Weapons, Guns, Firearms Charged with no physical evidence.

[Tax Counsel]

If she is being charged with a possession offense it seems that should eliminate his possession offense.

In addition to what Zigner pointed out, if she was charged with possession because she too was a felon then that would open the door to the prosecution asserting that the OP was also in possession of it under the accountability doctrine that Illinois courts recognize, as described in an earlier reply. Thus, as I indicated earlier it matters a great deal what the charge against the wife was.

Bottom line, while the wife's possession of the weapon while standing next to the OP would not by itself be enough to make the OP guilty of possession of a firearm by felon, with additional facts the state may be able to make that possession case against the OP. I see two possibilities from what we know so far: (1) the state argues that the OP directly had possession of the weapon in his waistband based on the witness testimony of the other combatant in that parking lot brawl or (2) the wife is charged with possession as a felon and, since she was present when the fight broke out, the state asserts she was a participant in a crime related to the fight (e.g. battery) and thus the OP had possession under the accountability doctrine. The former seems more likely to me than the latter, but we need more information to sort out what the state is going for here. It should all be spelled out in the complaint/indictment the state filed in court.

 

[flyingron]

No, it appears that HE is a felon. She merely didn't possess her FOID card. If she was a felon, they'd have charged her with the felony "felon in possession" rather than the misdemeanor "no FOID card."

Frankly, I don't buy the story. I suspect that the OP did have the gun and gave it to his girl on the traffic stop and this is what the police suspect. Again, we don't have what the state has and in all likelihood, the poster couldn't relate them properly even if he had the information. He's got little choice other than to obtain attorney(s) for the both of them.

 

[Tax Counsel]

No, it appears that HE is a felon. She merely didn't possess her FOID card. If she was a felon, they'd have charged her with the felony "felon in possession" rather than the misdemeanor "no FOID card."

The facts are not entirely clear. You may be correct, but the lack of detail from the OP leaves the door open to several possibilities here.

I suspect that the OP did have the gun and gave it to his girl on the traffic stop and this is what the police suspect.

Well, I said from the outset that this was a very likely theory that the state was using for prosecution. They evidently have a witness saying he had the gun, but when stopped shortly after there was a gun found, only the wife was holding it, not the OP. It's not hard to guess that when stopped he shoved the gun into her hands because he knew he'd be busted for being a felon in possession if he had it. Even if that is not what really happened the OP may face a hard time convincing a jury of that if the witness is at all believable.

 

[army judge]

A criminal defendant need not convince the jury of her/his innocence.

A criminal defendant needs only to introduce "reasonable doubt", which is far less than what the prosecutor is required to do.

The outcome in the instant looming criminal matter being discussed is never assured for either party.

I've practiced law and tried criminal cases for the prosecution, the defense, and as a judge over several decades.

I am regularly surprised when the foreperson reads the verdict.

 

[Redemptionman]

A criminal defendant need not convince the jury of her/his innocence.

A criminal defendant needs only to introduce "reasonable doubt", which is far less than what the prosecutor is required to do.

Which is why all criminal cases are plea bargained for the most part. Who knows what a jury of 12 will do, and in most instances judges are the best interpreters of the law. Juries depend too much on the opinions/ attitudes that they hold and this clouds their application of law in so many ways. I believe in the system but don't think it is effective in a lot of ways as it comes down to being believable and likable. The more you have of those two traits the more favorable outcome you could have. Until proven wrong, I have little faith in system to administer fair and just verdicts. Justice is blind/ equal under the law but juries sure do not apply it that way and things that are more sympathetic to the jury influence their decisions.

 

[Tax Counsel]

I have little faith in system to administer fair and just verdicts. Justice is blind/ equal under the law but juries sure do not apply it that way and things that are more sympathetic to the jury influence their decisions.

The problem has been since the very first trial ever held in human history thousands of years ago that humans are imperfect and make imperfect witnesses and imperfect decision makers. That is something that no human system is going to fix. Our justice system I think does a more admirable job of it than pretty much any other, but it is not perfect and never will be. That lack of perfection does not mean we should throw up our hands and simply not ever prosecute anyone for fear the result might be wrong. Do that, and the criminals will run amok.

 

[Redemptionman]

The problem has been since the very first trial ever held in human history thousands of years ago that humans are imperfect and make imperfect witnesses and imperfect decision makers. That is something that no human system is going to fix. Our justice system I think does a more admirable job of it than pretty much any other, but it is not perfect and never will be. That lack of perfection does not mean we should throw up our hands and simply not ever prosecute anyone for fear the result might be wrong. Do that, and the criminals will run amok.

I am not just talking about criminals, it happens in civil cases as well and is frustrating.

 

[Zigner]

I am not just talking about criminals, it happens in civil cases as well and is frustrating.

If you have frustrations about civil matters, take them elsewhere. Please don't hijack this thread.

 

[Redemptionman]

If you have frustrations about civil matters, take them elsewhere. Please don't hijack this thread.

Wow, you sure do know how to get under someones skin. Miserable is the only real word that describes you, your posts and your life.

Welcome to the ignore me list,

@Zigner

 

[Zigner]

Wow, you sure do know how to get under someones skin. Miserable is the only real word that describes you, your posts and your life.

Welcome to the ignore me list,

@Zigner

If the random postings of an internet stranger "get under [your] skin", then you ought to find another hobby.

 

[zddoodah]

all criminal cases are plea bargained for the most part.

So..."all of" them, but only "for the most part"? I see. ;-)

 

[Tax Counsel]

I am not just talking about criminals, it happens in civil cases as well and is frustrating.

Same answer for that, too. We need to have some way to address civil wrongs and settle legal disputes. Our civil legal system is also imperfect and there are things we need to do to improve it, especially as to cost of legal services for those unable to afford it, but it is designed as much as possible to reach a just result.

 

[Redemptionman]

Yes and

Same answer for that, too. We need to have some way to address civil wrongs and settle legal disputes. Our civil legal system is also imperfect and there are things we need to do to improve it, especially as to cost of legal services for those unable to afford it, but it is designed as much as possible to reach a just result.

The best part is that accident victims usually get representation via contingency contracts. So in a way anyone can afford an attorney for certain cases. In the criminal space such as this person is involved in they tend to over charge in order to get people to plead. This is regardless of this persons previous record as the more they add the more they eventually get to convict on. Naturally certain cases like life or capital in nature go to trial when the defendant could face life in prison or execution.

I am not a liberal person but support legal reform as something should be done. This case could be an example don't you know or surely you do that the more felonious charges they can bring the more federal dollars they get for judges, prosecutors, law enforcement, etc. etc.

More than just systemic racial issues it more like systemic bullying issues which is why some cities have gone to community policing.

 

[army judge]

I am not a liberal person but support legal reform as something should be done.

Just what would your idea of legal reform entail?

More than just systemic racial issues it more like systemic bullying issues which is why some cities have gone to community policing.

All crime could end if all people would simply STOP breaking any law.

If people would obey all traffic laws, automobile collisions would cease, injuries to human beings would end, as would al property damage.

Auto insurance costs would drop, drivers would pay less, and everyone would be smiling.

Alas, my observations of human behavior give me little real hope of human beings behaving civilly, much less legally.

If one wishes NOT to get arrested, all one need do is behave himself/herself.

I don't see this as a racial or ethnic issue, either.

It is simply how poorly behaved human beings have become.

I often wonder how Darwin would explain it, if he were alive today.

 

[Tax Counsel]

This case could be an example don't you know or surely you do that the more felonious charges they can bring the more federal dollars they get for judges, prosecutors, law enforcement, etc. etc.

That is simply not the case. Convicting more felons doesn't translate directly to more dollars for the justice system. Unfortunately one of the problems with the federal court system and the court system of many states is that they are woefully underfunded and understaffed, with insufficient numbers of judges and staff to really handle all the cases that go through the courthouse in an expeditious fashion. While our population and need for legal resources has grown dramatically over the last 50 years, the Congress and state legislatures have not allocated the money the court systems need to keep up. That's one of key reasons why significantly fewer percentage of cases make it to trial today than was the situation 50 years ago, and even 50 years ago lawyers lamented the system was overburdened.

 

[Redemptionman]

All crime could end if all people would simply STOP breaking any law.

If people would obey all traffic laws, automobile collisions would cease, injuries to human beings would end, as would al property damage.

Auto insurance costs would drop, drivers would pay less, and everyone would be smiling.

Alas, my observations of human behavior give me little real hope of human beings behaving civilly, much less legally.

If one wishes NOT to get arrested, all one need do is behave himself/herself.

I don't see this as a racial or ethnic issue, either.

It is simply how poorly behaved human beings have become.

I often wonder how Darwin would explain it, if he were alive today.

As Dale Carnegie put into his books people are compelled by Nobel Motives, and are intrinsically good. Appeal to this side of people character and expect better results.

The first question can't be answered since reform is something that would have to start from the top down. I believe Darwin would watch in amazement as the greatest country on earth, founded upon the rule of law and equal rights becomes more socialist/ communist in nature. All the while, countries like Russia/ Cuba become more christian based democratic in nature.

 

[Redemptionman]

That is simply not the case. Convicting more felons doesn't translate directly to more dollars for the justice system. Unfortunately one of the problems with the federal court system and the court system of many states is that they are woefully underfunded and understaffed, with insufficient numbers of judges and staff to really handle all the cases that go through the courthouse in an expeditious fashion. While our population and need for legal resources has grown dramatically over the last 50 years, the Congress and state legislatures have not allocated the money the court systems need to keep up. That's one of key reasons why significantly fewer percentage of cases make it to trial today than was the situation 50 years ago, and even 50 years ago lawyers lamented the system was overburdened.

I did not say convictions, I said charges. Yes, the more felony charges Police can show out there in statistics the larger their request for funding. Regardless if the charges are dropped, dismissed, nolle pros., etc. etc.

 

[Tax Counsel]

I did not say convictions, I said charges. Yes, the more felony charges Police can show out there in statistics the larger their request for funding. Regardless if the charges are dropped, dismissed, nolle pros., etc. etc.

That is far from universally true. Sure, some police departments may use that as part of their request for more funding. But obviously the police do not always get what they ask for. Bear in mind, too, that when crime statistics go up, police chiefs' jobs tend to be at risk — what a community wants to see from policing is criminal activity go down, not up.

 

[Red Kayak]

The best part is that accident victims usually get representation via contingency contracts. So in a way anyone can afford an attorney for certain cases. In the criminal space such as this person is involved in they tend to over charge in order to get people to plead. This is regardless of this persons previous record as the more they add the more they eventually get to convict on. Naturally certain cases like life or capital in nature go to trial when the defendant could face life in prison or execution.

I am not a liberal person but support legal reform as something should be done. This case could be an example don't you know or surely you do that the more felonious charges they can bring the more federal dollars they get for judges, prosecutors, law enforcement, etc. etc.

More than just systemic racial issues it more like systemic bullying issues which is why some cities have gone to community policing.

Why? Why is OP's case worthy of being an example of what's wrong with the system?

Have you listened to the 911 call and viewed the police dash cam, body cam, and any security camera data?

OP's version of the facts are designed to put the most benign spin he can think of on his story. Thing 1) by his own admission, he "approaches" someone who objected to things his wife was saying, rather than ignoring or at least continuing on his way. How threatening was his "approach"? Some might say he started the confrontation. The other guy wasn't looking for much of a fight, considering he ran away. Thing 2: we don't know on what pretext the police pulled him over. It could be related to the previous incident, or it could have been his driving. Thing 3: We only know the gun was found in the wife's possession. We don't know how obvious it was that she had it - it's not a "search" if it's visible. And we don't know if he and his wife gave the police reason to warrant a search.

OP, I suspect, is his own worse enemy.