On this day, Raymond G. Wigell and Huma Rashid were in two different courthouses handling two very different matters.
Raymond G. Wigell was in the Cook County Courthouse in Skokie, Illinois, handling a three-count felony Burglary to Auto. Discovery was tendered by the State, and the Defense filed a motion of its own. The matter was continued for a hearing on the motion in one month.
Huma Rashid was in the Cook County Courthouse in Markham, Illinois. Our client is charged with three counts of Unlawful Acquisition of a Controlled Substance, and was scheduled to be arraigned on this date. Huma briefed the client fully as to what an arraignment was and how the client would be admonished and what it all meant. The client was assigned to the trial judge that will hear this matter, and was arraigned before said judge. After the arraignment, Huma filed a Petition for Substitution of Judge, as well as a Motion to Advance, which requests that the Court hear a certain matter before the next scheduled by agreement or by motion date. The matter was advanced for the next week, and on that date, Huma Rashid will return to this courthouse for a hearing on her petition for substitution of judge.
Wednesday, April 24, 2013
Monday, April 22, 2013
Chicago Criminal Lawyers' Court Call: 4/11/2013
On this day, Raymond G. Wigell and Huma Rashid appeared in the Kankakee County Courthouse in Kankakee, Illinois, on a traffic matter.
Our firm does not handle many traffic cases anymore, focusing instead on felonies at both the federal level, but this matter was referred to us by a colleague and friend.
Our client is charged with driving without having a license, and the problem is that he is undocumented. In Illinois, a new law taking effect in November of 2013 paves the way for undocumented immigrants to get their Illinois drivers' license. Though this case will be over long before November, this legislative act is something that the Court should be aware of in making its deliberations, and it is our plan to make sure that this is so.
On the first date, we filed our appearance as our client's attorneys and the State tendered an offer. We conveyed the offer to our client, discussed his rights and options, and instead of entering a plea that day and continuing the matter for sentencing, we opted to take another date for the plea, mitigation, and sentencing.
This gives us a little more than a month to put together a detailed mitigation presentation in which the Court will be made aware of all the mitigating factors about our client that affect this issue, and it is our hope that the Court will make a ruling that includes terms more favorable than the State's reasonable offer.
On that day, Raymond G. Wigell and Huma Rashid will return to the Kankakee County Courthouse, pictured below, to enter a plea, present mitigation, and proceed to sentencing.
Our firm does not handle many traffic cases anymore, focusing instead on felonies at both the federal level, but this matter was referred to us by a colleague and friend.
Our client is charged with driving without having a license, and the problem is that he is undocumented. In Illinois, a new law taking effect in November of 2013 paves the way for undocumented immigrants to get their Illinois drivers' license. Though this case will be over long before November, this legislative act is something that the Court should be aware of in making its deliberations, and it is our plan to make sure that this is so.
On the first date, we filed our appearance as our client's attorneys and the State tendered an offer. We conveyed the offer to our client, discussed his rights and options, and instead of entering a plea that day and continuing the matter for sentencing, we opted to take another date for the plea, mitigation, and sentencing.
This gives us a little more than a month to put together a detailed mitigation presentation in which the Court will be made aware of all the mitigating factors about our client that affect this issue, and it is our hope that the Court will make a ruling that includes terms more favorable than the State's reasonable offer.
On that day, Raymond G. Wigell and Huma Rashid will return to the Kankakee County Courthouse, pictured below, to enter a plea, present mitigation, and proceed to sentencing.
Friday, April 19, 2013
Chicago Criminal Lawyers' Court Call: 04/10/2013
On this day, Huma Rashid and Raymond Wigell appeared in different courthouse on several different cases. Due to the heavy case load that was on the criminal court call for this morning, Raymond Wigell was accompanied by the firm's head paralegal, Nicole Dietsch.
Huma Rashid appeared in the Iroquois County Courthouse, located in Watseka, Illinois, to appear on a traffic matter. Our client is a truck driver with a commercial driver's license, and was issued two citations. In negotiations with the State, Huma was able to get the case dismissed with the result of the State's motion to enter nolle prosequi on one citation, and reducing the other citation to a lesser violation. An initial offer was made for 90 days supervision, but Huma was able to reduce that to 60 days. In addition to that, a fine was assessed by the court and the client paid it that day.
Raymond Wigell and Nicole Dietsch appeared on several cases at the Will County Courthouse in Joliet, Illinois.
In the first case, our client is charged with Possession of a Controlled Substance. This is the same client we currently represent on an Attempted First Degree Murder case. The matter was continued for a later date.
In the second case, our client is charged with Criminal Sexual Assault. A date was set at which defense counsel would file and argue motions in limine.
In the third case, our client is charged with Possession of Child Pornography. The State asked for a date in order to continue working on the forensics report. It was later determined that the State has a partial forensics report ready, but is evaluating whether or not they want to retrieve a full forensics report on the alleged contraband present on the client's computers.
In our final case, our client is charged with five counts of Possession of Child Pornography and the matter was set for sentencing. On this date, however, the Court and State agreed that it would be prudent to order another Pre-Sentence Investigation report and Sex Evaluation because there was an error/misstatement in the previous report. The matter was continued to a date in May.
Huma Rashid appeared in the Iroquois County Courthouse, located in Watseka, Illinois, to appear on a traffic matter. Our client is a truck driver with a commercial driver's license, and was issued two citations. In negotiations with the State, Huma was able to get the case dismissed with the result of the State's motion to enter nolle prosequi on one citation, and reducing the other citation to a lesser violation. An initial offer was made for 90 days supervision, but Huma was able to reduce that to 60 days. In addition to that, a fine was assessed by the court and the client paid it that day.
Raymond Wigell and Nicole Dietsch appeared on several cases at the Will County Courthouse in Joliet, Illinois.
In the first case, our client is charged with Possession of a Controlled Substance. This is the same client we currently represent on an Attempted First Degree Murder case. The matter was continued for a later date.
In the second case, our client is charged with Criminal Sexual Assault. A date was set at which defense counsel would file and argue motions in limine.
In the third case, our client is charged with Possession of Child Pornography. The State asked for a date in order to continue working on the forensics report. It was later determined that the State has a partial forensics report ready, but is evaluating whether or not they want to retrieve a full forensics report on the alleged contraband present on the client's computers.
In our final case, our client is charged with five counts of Possession of Child Pornography and the matter was set for sentencing. On this date, however, the Court and State agreed that it would be prudent to order another Pre-Sentence Investigation report and Sex Evaluation because there was an error/misstatement in the previous report. The matter was continued to a date in May.
Wednesday, April 17, 2013
Chicago Criminal Lawyers' Court Call: 04/09/2013
On this day, Huma Rashid appeared at the Cook County Courthouse in Bridgeview, Illinois, for a status date on one of our cases. Raymond Wigell appeared at the DuPage County Courthouse in Wheaton, Illinois, for a status date on another one of our cases.
Raymond Wigell appeared that day to represent a client charged with twelve counts of Possession of Child Pornography, which include Class 1, 2, and Class X felonies. In Class X felonies, unless they are reduced to Class 1, probation is not available.
This was a status date, with another status date set for the end of May. When a date is set at the bond hearing, often times the earlier status date is struck. However, due to a miscommunication with the Clerk's office, it was unclear that the appearance on this date was waived. Raymond Wigell appeared with the client, and the matter was continued for that later date set in May.
Huma Rashid was representing a client who is charged with eighteen counts, primarily Aggravated Criminal Sexual Abuse. The State made an offer to reduce the charges down from a felony to a misdemeanor with sex offender registration for a period of 10 years. Huma Rashid and Raymond Wigell conferred about the offer, and discussed it with the client. Ultimately it was decided that the offer was not acceptable and that the defense would make a demand for trial. A short status date was set for one week later to give defense counsel and the State an additional chance to confer about the procedural aspects of the case moving forward, as the State anticipates filing a 115-10 motion and issuing a few subpoenas.
On that date in one week's time, Raymond Wigell and Huma Rashid will return to court to inform the Court as to whether they accept the State's offer to reduce charges to a misdemeanor, or wish to proceed to trial. If defense counsel demands a trial, a date will be picked out between counsel and the Court.
Raymond Wigell appeared that day to represent a client charged with twelve counts of Possession of Child Pornography, which include Class 1, 2, and Class X felonies. In Class X felonies, unless they are reduced to Class 1, probation is not available.
This was a status date, with another status date set for the end of May. When a date is set at the bond hearing, often times the earlier status date is struck. However, due to a miscommunication with the Clerk's office, it was unclear that the appearance on this date was waived. Raymond Wigell appeared with the client, and the matter was continued for that later date set in May.
Huma Rashid was representing a client who is charged with eighteen counts, primarily Aggravated Criminal Sexual Abuse. The State made an offer to reduce the charges down from a felony to a misdemeanor with sex offender registration for a period of 10 years. Huma Rashid and Raymond Wigell conferred about the offer, and discussed it with the client. Ultimately it was decided that the offer was not acceptable and that the defense would make a demand for trial. A short status date was set for one week later to give defense counsel and the State an additional chance to confer about the procedural aspects of the case moving forward, as the State anticipates filing a 115-10 motion and issuing a few subpoenas.
On that date in one week's time, Raymond Wigell and Huma Rashid will return to court to inform the Court as to whether they accept the State's offer to reduce charges to a misdemeanor, or wish to proceed to trial. If defense counsel demands a trial, a date will be picked out between counsel and the Court.
Monday, April 15, 2013
Chicago Criminal Lawyers' Court Call: 04/08/2013
On this day, Huma Rashid was in court at the Cook County Courthouse in Bridgeview, Illinois, to handle a status date.
Our client is charged with seven counts of Possession of Child Pornography, and this was a status date as to discovery.
Two weeks prior to this date, the State had personally delivered additional discovery to our offices located in Olympia Fields. Because the most recently tendered discovery was rather technical in nature, discovery review was not completed in an appropriately thorough manner on this date.
To that effect, the defense requested additional time to review discovery, as well as to confer with the client and explain what the discovery reveals about the strength or weakness of our case. The request was granted and the matter was continued until May 8, 2013.
Our client is charged with seven counts of Possession of Child Pornography, and this was a status date as to discovery.
Two weeks prior to this date, the State had personally delivered additional discovery to our offices located in Olympia Fields. Because the most recently tendered discovery was rather technical in nature, discovery review was not completed in an appropriately thorough manner on this date.
To that effect, the defense requested additional time to review discovery, as well as to confer with the client and explain what the discovery reveals about the strength or weakness of our case. The request was granted and the matter was continued until May 8, 2013.
Friday, April 12, 2013
Chicago Criminal Lawyers' Court Call: 04/05/2013
On this day, Raymond Wigell and Huma Rashid were at the Will County Courthouse located in Joliet, Illinois, to handle a sentencing hearing on a child pornography case.
Our client was originally charged with ten counts of possession of child pornography. The State, in conjunction with the Attorney General's office, made an offer and Raymond Wigell negotiated a plea agreement that reduced the charges to five counts. As this is a Class 2 felony, the client is eligible for probation.
The sentencing hearing was supposed to be done on this day, and the presiding Judge would determine whether or not our client received probation, or 5 years in the Illinois Department of Corrections. Unfortunately, due to an emergency, one of the attorneys for the State was unable to present his arguments, and the Judge allowed the defense and the State to reschedule sentencing for three business days later.
There was also an issue with the Pre-Sentencing Investigative report and Sex Evaluation, prepared by a medical professional that is an arm of the court. The State and Judge expressed concern about the error, and the State requested time to evaluate its position as to whether or not they would seek to order another report and evaluation.
The matter was, unfortunately, not resolved that day and the parties will all return in the following week for sentencing.
Our client was originally charged with ten counts of possession of child pornography. The State, in conjunction with the Attorney General's office, made an offer and Raymond Wigell negotiated a plea agreement that reduced the charges to five counts. As this is a Class 2 felony, the client is eligible for probation.
The sentencing hearing was supposed to be done on this day, and the presiding Judge would determine whether or not our client received probation, or 5 years in the Illinois Department of Corrections. Unfortunately, due to an emergency, one of the attorneys for the State was unable to present his arguments, and the Judge allowed the defense and the State to reschedule sentencing for three business days later.
There was also an issue with the Pre-Sentencing Investigative report and Sex Evaluation, prepared by a medical professional that is an arm of the court. The State and Judge expressed concern about the error, and the State requested time to evaluate its position as to whether or not they would seek to order another report and evaluation.
The matter was, unfortunately, not resolved that day and the parties will all return in the following week for sentencing.
Wednesday, April 3, 2013
Criminal Lawyers' Court Call: 4/03/2013
On this morning, Raymond G. Wigell and Huma Rashid appeared at the Cook County Courthouse in Markham, Illinois.
We had three cases up on the call that day, so it was a slightly heavier day. Despite all of that, we were able to handle everything efficiently, and had our clients out of the courthouse in about an hour. Though we never want to rush our court dates, we also don't like to keep our clients delayed there for no reason.
In our first case up that morning, our client was charged with the following:
This was a status date in order to see if the State was able to procure USDA reports made by federal agents about this case. At this date, the State had been unable to get the reports, and was in fact uncertain as to whether or not the reports actually existed. We set a final status date for the State to determine whether or not the reports exist and if they'd like to include them in discovery. On that date in May, we will likely set a date for trial, unless new information requires that we set another status date. Sometimes, that happens: even if a date is set as a final status date, one or more additional status dates are set past that date if the situation calls for it.
In our second case up that morning, our client was charged with the following:
In our final case up that morning, our client was charged with the following:
That having been said, we informed the State that we would be gearing up for trial, and indicated that we would seek a jury trial (in which the independent fact-finders are twelve people that are a cross-section of the community) instead of a bench trial (in which the independent fact-finder is the presiding Judge). With the date set, there was no need to be called up before the Judge, so that was that.
With those three cases taken care for for now, we met with each of our clients (we always do this immediately after the case gets called up) and sent them on their way before returning to the office.
We had three cases up on the call that day, so it was a slightly heavier day. Despite all of that, we were able to handle everything efficiently, and had our clients out of the courthouse in about an hour. Though we never want to rush our court dates, we also don't like to keep our clients delayed there for no reason.
In our first case up that morning, our client was charged with the following:
- five (5) counts of Dog Fighting (720 ILCS 5/26-5(a))
- five (5) counts of Aggravated Cruelty (510 ILCS 70/3.02(1)).
This was a status date in order to see if the State was able to procure USDA reports made by federal agents about this case. At this date, the State had been unable to get the reports, and was in fact uncertain as to whether or not the reports actually existed. We set a final status date for the State to determine whether or not the reports exist and if they'd like to include them in discovery. On that date in May, we will likely set a date for trial, unless new information requires that we set another status date. Sometimes, that happens: even if a date is set as a final status date, one or more additional status dates are set past that date if the situation calls for it.
In our second case up that morning, our client was charged with the following:
- four (4) counts of Attempted First Degree Murder (720 ILCS 5/8-4(a) and 720 ILCS 5/9-1(a)(1))
- five (5) counts of Home Invasion (720 ILCS 5/12-11(a)(3))
- four (4) counts of Armed Robbery (720 ILCS 5/18-2(a)(2))
- seven (7) counts of Aggravated Kidnapping (720 ILCS 5/10-2(a)(6))
- two (2) counts of Aggravated Battery with a firearm (720 ILCS 5/12-4.2(a)(1))
- two (2) counts of Aggravated Discharge of a firearm (720 ILCS 5/24-1.2(a)(2))
- five (5) counts of Aggravated Unlawful Restraint (720 ILCS 5/10-3.1)
- two (2) counts of Aggravated Unlawful Use of a Weapon (720 ILCS 5/24-1.6(a)(1)/(3)(A))
In our final case up that morning, our client was charged with the following:
- Three (3) counts of Aggravated Unlawful Use of a Weapon (720 ILCS 5/24-1.6(a)(1)/(3)(A); 720 ILCS 5/24-1.6(a)(1)/(3)(C); and 720 ILCS 5/24-1.6(a)(1)/(3)(I))
That having been said, we informed the State that we would be gearing up for trial, and indicated that we would seek a jury trial (in which the independent fact-finders are twelve people that are a cross-section of the community) instead of a bench trial (in which the independent fact-finder is the presiding Judge). With the date set, there was no need to be called up before the Judge, so that was that.
With those three cases taken care for for now, we met with each of our clients (we always do this immediately after the case gets called up) and sent them on their way before returning to the office.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)