The following dialogue between Harvard scholar Henry Louis Gates, Jr. and his arresting officer Sergeant James Crowley should have never taken place in a country that was founded on the principles of individual freedom. And yet, it was enough for Gates to simply yell at Crowley on the steps of his own home – not threaten or even clench his fist in a violent manner – for the police officer to charge the professor with disorderly conduct and put him under arrest:

Gates: You’re not the boss of me! Crowley: I am the boss of you. Gates: You are not the boss of me! Crowley: I’ll show you. You’re under arrest.

According to the Illinois statutes 720 ILCS 5/26-1, “A person commits disorderly conduct when he or she knowingly does any act in such unreasonable manner as to alarm or disturb another and to provoke a breach of the peace.” The following provisions state that, for a person to be arrested for disorderly conduct, he or she should either make a bomb threat, transmit a false alarm of fire, threaten or cause destruction to a school property, transmit false reports to public agencies regarding child abuse, or call 911 for no serious reason.

Gates exhibited none of these behaviors. He returned home after a trip he made overseas and found his front door jammed, so he proceeded to force it open with the help of his driver. One of his neighbors saw two individuals, of whom one was black, forcing the door and called the police to report an attempted burglary. Upon their arrival, police asked Gates to come outside, and his refusal led to his arrest for disorderly conduct.

Reactions followed shortly. On one hand, civil rights activists saw a clear depiction of racial profiling, while law enforcement conservatives were vocal against the ‘pampering’ of a black highbrow who “played the race card” against a cop who was just doing his job. Even President Obama intervened to say that officers’ behavior was stupid, and that things should never have gotten so far, considering everything an ‘overreaction’.

Obama was right: There was no reason whatsoever for Professor Gates to be charged and arrested. The course of action that Jon Shane, who worked as a police officer at the Newark, NJ, station for 17 years, would have taken was to immediately leave Gates’ premises once he was completely sure he was the owner of the house, regardless of the tumultuous behavior he exhibited. Just like any other officer in the force, Shane might have been offended by the professor’s offending remarks, but being disrespectful to a cop is not reason enough to be charged with disorderly conduct. In fact, according to Shane, the First Amendment gives an individual the right to say just about anything to the police and still not face these charges.

The Harvard scholar’s case is an accurate illustration of how police officers can rapidly turn from protectors of the law into power-hungry abusers dressed in state uniform. Being such a broad term that includes anything from trespassing to public peace disturbance, it has become a ‘catch-all’ crime – one of the most abused statutes in America. And although the penalties are minor, the collateral consequences are worth taking into consideration. If you have been charged with disorderly conduct, call 773.908.9811 or fill out a short form to access the aggressive defense you need against such abusive charges.

About the Author Andrew M. Weisberg is a criminal defense attorney in Chicago, Illinois. A former prosecutor in Cook County, Mr. Weisberg is a member of the Capital Litigation Trial Bar, an elite group of criminal attorneys who are certified by the Illinois Supreme Court to try death penalty cases. He is also a member of the Federal Trial Bar. Mr. Weisberg is a solo practitioner at the Law Offices of Andrew M. Weisberg.

Recently, scientists have discovered that the brain does not fully mature until the early 20s, and the last to mature are the areas responsible for controlling impulses and considering the consequences of one’s actions. In fact, there is evidence suggesting that the process of brain development is gradual and based on an individual rate of development, making an official age separating juveniles from adults arbitrary, at best.

Multiple studies of the human brain show that the cerebral cortex, which is the front part of the brain responsible for organizing, planning, and making decisions, is not yet finished growing in teens. In fact, the cerebral cortex is still developing when young people are most vulnerable to negative social pressures, such as drugs and other dangerous and risky behaviors.

The justice system has started taking this incomplete development into consideration where juvenile sentencing is concerned. Last year, the Supreme Court of Alabama in the case of Miller v. Alabama ruled that mandatory sentencing of those under the age of 18 to life without parole goes against the 8th amendment, which protects citizens against excessive, cruel, and unusual punishment. Although not excluding life without parole as an option, the judge said that the mandatory sentence prohibits judges and juries from deciding the most appropriate punishment for individuals whose age has an impact on the ability to fully consider and appreciate the consequences of their actions. Although the ruling has not been adopted by all states, it has opened an important debate regarding whether all cases of juveniles being sentenced to life without parole should be re-examined.

For example, if a crime was committed in 1987 when the defendant was 15 years old, should the case be re-opened now in light of the evidence that that there is a distinct difference between the critical thinking abilities of youth and adults?

Naysayers argue that reopening so many cases would be a disaster that would overwhelm the system, and that if the defendant really deserved a chance at parole, there is the option to seek executive clemency, meaning that the President of the United States or the state governor could pardon or reduce a sentence. However, is it really necessary that the President weigh in on every case of a hot-headed teenager who took the wrong path? There is little or no reason for the governor to actually interfere with the justice system when the courts are far more experienced and better equipped to make sentencing decisions. Even if the governor was inclined to help, how many teens would be able to command enough time and attention to make a compelling case and receive a fair hearing? Perhaps one or two before the pleas become repetitive and it becomes clear that the circumstances of youth are the rule and not the exception – or the governor decides it is a false pretense and stops

Allowing the judge and jury to decide the punishment based on individual cases while taking into consideration the limitations of a young, undeveloped brain would allow for a more just punishment, and one that ought to leave room for redemption, in at least some cases. Life without parole, without taking circumstances and youth into consideration, not only locks the person away for life, but also that person’s potential, leaving no chance for the person to redeem themselves and demonstrate that they are capable of being productive and perhaps even outstanding members of society. This has happened many times, unfortunately: Young people have been sentenced to life without parole and have wasted a lifetime in prison when they could have contributors to society rather than a burden.

We now know that the judge and jury should be allowed to explore the potential for change and redemption in young people when it is there, but what about those who did not receive such consideration? Must they continue to live separated from society without a fair re-examination? Just because the science was not available at the time that they committed the crime does not mean that we should dismiss such cases as a thing of the past. DNA analysis brought about a huge change in criminal investigation and helped bring justice to many innocent people, and neuroscience can, and should, do the same with excessive, cruel, and unusual sentencing of juveniles.

About the Author: Andrew M. Weisberg is a criminal defense attorney in Chicago, Illinois. A former prosecutor in Cook County, Mr. Weisberg is a member of the Capital Litigation Trial Bar, an elite group of criminal attorneys who are certified by the Illinois Supreme Court to try death penalty cases. He is also a member of the Federal Trial Bar. Mr. Weisberg is a solo practitioner at the Law Offices of Andrew M. Weisberg.

Images source: Istock

The Whitey Bulger trial is one of the most-watched trials of the century. Reminiscent of something from 1950s film noir, the mob trial has captured national attention largely because of the enormous scale of Bulger’s criminal operations along with the added intrigue of his status as an FBI informant. America’s fascination with Godfatheresque characters and their activities also fuel the overall interest and curiosity. Though the Bureau once looked the other way when it came to Bulger’s criminal activities, which included murder, racketeering, and conspiracy, Whitey Bulger is finally facing justice at the age of 81. Just when it would seem that the country was finally safe from Bulger, a shocking—or predictable, depending on your perspective—death has occurred. Was this witness yet another to murder victim who was silenced before he could take the stand against Bulger?

Fifty-nine-year-old Stephen “Stippo” Rakes was on the government’s witness list, but prosecutors had decided not to use Rakes’s testimony. Anxious to bring Bulger to justice, Rakes was disappointed that he would not be called to testify. He was friends with Steven Davis, whose sister Debra Davis had been killed by Bulger and his gang, and Rakes wanted to participate in bringing closure to the woman’s death. Rakes also had other ties to Bulger’s gang. At one time, he owned the South Boston Liquor Mart, which Bulger purchased to use as a cover for his money laundering scheme in the 1980s. Rakes claimed that Bulger’s gang held him at gunpoint and threatened his daughter until he agreed to sell his store. However, Kevin Weeks, a member of Bulger’s gang, claimed that Rakes wanted to sell the store and had pressured the gangsters for more money. In the ensuing argument, a member of the Bulger gang drew a gun. Rakes and his ex-wife had been involved in perjury cases and lawsuits with Bulger’s gang since the 1990s. Clearly, there was longstanding bad blood between Rakes and Bulger, and after being told he would not be allowed to testify in court, Rakes was not pleased. According to Steve Davis, Rakes “said his testimony was going to mean more to this case than anybody else’s.”

Just one day after being told he would not be permitted to testify, Rakes was found dead by the side of the road only 30 miles from his home. While the investigation into the cause of death was being conducted, speculation naturally leaned toward Bulger and his associates. Though the Middlesex District Attorney’s Office indicated that there were no signs of visible trauma on the body, those who knew Rakes well did not believe he died from natural causes, nor did they believe he would have taken his own life. Davis said that Rakes was in excellent health, and he also told reporters he was “110 percent sure” Rakes did not commit suicide. “I’m thinking somebody slipped something in his drink, poisoned him or something,” Davis said. Reports have emerged during Bulger’s trial of other witnesses who mysteriously died in the 1970s and 80s before they could testify against Bulger. Now, Rakes has been found dead.

Though it would seem to be a slam dunk to prove that Bulger and his gang had something to do with Rakes’s death, upon further investigation, it was found that Bulger had been poisoned by a business associate with no ties to the Bulger case. William Camuti was arrested in Boston for murdering Rakes by spiking his iced tea with potassium cyanide. The reason? Mr. Rakes owed Camuti a substantial amount of money due to business deals gone awry.

Perhaps Bulger’s widespread notoriety helped him escape blame for Rakes’s murder. Though Bulger was ultimately found guilty of 31 criminal counts, this particular murder was not among them. Camuti was crafty in his timing in that suspicion was immediately cast toward Bulger for obvious reasons. Had the murder not occurred in the scope of such a high-profile criminal case, it may have been easy for investigators to craft a case against Bulger.

Cases of misplaced guilt occur all too often that are based more on circumstances and a suspect’s criminal history rather than the actual evidence. For most people wrongly accused of a crime, the media is typically not present (at least not with such national saturation as in the Bulger case), and the overall interest level of the citizenry is low because there is a presumption among most law-abiding citizens that if someone has been accused of a crime, law enforcement is probably in the right, and the accused is probably guilty—especially when the accused already has a criminal record. Criminal attorneys fight this battle every day, waging battle on behalf of those who are too easily implicated and who have little in the way of resources to fight back.

About the Author: Andrew M. Weisberg is a criminal defense attorney in Chicago, Illinois. A former prosecutor in Cook County, Mr. Weisberg is a member of the Capital Litigation Trial Bar, an elite group of criminal attorneys who are certified by the Illinois Supreme Court to try death penalty cases. He is also a member of the Federal Trial Bar. Mr. Weisberg is a solo practitioner at the Law Offices of Andrew M. Weisberg.

While you may feel resigned that you blew your last chance, and you’re convinced that you’re headed to jail for sure, Chicago criminal defense attorney Andrew Weisberg has other ideas. Mr. Weisberg may well be able to help you avoid having your probation revoked even if you have violated. An aggressive, experienced criminal defense attorney specializes in making the impossible possible, especially in cases such as this. Where you see certain defeat, an experienced criminal defense attorney sees opportunities to help you avoid jail when you’ve violated probation.

Even if you’re sure they’ve got you, and even if you don’t feel like there’s any chance whatsoever of getting out of it, call Andrew Weisberg just to be sure. As a former Cook County prosecutor, Chicago Defense Attorney Weisberg can approach your situation with the wisdom of both sides of the courtroom and work for another chance for you to make good on your probation and move on with your life.

Chicago Criminal Defense – No matter how straightforward or complex your probation violation, Andrew M. Weisberg is a Chicago defense attorney known for tough, aggressive defense. A former felony prosecutor, Attorney Weisberg has extensive experience in handling all types of criminal cases, from sex offenses and violent crimes to theft-related crimes and traffic violations. To contact Mr. Weisberg, visit / or call his cell phone 24/7 at (773) 908-9811 or Text LAWYER to 25827 for prompt call back. The consultation is free.

The Act criminalizes recording any police officer whether in private or public without his or her consent as a Class 1 felony. Those who are found guilty may be subject to sentences of 15 years in prison. A Chicago criminal defense lawyer can help to minimize sentencing, or be able to facilitate a defense to get the charges dropped altogether.

The concern and motivation behind the law is to protect the privacy rights of public servants who are engaged in the commission of their official duties, who may be recorded and taken out of context. Opponents, such as the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) who challenged the law before the district judge’s ruling, argue that it is possible to record anyone in public without their consent, except for police officers, and that the punishment far outweighs the seriousness of the crime. Although this isn’t a frequently heard of charge, it serves as a great example of how versatile a Chicago criminal defense lawyer must be, as they are often called to defend those charged with “crimes” that defy ordinary categorization.

Chicago Criminal Defense Lawyer – No matter how straightforward or complex your criminal charge, Andrew M. Weisberg is a Chicago criminal defense attorney known for tough, aggressive defense. A former felony prosecutor, Attorney Weisberg has extensive experience in handling all types of criminal cases, from sex offenses and violent crimes to theft-related crimes and traffic violations. To contact Mr. Weisberg, visit / or call his cell phone 24/7 at (773) 908-9811 or Text LAWYER to 25827 for prompt call back. The consultation is free.