Restraining Orders

A restraining order is probably the one that most people are more familiar with, if only because it’s the one that gets mentioned more in popular media, including TV shows and movies. But TV shows and movies probably are not giving people the right idea when it comes to restraining orders.

Restraining orders are actually relatively limited in what they can accomplish. These orders usually come with expiration dates (usually up to six months after they’ve been served, or, if the restraining order is accompanying a divorce proceeding, until the divorce is finalized). Most importantly, restraining orders do not come with built-in security. In other words, they are not enforced by law enforcement.

Orders of Protection

When it comes to domestic violence and domestic battery cases, orders of protection actually offer the most security and thus they are the legal orders that most commonly accompany domestic violence charges.

Orders of protection can:

• Forbid actions (e.g., forbidding abusive acts or forbidding you from contacting certain people)
• Order actions (e.g., ordering that you stay away from certain locations or ordering that you attend counseling sessions)
• Make decisions regarding child custody (e.g., demanding that you pay child support or demanding that you only visit the child on weekends)
• Make decisions regarding shared property (e.g., demanding that you move out of a shared apartment)

Unlike restraining orders, orders of protection are enforced by law enforcement. If a person goes against the conditions of a protective order, he or she could be subject to criminal charges.

What to Do If You’re Served with Either Order

Since both restraining orders and orders of protection are served by the court following an appeal written by an accuser, both orders can come as total shocks to the person at the receiving end of the order (the “respondent”).

If you’re served with either a restraining order or an order of protection, make sure to follow these steps:

Understand the implications. If you find yourself facing a restraining order or an order of protection, the most important thing you must do is realize the severity of the allegations. Even if they seem unfounded or unfair to you, and even if you maintain that no physical abuse ever actually took place, the allegations are serious and are not to be taken lightly. It’s important that you stay calm and call a qualified criminal attorney as soon as possible, especially if you feel that you have been unfairly targeted.

Follow the rules. If you’re served with either an order of protection or a restraining order, you must obey all of the conditions stated in the document. If you violate any of the stipulations, you may find yourself in serious legal trouble.

Appear in court. Both of these orders will come with a court date, at which point you will be able to stand before a judge and plead your case. When your court date arrives, you must appear. If you do not, you forfeit your right to defend yourself and the judge will be able to make a call based on nothing but the accuser’s testimony. You will not get to argue against any decision that the judge makes.

Luckily, you can hire an attorney to represent you at the court hearing. A knowledgeable, skilled trial lawyer will help ensure that you stay out of trouble and are not unfairly convicted.

After the Trial

Once the trial is over, you will need to follow the terms of the order as determined by the judge. Failing to do so could result in even worse penalties.

It’s important to know, though, that even if the judge rules against you, you can still fight. There may be a chance to appeal a judge’s sentence, but the details of appeals processes can be long and complicated. If you’re unsatisfied with a judge’s decision following a domestic abuse case, consult with a lawyer to find out how you may be able to change your situation.

Both restraining orders and orders of protection are extremely serious and can severely impact your life for years to come. If you’ve been served with either of these, the best thing to do is start setting up a defense right away.

About the Author: Andrew M. Weisberg is a former felony prosecutor who now serves as a defense attorney in the greater Chicago area. He has extensive experience in handling all types of criminal cases, from sex offenses and violent crimes to theft-related crimes and traffic violations.

Image source: http://bit.ly/1efAOO2

It was, according to news reports from that time, a brutal and undeserved death. A 36-year-old female bartender was found dead in the men’s restroom of the bar where she worked in Phoenix, Arizona, on December 29, 1991. Apparently, she had died from a fatal stab wound, and there was little evidence to help officers track down the killer. Besides the fact that she was found naked, there were no signs of a physical assault or semen and DNA samples to indicate that a rape occurred.

The only relevant piece of evidence investigators had was the bite marks found on the victim’s neck and breast. After learning from a friend of the victim’s that a certain Ray Krone was supposed to help her close the bar on that particular night, police officers asked Krone to provide an impression of his teeth for comparison. The lab results got Krone arrested and accused of sexual assault, kidnapping, and murder.

Although Krone pleaded innocent and maintained his testimony throughout the trial, saying he was in bed and asleep at the moment the crime was committed, he was sentenced to death and a consecutive 21-year imprisonment – on the counts of murder and kidnapping. He appealed the court decision, but lost again; however, his sentence was changed to life in prison, as certain doubts about the validity of the evidence started to surface.

Finally, after serving more than 10 years of his sentence and spending two years on the death row, Krone was released on April 8, 2002, after DNA testing proved his innocence. Prior to his arrest, Ray Krone had no criminal record, had worked in the postal service for several years, and was a respected member of the community. What helped him during this time was the support he continued to receive from his family:

“One time after my release, I was being interviewed, and so was my mom. I happened to pass the room in which the reporter was speaking with her. I heard my mom tell him, ‘Our family used to set a place at the table for Ray at every Thanksgiving and Christmas.’ To hear that, to think of what my mom went through, to hear her say, ‘We wondered what he was eating in prison,’that helped me realise how I need to do this for her, for my sisters, for all the people who have sat in a courtroom and been told that they are guilty when they are not.”

Just like Ray, many other people spent time in jail for crimes they didn’t commit. According to the Death Penalty Information Center, Krone was the 100^th former death row inmate released because he was innocent and the 12^th to have his innocence proven by post-sentencing DNA testing.

The biggest problem with wrongful-conviction cases is that it directly unveils the sad reality of our criminal justice system, one ridden with technical mistakes and faulty evidence. In too many cases, innocent people are sentenced to years in prison based on the flimsiest of evidence: DNA testing, eyewitness testimonies, and false confessions. Instead of admitting dubious evidence tocourt and accusing innocent people of crimes they didn’t commit, legislators should focus on fixing the system by building in protections for the wrongfully convicted and give them a chance to recover their lives.

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 sole practitioner at the Law Offices of Andrew M. Weisberg.

According to a Forbes article, “the amount of court-issued warrants surging from 1,190 in 2000 to 3,194 in 2010 – a nearly 200% increase.” And if most of the times its use is still reserved to fight violent and organized crime, wiretapping has become a potent tool in high-profile white-collar crimes, as well.

Photo Source: http://media.npr.org/assets/img/2011/05/11/raj-318e4d07fe81a93b1bcf52479803127c3cc2ed45-s40-c85.jpg

Wiretaps played a crucial role in the most famous white-collar case of recent years, leading to the conviction of Galleon Group LLC co-founder Raj Rajaratnam in 2011 for conspiracy and security fraud. Prosecutors alleged the billionaire investor had several ‘corporate tipsters’ that provided him insider information – used to make what seemed at the time extremely inspired business investments – and built their case on a series of telephone conversations recorded over the course of 9 months in 2008.

There were three major conversations that sealed the trader’s fate. First one records a discussion between Rajaratnam and Rajiv Goel, a former Intel representative, about trading shares of People Support, about which he knows exactly when the price will go up, based on a tip from an inside man. The second conversation is between Raj and a former McKinsey executive about an AMD deal, ended with the latter encouraging Raj to buy up the stocks as soon as possible. On the last recording, Raj is discussing with one of his former partners at Galleon, Adam Smith, about a company named Vishay.

All recorded conversations between Rajaratnam and his informants, 45 in all, were essential to his conviction on 14 counts of securities fraud and conspiracy. On October 13, 2011, he was sentenced to 11 years in prison and fined over $150 million in criminal and civil penalties, the harshest-ever punishment imposed in a white-collar case.

Is Wiretapping Necessary?

According to the federal Wiretap Act, investigators must resort to wiretapping only if conventional investigative techniques prove unfruitful – they must demonstrate exactly how other procedures have failed or would have been too dangerous in those circumstances. The law was recently updated in order to “minimize the interception of communications not otherwise subject to interceptions” and limit unnecessary intrusion into the suspect’s privacy.

Wiretapping is particularly important as part of investigators’ toolbox when the phone is regularly used to conduct criminal activities currently under investigation. Especially when it comes to organized crime and drug-related cases, there are few conventional alternatives for proving offenses, and prosecutors have no trouble showing that wiretapping was indeed needed. In white-collar crime cases, however, especially high-profile ones, regulatory agencies may claim prosecutors are acting with ‘reckless disregard’ of the defendant’s privacy rights and question the legality of wiretaps.

Charges for white-collar crimes are serious criminal accusations that should not be taken lightly. If you have been requested to appear before a Grand Jury in relation to an investigation into such criminal offenses, the experience and talent of a criminal defense lawyer can prove extremely valuable in preparing your case for the proceeding. Call Mr. Weisberg cell phone 24/7 at 773-908-9811 or text ‘LAWYER’ to 25827 to receive a call back.

About the Author Andrew M. Weisberg is a criminal defense attorney in Chicago, Illinois. A former prosecutor in Cook County, Mr. Weisbergis 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 sole practitioner at the Law Offices of Andrew M. Weisberg.

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.

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.