COVID-19 Update: We Are Open 24/7 to Service Current and New Clients.

Victories

Case Reviews For David L. Freidberg

Below are legal cases for The Law Office of David L. Freidberg:

Case: 06C3#0XXXXX - Gun Conviction Vacated
Case Conclusion Date: January 24, 2020
Practice Area: Criminal defense
Outcome: Gun Conviction Vacated, Case Dismissed

Description: Luckily a potential client contacted me about expunging or sealing his 2006 conviction for unlawful use of weapon. Realizing that this case was prior to the court decision of People v Aguilar, which declared the current at-the-time gun statute unconstitutional in 2013, I informed him he might be eligible to vacate his conviction entirely and have the case dismissed. Of course he was interested. This one took a bit more time due to the age of the court file - the clerk had a difficult time locating the file in storage, as did the Cook County State's Attorney assigned to the post-conviction unit. Long story short, today the State's Attorney agreed with my Motion for Post-Judgment Relief and my client's conviction was vacated and the case was dismissed. He is now eligible to expunge the matter and live life with no felony conviction on this record. New lease on life!

Case: 19 OP 756XX
Case Conclusion Date: November 6, 2019
Practice Area: Domestic Violence
Outcome: Petition for Stalking/No Contact Order DENIED

Description: This one is a bit more interesting, a bit of a love triangle in which I represent the Respondent in the fight against a Stalking/No Contact Order. There were a few allegations in the Petitioner's Petition but the most "damaging" one is that it was alleged that my client came to the Petitioner's house, banged on the door, and after receiving no answer, proceeded to kick the door a few times. She then went around to the side of the house and kicked a window and broke a screen. Well, turns out the Petitioner has a video doorbell camera, which did in fact show my client committing these acts of aggression. So maybe an uphill battle you think? Not really.

Here comes the triangle... Petitioner at the time of these incidents is married to a gentleman; we'll call him "Bob". Turns out, while Bob is married to the Petitioner, he meets the Respondent on some online dating site. It gets better. Bob gets the Respondent pregnant and she has his baby. The Petitioner eventually becomes aware of this but as of today's date, they are still married and live in the same home. The child lives with the Respondent but now attends school in the same neighborhood in Chicago as the Petitioner and Bob. And because it is Chicago, the child must live in the neighborhood, so the Respondent now moves into their neighborhood.

Petitioner is unhappy with this situation and starts looking at Bob's text messages with Respondent and causing issues at home. Long and short of it, Respondent did not come to the house to see Petitioner, she came to see Bob. So there is no stalking. Petitioner also attempted to bring up other incidents that were not laid out in her Petition, which is impermissible in civil practice and all of my objections were sustained as to any other incidents. Petition was denied.

Case: 18 OP 79XXX
Case Conclusion Date: October 3, 2019
Practice Area: Domestic Violence
Outcome: Petition for Stalking/No Contact Order DENIED

Description: More often than not I represent the Respondent in the fight against an Order of Protection or Stalking/No Contact Order, as in this case. Respondent was a 50-something professional stylist that just did not get along with her co-worker. Arguments ensued at work and at one point escalated to physical contact. An additional aggravating factor is that the police were called and my client was arrested and charged with battery - which is a criminal misdemeanor, which carries a possible sentence of up to a year in jail if convicted. Obviously my client was not going to take a plea of guilty on the criminal matter and it was set for trial, which with my help she won.

Then came the hearing for the Stalking/No Contact order. What is very important, that many do not understand, is that a Stalking/No Contact order can only be entered if there are at least two instances of stalking or interfering with personal liberties in a certain manner. After testimony from both sides I argued that stalking cannot occur when said allegations occur within the workplace where both parties are employed. It is a legal impossibility. The Court correctly agreed and the Petition for No Contact was denied.

Case: 18 CR 148XX
Case Conclusion Date: September 25, 2019
Practice Area: Criminal Defense
Outcome: Reduced from Felony to Misdemeanor with No Conviction

Description: Client was charged with FELONY Aggravated Battery with Great Bodily Harm. This charge is a Class 3 Felony and carries a possible sentence of two to five years in the Illinois Department of Corrections (Prison). In a nutshell, while attending a carnival at a local Chicago high school, the complaining witness (victim) was attacked my multiple individuals who wrestled him to the ground, stomped on his head and kicked him multiple times about the face and body. There was no question as to whether a battery was committed or that great bodily harm was incurred. The victim suffered multiple fractures and contusions to his face and body. Luckily he eventually fully recovered and appeared in court at the trial. Now, the issue is whether or not MY client committed aggravated battery with great bodily harm. There were multiple cell phone videos provided by the state, taken by bystanders with the cell phones, that clearly show my client involved in the altercation. But, my client only entered into the fray at the end of the fight and only kicked the victim 3 times in the legs.

We prepared a mitigation packet for the State's Attorneys Office to review in the hopes of a reducer to a misdemeanor charge of battery, not a felony. The State reviewed the packet and spoke with the victim's mother about a reduced charge. She would not agree and wanted someone to pay for her sons' injuries. Part of the problem is that the other individuals arrested were juveniles and were not on trial with my client in the "adult" court. As such, we had no option other than to go to trial. There was no question that my client committed a misdemeanor battery, but in my mind, it was not a felony.

Just before the trial started, the State's Attorney came to us with an offer of a reducer for a misdemeanor charge but also requested restitution for the victim's medical bills. I discussed the offer with my client and suggested he reject the offer as he was not responsible for the injuries the victim incurred. He agreed and we wen to trial.

At trial, the video was played of the incident for the judge, the victim and another few witnesses testified and at the end of the State's portion of the trial, I made a motion for directed finding stating that the State has not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that a felony aggravated battery was committed by my client. The judge agreed and granted my motion as it pertained to the felony count and allowed the trial to continue based solely on a lesser included offense of misdemeanor battery. After discussing with my client as to whether he should testify, suggesting he not, he agreed and we rested out portion of the case. Finding of guilty only on a misdemeanor charge. Sentence was 18 months of court supervision, which is NOT a conviction and can be expunged two years after supervision is terminated.

Case: 18 OP 791XX
Case Conclusion Date: June 11, 2019
Practice Area: Order of Protection
Outcome: Dismissed

Description: As if often the case, I was contacted by a Respondent in a Petition for Order of Protection matter. The Petitioner made allegations that my client, on more than on occasion, struck her in the head, grabbed her about the body and made insulting remarks to her. After a careful review of the file and even interviewing the Petitioner in court, it became clear that her allegations were nothing more than that. My client was adamant about proceeding to a hearing and the Court set a date. At the hearing date, I again spoke to the Petitioner about the case and her chances of prevailing on her Petition. Apparently she took my advice to heart and when the case was called for the hearing, she dismissed the matter and I was able to have the Emergency Order of Protection entered previously vacated.

Case: 19 DV 72XXX
Case Conclusion Date: April 16, 2019
Practice Area: Domestic Violence
Outcome: Not Guilty

Description: It never helps to lie. My client was charged with assault and domestic battery against her roommate. Allegedly my client got into an altercation with the "victim" when she tried to move her dining room table back into the dining room after the victim moved it. The undisputed facts are that while the victim was shoving the table into my client, my client grabbed a hammer off the table and threatened her with it. The victim claimed that my client also grabber her by the wrist, thus the domestic battery charge. That was the entirety of the allegations. The States Attorney offered my client court supervision, which I conveyed, and after discussing the ramifications of such a plea with my client, she opted for a trial, smart choice. At the trial the victim testified that not only did my client threaten her with the hammer and grab her wrist, she also threw shoes at her, shoved her into the closet clothing organizer AND actually hit her in the midsection with the hammer. None of this was stated to the officer or in his sworn report. Luckily the officer was in court and upon cross examination, confirmed this lack of information and the victim was impeached. At the close of the State's case, I motioned for a directed verdict which was granted. The Court did not believe a word of the victim's testimony after she was caught lying. NOT GUILTY!

Case: 07C5502XX
Case Conclusion Date: November 21, 2018
Practice Area: Criminal Defense
Outcome: UUW Conviction VACATED

Description: Another gun conviction successfully vacated under People v Aguilar. Client was convicted and sentenced to 30 months of probation back in 2007. Luckily he came upon my website and realized that his conviction qualified for a Motion to Vacate. I filed the proper motion, contacted the Cook County State's Attorney's Office in advance and they had no objection after researching his file. The Motion was granted and he is no longer a convicted felon. Additionally, I filed a Petition to Expunge his record so that neither the conviction nor the initial arrest will appear on a criminal background check.

Case: 17 OP 073XX
Case Conclusion Date: July 25, 2018
Practice Area: Domestic Violence
Outcome: Order of Protection DENIED

Description: My client, the Respondent, is the subject of an Order of Protection filed against him by his own mother. My client owned the property where they were both residing, in separate units, when he decided he wanted to sell the property. His mother refused to move and my client was forced to start eviction proceedings against her. In retaliation, and to stall the eviction process, his mother filed for this Order of Protection. Her attorney attempted to settle the matter but we refused based on the grounds that it would impact the eviction proceedings negatively towards my client. The matter was set for hearing. At the hearing I proceeded to question his mother, the Petitioner, about her actions towards my client AFTER the Order of Protection had been filed. Not only did she contact him numerous times via telephone (records presented at the hearing), but she also accosted the air conditioner repairman when he came to fix her air conditioning unit. The entire purpose of an Order of Protection is to prevent contact between the parties, which clearly she violated. After her testimony I asked the judge for a directed finding, which means that the Petitioner did not present enough evidence for the burden to shift to my client. The judge granted my motion, Order of Protection was denied and my client did not even have to testify on his behalf.

Case: 17 DV 754XX
Case Conclusion Date: May 15, 2018
Practice Area: Domestic Violence
Outcome: Not Guilty

Description: The matter began with the filing of an Order of Protection (OP) against my client by his ex-girlfriend. In the OP, she alleged that my client struck her on the buttocks multiple times while she was pregnant with this child. Three weeks goes by until my client is somehow arrested at the courthouse while appearing on the OP matter. She waited well over 2 months to file any charges against him for domestic battery. He was brought up stairs to a criminal judge for bond to be set. After hearing the charges and actually watching the video of the incident (which is not customary at a bond hearing), the judge gave my client an I-Bond (which means he posts no money to be released) and commented that she couldn't see who is even in the video. A few months go by and we finally get this matter set for trial. At the trial the State shows the video while the "victim" narrates the action. I ask a few questions and once the State rests their case, I ask the judge for a directed finding - meaning that the State has not proven their case beyond a reasonable doubt and thus there is no reason for the defense to put on its side of the case. The judge agreed and made the same comment about not being able to see anyone in the video or who did what to whom. Not Guilty!

Case Conclusion Date: May 09, 2018
Practice Area: Domestic violence
Outcome: Not Guilty

Description: My client is a 70 year old man who worked as an X-Ray technician for a local hospital for the past 11 years with no issues whatsoever. One day this girl walks in for x-rays, follows all of the instructions, and then walks out and says my client tried to pull her pants down and look at her vagina. One might think, "why would she possibly make up something like this if it didn't happen?" Well, turns out that the "victim" hired a civil law firm to sue my client and the hospital based on her allegations. Thus, she has motive to lie for monetary gain. The State's Attorney offered court supervision for three (3) months, which is not a conviction and can be expunged two years after completion. That is a very fair offer but I advised my client not to take the offer as he would still have to enter a plea of guilty and that could be used against him in the civil action. He agreed, the matter was set for trial and my client was found NOT GUILTY!

Case: Default Order of Protection - Vacated
Case Conclusion Date: February 14, 2018
Practice Area: Domestic violence
Outcome: Order vacated, petition dismissed and vacated

Description: A new client reached out to me from Connecticut informing me that he has an order of protection out of Chicago, which was entered against him back in 2016. He had no idea a Petition for an Order of Protection had even been filed against him by an ex-girlfriend. Upon applying for new employment, a background check showed that a Default Order of Protection was entered against him. The Court may enter a default order only after a Respondent has been (a) personally served by the Sheriff or (b) if service was effectuated by publication in a local newspaper. If the Respondent was in fact served, and fails to appear in court on the proper court date, then the Court will often enter an Order of Default. In my client’s case, after a careful review of the file, I was able to determine that he was never served properly. A local sheriff left a copy of the Petition at my client’s residence, but did not personally serve my client. I filed a Motion to Vacate the Default Order of Protection, which the Court granted. Further, I was able to eventually convince the Court to dismiss the entire matter and vacate all orders.

Case: 17 OP 731XX
Case Conclusion Date: December 20, 2017
Practice Area: Criminal defense
Outcome: Order of Protection Denied

Description: This order of protection case was a bit more interesting. I represented the Respondent who had a prior dating relationship with the Petitioner. At some point during the relationship, the Petitioner began receiving numerous telephone calls and even person visits from strangers stating they received his information via online dating profile sites, mostly of the sexual variety. The Petitioner did not post these profiles. For some reason, the Petitioner decided that my client was creating these false profiles. Additionally, someone put up flyers around the Petitioner's neighborhood making defamatory statements about him. Again, he blamed my client. The only issue that was a problem for my client is that he did meet with the Petitioner at the end of their relationship and apologized for his actions and stated that everything would stop. My client unfortunately also texted this apology to the Petitioner, which was presented at the hearing. The Petitioner's attorney make my client an offer: agree to a one year order of protection with an addendum, or agreement, that IF there were no violations of the Order, then after the one year period ended, they would agree to vacate the Order of Protection, thereby removing it from his criminal background. As my client was adamant that he did not do what he was accused of, he refused and the matter went to hearing. Everything went well – the Petitioner presented his evidence, which unfortunately was purely circumstantial and coincidental, as he could not prove that it was my client who was falsifying profiles and posting flyers in his neighborhood. The judge did want to hear what my client was apologizing for exactly, and after his testimony, the judge ruled in our favor. The Order of Protection was DENIED and DISMISSED!

Case: 931335956XX
Case Conclusion Date: December 12, 2017
Practice Area: Criminal defense
Outcome: Misdemeanor UUW Vacated

Description: This was another Aguilar type of motion to vacate and dismiss a gun charge. In this matter, my client was convicted in 1993 for the misdemeanor offense of unlawful use of weapon. The conviction for this older offense became an issue when my client was sentenced on a federal drug charge to the federal penitentiary for 35 years – I did not handle the federal matter. Because of this prior gun charge, he was given a level 44 under the federal sentencing guidelines. The prior gun charge enhanced his sentencing level by 12 points. By vacating this prior charge, his sentence could possibly be reduced by 13 years. In 2013, the case of People v. Aguilar, held that the unlawful use of weapons statute is unconstitutional, and as such, my client’s 1993 conviction should and has been vacated.

Case: 13 CR 136XX
Case Conclusion Date: October 07, 2017
Practice Area: Criminal defense
Outcome: Felony reduced to Misdemeanor

Description: This is one of my favorite recent cases, and it wasn't a trial. To give some background, my client was charged with ten counts, most of which were aggravated unlawful use of weapon charges. This was the situation. My client's elderly father was involved in an altercation with another party while in the drive-thru lane at a McDonald's. His father felt threatened and called his some to come help him. Well, unfortunately, my client came to his aid while in the possession of an illegal firearm. No matter what the circumstances, if you do not possess a FOID card, you cannot possess a firearm in the City of Chicago. The penalty, upon a plea or finding of guilty, is a sentence in the Illinois Department of Corrections, otherwise known as prison. Probation is not an option. The case started in 2013. After about a year or so, after reviewing all of the evidence and having a few of the counts dismissed, I prepared a mitigation packet for the State's Attorney to review in the hope of obtaining a reduced charge of some sort. It took over 2 years for the State to finally make a determination as to my client's fate. Part of this was due to changes in personnel at the court level but the main factor was the change of the State's Attorney herself, from Anita Alvarez to Kim Foxx. Once Kim Foxx was sworn into office, she allowed her Assistant State's Attorneys more discretion on how to dispose of their cases. After reviewing my mitigation packet and my client's lack of background, they offered my client a reducer from a felony to a misdemeanor. No prison time whatsoever!