a prostitute, we turned down their offer because we would not be able to expunge our client's arrest records for at least two years after the one year period of supervision. That would affect our client's quality of life in general, since in order to get the supervision, he would've had to plead guilty to the charge of soliciting a prostitute. Furthermore, our client did not commit the offense. Rather than buckle under the offer of the state, we entered a plea of not guilty and proceeded to trial on our client's behalf. Due to our very aggressive and skillful cross-examination of the arresting officer, it was brought out that she was a member of a task force that was aggressively arresting anybody in site in a prostitution sting. The officer was posing as a prostitute, and basically anybody that came anywhere near her was arrested by plain-clothes officers. Our client was not guilty of this, and through our cross-examination, we were able to expose more facts that rendered the believability of the police officer at zero. At the close of the state's case and after our cross-examination, the judge found that there was no reason to continue this matter any further, and he found our client not guilty of the charge. We were able to obtain the immediate expungement of our client's arrest record, and he was able to go back to his family and indicate to them that he did not commit this offense.
People of the State of Illinois v. D.C.
Our client came to us charged with 2 counts of armed robbery and 1 count of unlawful restraint as well as a count of aggravated battery arising from a robbery that occurred in Chicago. The state and the judge, as a result of the pre-trial conference, offered our client 18 years in the Illinois Department of Corrections in exchange for his plea of guilty and told him that if he proceeded to trial he would receive 30 years if he was convicted. We rejected the state's offer and the judge's position and proceeded to a jury trial. Our client was found not guilty of these charges and was acquitted of all charges against him.
Leaving the Scene of an Accident
People v. C. C.
When our client came to us, she had been indicted by a Cook County Grand Jury on two counts of failing to report an accident that involved the death of another individual. In other words, she was charged with killing an individual with her vehicle and leaving the scene of that fatality. The offense itself was punishable by three to fourteen years in the Illinois Department of Corrections and would call for the revocation of her driving privileges for a period of time to be determined by the Secretary of State. Of course, these are the terrible things that would happen to our client if, in fact, she were convicted of the offenses for which she was charged. We began an exhaustive and aggressive defense of our client, which included the use of private investigators and expert witnesses that came from across the country. It entailed the use of computer-generated animation, which we intended to use as evidence if the case proceeded to trial and we needed to use such evidence. There were no plea negotiations in this case, since we believed from the onset that our client was not guilty of this offense, and we believed she would be proved not guilty at trial. It was a very difficult case to proceed to trial on, and it lasted four days. The State called approximately twelve to fifteen witnesses on their side and introduced eighty separate pieces of evidence to help prove their case against our client. Our client had also given a statement to a prosecutor, and the statement was admitted into evidence at her trial, also. Despite all of the evidence that the state believed would make her guilty of the offenses she was charged with, we proceeded to a lengthy trial on her behalf. Our cross-examination of the State's witnesses proved not only to be intense but extremely effective in producing evidence that was favorable to our client. At the end of the case, the judge found our client not guilty of all charges. She received no conviction in this matter because of our skillful, intense and aggressive defense of her. We are currently in the process of expunging her arrest record and having her file sealed.
People of the State of Illinois v. R. G.
Our client was stopped by DEA agents and police officers as the result of information given to them by a cooperating individual. Based on that information given to them by another drug dealer, the officers went to our client's home, entered the home, and recovered from the home a weapon and more than a kilo of cocaine. Because this was not our client's first arrest, the state offered, in exchange for our client's plea of guilty, a sentence of 25 years in the Illinois Department of Corrections. The sentencing range for this amount of drugs recovered was from 15 to 60 years in the state penitentiary without the possibility of parole. We proceeded to an extremely lengthy contested hearing, which involved the testimony of DEA agents, the informant, and other police officers. As a result of our contested hearing, the court ruled in favor of our client, and all charges were dismissed. Our client did not do a single day in jail in spite of the significantly serious charges placed against him.
United States of America v. C.M.
Our client was arrested along with six other individuals by DEA agents and found to be in possession of eight kilos of cocaine, $286,000.00 in cash and a machine gun. He was charged with conspiracy to deliver multi kilo's of cocaine, and the government sought a period of incarceration of at least 10 years but more likely 20 years. Five out of six individuals in this offense were convicted and sentenced to federal prison. We proceeded to a jury trial in federal court, and as a result of our efforts on his behalf, he was acquitted and all charges against him were dismissed.
People of the State of Illinois v. M. G.
Our client came to us charged with four felony counts of aggravated battery to police officers, along with the charge of resisting arrest. The state sought incarceration in the state penitentiary in exchange for our client's plea of guilty. We rejected the state's offer and proceeded to a jury trial in this matter. Our client was found not guilty of all charges placed against him by the jury. After expunging his arrest record, we proceeded to sue those four police officers in federal court for their malicious prosecution of our client, among other things. A federal jury found in favor of our client and against each of the police officers in excess of $50,000. Our client received no conviction and did not spend any time in jail as a result of this. He made money as a result of our efforts in the civil lawsuit we filed against the police officers.
People of the State of Illinois v. M. T.
Our client was charged with possession with intent to deliver cocaine and other narcotics in an amount that was sufficient to have him charged with a Class X felony. The state sought in excess of six years in the department of corrections in exchange for his plea of guilty because he was, according to the police, a drug dealer in the neighborhood. The drugs were found in an apartment rented by him as a result of the execution of a search warrant. Our client rejected the state's offer and we proceeded to a trial on his behalf. At the end of the trial, our client was found not guilty of all charges.
People v. D.W.
When our client came to us for representation, he had been arrested by the police department pursuant to a search warrant issued by a judge. As a result of the search of his residence, 37 guns were recovered and taken by the police, approximately $8,050.00 in U.S. currency recovered from various locations in his home and also seized by the police department, granted by the search warrant. Additionally, his home and laptop computers were seized with the police claiming he had child pornography on them. While the officers were in the house, our client was given his Miranda rights, and he gave an oral confession to all of the crimes for which he was charged and followed that oral confession up with a handwritten statement that he gave to the police once he was back at the police department. Our client came to us, at that point, with all of this evidence against him, and asked us to represent him, which we did. Our representation was immediate and aggressive, and after receiving all of the documentation, the police reports and copies of his handwritten statements, we prepared two pre-trial motions, one of which was to quash the issuance of the search warrant, the second of which was to quash his arrest and suppress from evidence everything that was recovered as a result of the search warrant, including the computers, the guns, the drugs and his statement. Our client was indicted and charged with a felony offense of possession of a controlled substance, having more than 200 grams of a certain controlled substance. After we filed the motion to quash the search warrant and the motion to quash his arrest, the matter was set for a hearing on the pre-trial motions. Although we were prepared to proceed to a hearing on the pre-trial motions, after reviewing the motions, and on the very day that these officers had been subpoenaed to testify in this matter, the state dropped all charges against our client. His computers and his money were returned to him. The only thing he did not recover was the 37 guns. After all charges were dismissed, we proceeded to obtain the expungement of his arrest record so that there was no record of him ever being arrested.
People v. D.V.
Our client had been arrested by the Chicago Police Department and found to be in possession of a narcotic needle wherein he was injecting heroin into his arm at the time the police officers came upon him. It is alleged that they recovered bags of heroin from his possession. He was arrested and charged with a felony possession of a controlled substance. Our client did not wish to have this on his record, and we took another very aggressive approach to his defense. After proceeding to a contested hearing, the court agreed with our position in this matter and dismissed all of the charges. As a result of our actions on his behalf, all of the charges, as indicated, were dismissed. Our client did not have to plead guilty to anything and was able to get his arrest record expunged.
We Win Felony Cases Other Lawyers Said Were Impossible
Don't be pressured into pleading guilty. Contact a criminal defense lawyer at the law offices of Michael T. Norris and John W. Callahan today. We offer a free case evaluation.
While we are located in the Chicago area, we have represented clients in criminal cases in state courts nationwide, including Las Vegas, NV; Phoenix, AZ; Scottsdale, AZ; Tulsa, OK; Atlanta, GA; West Lafayette, IN; Kenosha, WI; Racine, WI; Janesville, WI; and St. Paul, MN
We have represented clients in criminal cases in the following federal courts: St. Louis, MO; Cape Girardeau, MO; Columbus, OH; Washington, D.C.; Minneapolis, MN; Milwaukee, WI; Chicago, IL; and Champaign, IL
Criminal defense lawyers Michael T. Norris and John W. Callahan serve clients in Cook County, Lake County, and Will County in Illinois, including the cities of Chicago, Schaumburg, Skokie, Hoffman Estates, Cicero, Calumet City, Homewood, Blue Island, Berwyn, Tinley Park, Oak Lawn, Evanston, Wilmette, Palatine, Markham, and Rolling Meadows.