Chicago criminal defense attorney, James Dimeas, of the Chicago criminal defense firm, The Legal Defenders, P.C., forced the Office of the Cook County States Attorney to dismiss felony Possession of Stolen Motor Vehicle Charges filed by a special prosecutions unit of the Office of the Cook County States Attorney against a client who was on parole for a Residential Burglary at the time of his arrest.  The prosecutor dismissed the charges after the arresting officer's credibility was seriously compromised after intense cross examination by Chicago criminal defense attorney, James Dimeas, of the Chicago criminal defense firm, The Legal Defenders, P.C.  Chicago criminal defense attorney, James G. Dimeas, of the Chicago criminal defense firm, The Legal Defenders, P.C., had filed a motion asking the court to throw out a statement made by the defendant immediately after his arrest before he was advised of his Miranda rights.  The arresting officer testified that he first saw the vehicle the defendant had allegedly stolen driving down the street ahead of his vehicle.  The arresting officer testified that he attempted to pull over the vehicle the defendant was driving after he saw the defendant commit a minor traffic violation.  The officer testified that the defendant failed to stop his vehicle and eventually  fled on foot after he stopped.  The officer chased the defendant down an alley and apprehended the defendant as he was attempting to climb a fence.  As the defendant was being placed in handcuffs the officer asked the defendant why he fled and the defendant then allegedly stated that he had stolen the vehicle.

On cross examination by the Chicago criminal defense attorney, James Dimeas, of the Chicago criminal defense lawyers at the Legal Defenders, the officer was confronted by a report prepared by a neighboring village police officer which stated that the arresting Chicago police officer had told the other officer that he first saw the stolen vehicle in a parking lot and had checked the plate and it had come back stolen.  The report went on to state that the arresting Chicago police officer observed the defendant enter the vehicle in the hotel parking lot, followed it down the street and attempted to stop it when the defendant fled and was apprehended.

Chicago criminal defense attorney, James Dimeas, of the Chicago criminal defense firm Legal Defenders, P.C., called the other officer to testify that the arresting officer told him a different story than what the arresting officer had testified to in court. The Court granted the Motion Suppressing the Statement and the state was forced to dismiss the charges against the defendant.  The defendant was facing substantial mandatory jail time if he had been convicted.  The defendant had previously been convicted of Forgery and Armed Robbery.  Throughout his adult life, the defendant had been sentenced to over 30 years in the Illinois Department of Corrections in his various convictions.  He was on parole for a Residential Burglary at the time of his arrest.  

This hard fought victory was accomplished as a result of thorough preparation and hard work.  The Chicago criminal defense lawyers at The Legal Defenders, P.C., are trained to review every piece of evidence and look at every angle when defending a client.  The officer did not know that the Chicago criminal defense lawyers at The Legal Defenders, P.C., had obtained the report from the neighboring police department and was not aware of it's contents prior to taking the stand.   As a result, what looked like an open and shut case for the state crumbled under the skilled legal representation of the Chicago criminal defense lawyers at The Legal Defenders, P.C.

For more information about the attorneys at The Legal Defenders visit www.thelegaldefenders.com

According to a report issued today by the Death Penalty Information Center, the number of executions carried out in the United States in 2007 reached a 13 year low.  The Death Penalty Information Center reported that 42 executions were carried out in 2007 compared to 53 in 2006.  Since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976, the highest number of executions occurred in 1998 when 98 executions were carried out.  The Death Penalty Information Center also reported that 110 death sentences were imposed in 2007, the lowest number since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976.

The report from the Death Penalty Information Center attributes the drop in the number of executions to a case pending before the United States Supreme Court, Baze v. Rees 07-5439, a Kentucky case in which the Supreme Court will consider whether the death penalty in Kentucky violates the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.   The lawyers in Baze argue that the way the death penalty in Kentucky is carried out, as well and many other states, constitutes cruel and unusual punishment because the first of three drugs injected does not render the inmate unconscious, thereby causing them to suffer excruciating pain when the heart stopping drugs are injected afterwards.  Since the United States Supreme Court agreed to hear the Baze case, the court has stayed executions in at least 8 states pending a decision on the Baze case.

For more information about the attorneys at The Legal Defenders visit www.thelegaldefenders.com.

At Grand and Central, aggressive cross examination of the police by Chicago criminal defense attorney John Ioakimidis, of Legal Defenders, PC., resulted in a finding of no probable cause and the case was dismissed. The client was originally charged with Possession with Intent to Deliver.

The police arrested our client after he fit a description of a person who was shooting a gun. The police then conducted a search of our client's alleged residence and found, in a shoe box, more than 40 grams of marijuana, baggies, scales and our client's ID's.

Our client was filled with joy knowing that he walked into Court facing serious felony charges and walked out a free man. 

Governor Jon S. Corzine of New Jersey signed a law today that abolishes the death penalty. This makes New Jersey the first state in over 4 decades to outlaw the death penalty. The driving force behind the law is that procedures are not adequate to assure that innocent people are not being executed. This year the ABA stated "serious problems in state death penalty systems compromise fairness and accuracy in capital punishment cases and justify a nationwide freeze on executions." Governor Corzine stated: "Society must ask. . .is it not morally superior to imprison 100 people for life than it is to execute all 100 when it's probable we execute an innocent [person}?"

In Illinois alone, 18 people have been freed after being placed on death row because of new evidence proving their innocence:

Perry Cobb was released in 1987 after serving 8 years,  Darby (Williams) Tillis was released in 1987 after serving 8 years,  Joseph Burrows was released in 1994 after serving 5 years,  Rolando Cruz was released in 1995 after serving 10 years, Alejandro Hernandez was released in 1995 after serving 10 years, Verneal Jimerson was released in 1996 after serving 11 years, Dennis Williams was released in 1996 after serving 17 years, Gary Gauger was released in 1996 after serving 3 years, Carl Lawson was released in 1996 after serving 6 years, Anthony Porter was released in 1999 after serving 16 years, Steven Smith was released in 1999 after serving 13 years, Ronald Jones was released in 1999 after serving 10 years, Steve Manning was released in 2000 after serving 7 years, Aaron Patterson was released in 2003 after serving 17 years, Madison Hobley was released in 2003 after serving 16 years, Leroy Orange was released in 2003 after serving 19 years, Stanley Howard was released in 2003 after serving 16 years, and  Gordon Steidl was released in 2004 after serving 17 years.

Former Illinois Governor George Ryan, who at first supported the death penalty, was so alarmed by the possibility that innocent people were being executed that he placed a moratorium on all executions and in January 2003 commuted every death sentence in the state. Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich has announced that he will continue the state's moratorium on executions, stating: "I don't feel any artificial pressure to lift the moratorium. I'd like to one day be in the position to do that, if I thought the position was foolproof. But I don't believe a series of reforms that the Legislature will pass, most of which I support, will do enough to have me feel that the system won't make those kinds of mistakes."

For more information about the attorneys at The Legal Defenders visit www.thelegaldefenders.com. 

On December 10, the United States Supreme Court issued a significant ruling affecting thousands of defendants convicted of possessing and selling crack cocaine.  Defendants convicted of violating Federal criminal laws are subject to being sentenced according to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines.  The Federal Sentencing Guidelines are a set of sentencing rules and ranges compiled by the U.S. Sentencing Commission.  Federal Judges are required to adhere closely to the sentencing guidelines when sentencing defendants in Federal criminal cases.  For many years, judges and lawyers have complained that the Federal Sentencing Guidelines are unfair in that they punish defendants convicted of crimes involving crack much more severely than defendants with powder cocaine.  The result has been a racial disparity.  An example of the unfairness in the Federal Sentencing Guidelines is that the mandatory minimum sentence for an amount of crack was the same as for 100 times that amount of powder cocaine.  This was commonly known as the 100:1 drug ratio.  The racial disparity occurred because roughly 85% of defendants convicted of crack offenses are black whereas most defendants convicted of powder cocaine offenses are white.

The Supreme Court finally agreed with this problem with the Federal Sentencing Guidelines and ruled that Federal Judges could depart from the Guidelines and sentence defendants more fairly when dealing with crack cocaine.  A few days later, the U.S. Sentencing Commission met and changed the Federal Sentencing Guidelines reducing the sentences of defendants convicted of crack offenses.  The change is retroactive, meaning that after March 2008, roughly 20,000 defendants convicted of offenses involving crack will be able to petition their sentencing Judge to reduce their sentence.  There are estimates that the average defendant will be able to have their sentence reduced by 27 months.

For more information about the attorneys at The Legal Defenders visit www.thelegaldefenders.com.

The Chicago criminal defense attorneys at The Legal Defenders, P.C., have been able to have their psychiatrist, and the psychiatrist hired by the state to agree that their client is unfit to stand trial for the felony charge of retail theft.  The client was arrested by police after allegedly committing a retail theft in a Menards retail establishment.  The client was severely injured when he was shot several years ago after he was robbed at work.  The client is in excruciating pain and on several medications which make it virtually impossible for him to communicate with his attorneys and to assist in his defense.  His attorney, James Dimeas, a criminal defense attorney at The Legal Defenders recognized that his client was unable to assist him in defending his case and had his client evaluated by a staff psychiatrist with Forensic Services who determined that the client was unfit to stand trial.  The state disagreed with this opinion and sent the client for a second opinion with their expert.  The state's expert also agreed that the client was unfit to stand trial.  The case has been set for a Fitness Hearing to determine how to proceed further.

For more information about the attorneys at The Legal Defenders visit www.thelegaldefenders.com.

The Chicago criminal defense attorneys at The Legal Defenders force the state to dismiss all domestic battery charges against a young woman after the Chicago criminal defense attorneys at The Legal Defenders forced the state to proceed to trial. The young woman insisted that she had been wrongly charged with committing the crime of domestic battery.  When the Chicago criminal defense attorneys at The Legal Defenders forced the state to proceed to trial, the state was finally forced to admit that they could not prove their case and agreed to dismiss the charge of domestic battery.  The client was relieved because prior to the case being set for trial, the state had offered the client a jail sentence in return for pleading guilty.  Instead of going to jail, the young woman walked out of court a free woman thanks to the aggressive efforts of the Chicago criminal defense attorneys at The Legal Defenders.

For more information about the attorneys at The Legal Defenders visit www.thelegaldefenders.com.