From the moment you enter the criminal justice system, you might feel overwhelmed and stressed.

That’s why, when you’re facing criminal charges, it’s in your best interest to bring a defense attorney on board – to help you navigate the often cumbersome legal process.

If you’ve never needed an attorney before, much less a criminal defense attorney, how do you know you’ve found the right one? What characteristics does a good defense attorney have?

It’s key to the success of your case to select the right attorney for it.

Here are qualities you need to look for in a criminal attorney, how the criminal trial process works, and the three main categories of criminal defense.

What To Look For in an Attorney

There are a few traits to prioritize when choosing a criminal attorney to represent you. They are:

Experience

Does this attorney have experience in cases like yours?

Remember, criminal law is quite complex, so it’s important to find an attorney with real-world experience defending similar cases. This will mean they are well versed in the law surrounding your type of case and that they want to represent clients in these circumstances.

Stellar Communication Skills

A good attorney will listen carefully and respectfully to you, address your concerns, and answer all your questions.

They’ll also communicate to ensure that you understand their choices and how the case is going.

Willingness

A good defense attorney will make you feel as if they want to work with you. You will be a priority to them.

Simple actions, like remembering your name and the specifics surrounding your case, should not be difficult. They’ll also work hard to prepare the best defense possible for you.

Aggressive But Approachable

Aggressiveness is a good characteristic in a defense attorney since it may be necessary at times. A passionate attorney advocates for you in court but remains approachable outside of court—that’s a great attorney to have on your side.

The Trial Process

There are typically six phases to a criminal trial. They are:

• Choosing the jury
• Opening statements by the prosecution and defense
• Witness testimony and cross-examination of those witnesses
• Closing Arguments
• Jury Instruction
• Jury Deliberation and Verdict

Your attorney will guide you through each phase of a criminal trial. They’ll make sure you know how things are progressing.

They will also advocate for you in court, presenting the best defense they can.

The Categories of Criminal Defense

There are various strategies that criminal defense attorneys use for defense in court.

The three main categories of criminal defense are:

Innocence

This is the most straightforward defense out there – you simply didn’t commit the crime.

However, it takes a lot of strategies for your attorney to present a convincing case that demonstrates your innocence.

A good attorney will bring expert witnesses to the stand, find evidence that points to your innocence, and may even present strong alibi evidence on your behalf.

Self-Defense

If you plan to plead self-defense, your attorney must show that you faced a threat justifying the use of force. This strategy can apply to situations in which you were protecting friends or family from what you believed to be a real threat.

Insanity

This is one of the hardest strategies for defense, but it can work in some situations. Once your attorney knows all about your case and the charges against you, they can formulate a defense that utilizes insanity if appropriate.

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 domestic violence to retail theft-related crimes, murder, and drug crimes. His work has been recognized by Avvo, Expertise, National Trial Lawyers, and others, and he has been featured on countless news outlets for his experience and knowledge in criminal law.

Despite decades of law enforcement intervention, domestic violence is still major public concern. To prevent police inaction in response to domestic abuse and ultimately to attempt to lower domestic violence rates, nearly half of the U.S. states have implemented mandatory arrest provisions. While the preferred arrest law instructs the responding officer to consider arrest as the preferred course of action, in the case of mandatory arrest laws, the responding officer is obligated to make a more aggressive intervention and make an arrest (he is, however, required to find probable cause that an offense has been committed).

For the last three decades, the warrantless arrest powers of law enforcement have grown exponentially, and they keep growing: just last month, the legislature in Madison County, Alabama, passed a bill that would further increase authorities’ freedom to make arrests. But ongoing research examining the outcome – for both the victim and the aggressor – of mandatory arrest laws raises various questions about the efficiency of this approach in cases of domestic violence.

Mandatory Arrests Increase Domestic Violence Rates

A paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research published in June, 2007, attempted to analyze to what extent does the certainty of arrest lower domestic violence rates, and the results were surprising: “The results presented in this study suggest that this (implementing mandatory arrest laws to decrease intimate partner violence rates) may, in fact,be counterproductive. Using data from the FBI Supplementary Homicide Reports from 1976-2003, I find that the level of intimate partner homicide increased in states with these mandatory arrest laws. This may be because abuse victims may be less likely to contact the police in the face of a mandatory arrest law.”

What the author of the paper found out is that, instead of seeing a decrease in domestic violence due to the aggressive intervention of law enforcement, an opposite effect is visible: homicide rates have actually increased due to decreased reporting of domestic crimes. Regardless of the good intentions of state policy makers, mandatory arrest laws are shown to harm the very people they try to help.

The solution? A change of tactics: “Given the dangerous and pervasive nature of domestic violence, there is little doubt that state intervention, in some form, is required. Determining what shape that intervention takes is of vital importance. The results from this study suggest that the threat of arrest is insufficient to deter abusers from killing their victims. Finding arrests deter victim reporting rather than perpetrator abuse provides valuable insight into the intricacies facing governmental attempts to decrease intimate partner violence.”

Mandatory Arrests Cause Early Death in Victims

Arresting a domestic abuser may not only lead to more violence (as pointed by the aforementioned study), but it can also have significant negative effects on the victims’ long-term health.

A recent follow-up of the study conducted more than two decades ago called The Milwaukee Domestic Violence Experiment found that victims of domestic violence whose partners have been arrested on misdemeanor charges were more likely to have died, compared to victims whose aggressors haven’t been arrested by the police. The cause of death was not violence inflicted by the aggressor, but rather health-related reasons such as heart attacks, cancer, and other internal diseases. The main takeaway: having a partner arrested – regardless of his abusive behavior – takes an emotional toll that will impact victims’ health years after the incident.

The numbers were particularly discouraging for African-American victims, which made up the majority of victims in the initial study. It was revealed that black women who had partners arrested on domestic violence charges were two times more likely to have died of disease by 2013, compared to women whose partners were only warned, but not arrested, in cases of domestic violence. Furthermore, another interesting point made by the study was that black victims who were working at the times their partners were arrested were four times more likely to have died than those whose partners got off with just a warning.

Lawrence Sherman, the Director of the Institute of Criminology of the University of Cambridge, said “We are now sure that the difference in death was not due to homicide, which was our original research question. […] The racial difference suggests that the best explanation must be bio-social. There must be something about witnessing a partner’s arrest that triggers a physiological response leading to higher rates of death from heart disease and other internal maladies, but far more so for victims who are African-American than for whites.”

It still isn’t very clear what mechanisms triggered such a response in victims who died earlier. The study goes on to explain that defendants who were, in fact,arrested were most often incarcerated for short periods, so it wasn’t the suffering or toil of the arrested partner that led to a decrease of the victims’ overall health. (Most were misdemeanor arrests as well, meaning that there were no physical injuries.)

Previous studies have revealed the increased likelihood of post-traumatic stress symptoms in victims who witnessed the arrest of their partners, symptoms linked in the long run with premature death caused by heart complications and other health disorders. However, the reasons why victims in concentrated black poverty areas suffer more trauma than those in white working-class communities are yet to be understood: “Because all the victims had an equal chance of having their partners arrested by random assignment, there is no other likely explanation for this difference except that it was caused by seeing their partners arrested.”

The findings are, of course, subject of debate. But if one conclusion can be drawn from all this data is that domestic violence should be a subject of constant research, and the focus should be on the results of current policies, not on the good intentions of policymakers. Hopefully, the ongoing analysis will lead to the development of effective methods of identification and prevention, rather than simply assuming that locking away abusers will solve the problem in the long run.

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.

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.

But should our criminal justice system, which in some cases imprisons and even executes innocent people, be based on something as random and capricious as “a leap of faith”? Is that the yardstick by which we should determine who is guilty or innocent, who should live or die?

The Innocence Project does not think so. Founded in 1992 by Peter J. Neufeld and Barry Scheck, who is best known as one of the attorneys who helped secure an acquittal for O.J. Simpson, The Innocence Project is dedicated to helping exonerate through DNA testing those who have been wrongly convicted of many crimes, including capital murder.

The Innocence Project’s work underscores a frightening reality. Although the use of DNA evidence has been rigorously tested and evaluated, none of the other most common forensic techniques, such as fingerprint, hair, bite mark, and blood spatter analysis, have any established standards. As Judge Donald Shelton told PBS reporter Lowell Bergman, when it comes to fingerprint analysis, the standard “varies from laboratory to laboratory, and from witness to witness often. And some will say, “We need 16 points. No, seven.And what they all end up saying is that it’s really a matter of the individual experience and judgment of the fingerprint examiner.”

The High Cost of Bad Science

This careless approach to determining guilt or innocence has destroyed thousands of lives. Innocent people have been trapped in a haphazard legal system, a Kafkaesque nightmare from which there is no escape because the courts routinely accept an abundance of flawed forensic evidence. In fact, a 2013 study by the Associated Press revealed“at least two dozen defendants either convicted or charged with rape and murder using bite mark evidence have been exonerated since 2000.”

Just a few stories of the way that lives have been ruined by an inappropriate reliance on sketchy forensic evidence serve as stark reminders of how easily this can happen to anyone:

• Robert Nelson spent 30 years in prison after being identified in a police line-up by a rape victim. Of his conviction, he recalled, “I couldn’t believe it, a jury found me guilty. There wasn’t even no evidence to find me guilty, so I went on to prison and tried to fight it best I could.” DNA evidence cleared his name in June 2013, but he’ll never get back the years he lost.
• Michael Morton was found guilty of murdering his wife in 1986, even though he was at work at the time of her death. Throughout the investigation, he had faith that his innocence would prevail. He said, “Innocent people think that if you just tell the truth then you’ve got nothing to fear from the police.If you just stick to it that the system will work, it’ll all come to light, everything will be fine.” But that wasn’t true, and he spent 25 years in prison before DNA evidence set him free.
• Gerard Richardson was convicted of murder in 1995 based on bite mark analysis, which The Innocence Project argues “is particularly troubling because of the almost complete absence of validated rules, regulations, or processes for accreditation that establish standards for experts or the testimony they provide.” Richardson was released in December 2013 after The Innocence Project proved that the bite mark analysis was faulty.

Were it not for the work of criminal defense attorneys and justice advocates around the country, these innocent men would most likely have spent the rest of their lives in prison. Thankfully, there are many organizations working to make sure that wrongly convicted individuals receive better representation, rigorous advocacy, and appropriate DNA testing when required. We may not be able to give back the years, hopes, and dreams of those who have been wrongly convicted, but it is our responsibility to work toward the creation of a system in which no one else is ever subject to such injustice.

About the Author: Attorney Mike Schlosser represents victims of personal injury, those charged with a crime, as well as those facing traffic charges. A former Guilford County, North Carolina District Attorney, Schlosser has been in private practice at the Law Firm of Schlosser & Pritchett since 1983 and has been a member of the North Carolina State Bar since 1973.

1. State law says that if you do not have at least one dollar physically present, you can be arrested for vagrancy.

   

2. If you eavesdrop on your own conversation, you may be charged with a Class 4 felony and sentenced to up to three years in prison. (Which leads me to wonder how you got caught? Did you turn yourself in?)
3. Taking parts from an airplane crash is outlawed.
4. Undertakers are not permitted to infuse dead bodies with arsenic.
5. A new law for 2013 states that you cannot own, sell, trade, or distribute shark fins in the state of Illinois.
6. You are not allowed to own more than $600 worth of salamanders.
7. Speaking of reptiles, anyone who sells reptiles must warn buyers that they should not kiss the reptiles.
8. It is forbidden to catch more than six bullfrogs in a day.

   

9. Pigs are protected, too. It is illegal to feed garbage to the animals.
10. It is illegal to sell a malodorous mattress.
11. In Joliet, you are not allowed to try on more than six dresses in one store.
12. Also in Joliet, it is illegal to mispronounce the town’s name.
13. In Galesburg, you are not permitted to burn bird feathers.
14. In Guernee, a woman over 200 pounds is prohibited from riding a horse in shorts.
15. In Oblong, you are not permitted to have sex while hunting or fishing on your wedding day. (Props to Oblong for specificity.)

    

16. In Chicago, you are not permitted to eat in an establishment that is on fire.
17. If you take a French poodle to the opera in the Windy City, you will be charged with a crime. (Apparently other breeds are permitted, though I wouldn’t recommend trying it.)
18. Also in Chicago, there is a law outlawing fishing in your pajamas.
19. In Normal, making faces at dogs is strictly forbidden.
20. In Zion, giving a cigar to a pet is a crime.

Looking at these 20 laws may give you a good laugh, but it’s a little daunting. It’s unlikely that you will get hauled into jail for catching that seventh bullfrog or smoking a stogie with your dog, but what if that one officer decided to actually arrest you in for it? I have to admit, I’d have to work on a new defense strategy for that trial.

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.

Gideon v. Wainwright established every person’s right to legal counsel, even if they couldn’t afford a lawyer. This right was already articulated in the U.S. constitution, but the 1963 Supreme Court case made state-appointed public defenders a legal right.

States want to provide quality legal defense, and Minnesota is no exception. In the face of what you might call a public defense crisis, Minnesota’s doing a lot – like providing well-educated, passionate people who practice law and work long hours every day to try and accomplish their case load.

But that’s the problem: really long hours. Minnesota public defense lawyers are overworked, trying to handle 250 new felony cases every year when the American Bar Association says 150 should be the limit.

Take a look at the infographic below, illustrating and summarizing the crisis on a local and national scale alike.

This infographic was created on behalf of the Law Office of Carolyn Agin Schmidt. Please share it so that more people can learn about the status of criminal representation in the U.S.

Brooke McDonald writes and blogs for Minneapolis criminal defense attorney Carolyn Agin Schmidt.

The efforts of local law enforcement also resulted in other stores where items were seized surrendering those items and agreeing to sign onto a community protection agreement. However, in their zeal to rid the Chicago area of synthetic drugs, police will no doubt apprehend some people who are actually innocent of any criminal activity. That is where the efforts of a qualified and knowledgeable attorney can be extremely beneficial. An expert defense attorney can help to uphold the rights of those who have been falsely accused of selling or attempting to sell synthetic drugs.

When you find yourself in need of a criminal defense attorney in Chicago, Andrew M. Weisberg has the experience and knowledge necessary to handle your case. He will aggressively seek the very best outcome possible and will always seek to uphold and protect your rights in and out of the courtroom. Criminal defense attorney Weisberg has a proven track record of success with cases just like yours, and he will give your case the attention that it is due. Contact the Law Offices of Andrew M. Weisberg today.

Criminal Defense Attorney Chicago – If you have been arrested, no matter how straightforward or complex the charge, Andrew M. Weisberg is a criminal defense attorney in Chicago 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 /, call the office at 312.854.7004 or call his cell phone 24/7 at 773.908.9811 or Text LAWYER to 25827 for a prompt call back. The initial consultation is free.