Other Criminal Charges & Offenses Requesting that a prosecutor motion to set aside a conviction?

[DennisB]

Jurisdiction

Illinois

Hello,

This message is a request for information on over-turning a conviction in the state of Illinois. I have multiple knowing culpability crime convictions in my background, but I'll focus on the felony one most of all. I recently posted a question on Avvo.com requesting how to make knowing culpability laws unconstitutional. If anyone here is an expert in law, I think keeping in mind that there isn't an argument a person can appeal to support the claim that he or she is 100% certain of something unless sufficiency has been met.

I was convicted in 2019 for knowingly attempting to disarm a peace officer (a felony). I have arguments that I am thinking about making to the prosecutor to request that my convictions be set aside. I don't have any money, so I can't afford an attorney. I've been presuming that if I write a letter or e-mail to the prosecutor, then the prosecutor might motion for my charges to be dismissed.

With the criminal charge, one of the first things I mentioned to my attorney was that I did not know anyone to be a peace officer. I didn't "know, know" anyone to be a peace officer. In other words, I was not 100% certain that anyone was a peace officer. I made various arguments to my defense attorney about skepticism, epistemology, and the such. I even made arguments that I couldn't have known anyone to be a peace officer because I wasn't in control of payroll of the people alleging to be peace officers, etc.. I also made what's called "the dream argument," such that I can't be certain whether or not I was dreaming at the time of events, in that one can't ever really discern between reality and a very vivid dream. For what I recall, I also argued that people could impersonate peace officers, thus all who look like peace officers are not peace officers.

Despite those claiming to have been peace officers have been uniformed, I didn't have 100% certainty of anyone being a peace officer.

The last plea deal I got (was told about by my defense attorney) for the charge was not guilty by reason of insanity. I was a skeptic proclaiming reasons I didn't know anyone to be a peace officer nor any object to be a gun. The charge requires that I knew various things, and I didn't KNOW (have 100% certainty of) those various things, such as knowing that I was removing a gun from a holster and that the gun belonged to a peace officer.

As I had my reasons for denying that I knowingly attempted to disarm a peace officer, I didn't feel that it was appropriate to take the insanity plea and thought that the charge could be beat at trial. However, trial didn't go well, and I was sentenced to prison. I think the whole process was bunk and that my attorney misrepresented me.

I have spent time studying what's called the Münchhausen trilemma. I think I can use the Münchhausen trilemma to argue how I didn't knowingly attempt to disarm a peace officer. In general, the trilemma argues that there are three ways to make an argument: Through a dogmatic argument, through an infinite regress argument, or through circular reasoning.

Here is a link to a Wikipedia page about it: Münchhausen trilemma - Wikipedia

In relation to my conviction, I didn't have a sufficient argument to appeal to in order to claim that I knew I was attempting to disarm a peace officer.

For instance, I couldn't sufficiently appeal to a dogmatic argument claiming that I knowingly attempted to disarm a peace officer because I didn't have infallible authority to support that claim that I knowingly attempted to disarm a peace officer. I presume infallible authority is what enables someone to sufficiently make a dogmatic argument to support a claim rather than a claim being conjecture.

My authority wasn't infallible to argue things such as, (1) knowing anyone to be a peace officer, (2) knowing any object to be a gun, and (3) knowing that I was attempting something at the time of alleged events. I didn't KNOW. At no time in the police report did anyone claim that I had infallible authority to support a claim that I knew any one of the above things.

If the police report had stated that I knowingly attempted to disarm a peace officer because I was an infallible authority on such, then I grasp how someone might think at some time during events with alleged officers that I knew to myself that I was attempting to disarm a peace officer. However, the police report never stated such.

Furthermore, I didn't appeal to an infinite regress argument to claim that I knowingly attempted to disarm a peace officer. An infinite regress argument uses an infinite chain of premises to support a claim. It's my presumption that such infinite regress argument would be infallible in its nature if it establishes a claim as irrefutable. Relative to the allegations against me, I didn't use an infinite chain of premises to establish me knowing (1) anyone to be a peace officer, (2) any object to be a gun, and (3) that I was attempting anything. The police report doesn't state that I had an infinite regress argument that I appealed to in order to know to myself that I had attempted to disarm a peace officer or had knowingly attempted to disarm a peace officer.

The police report never claimed that I had appealed to a sufficient infinite regress argument to know to myself that I attempted to disarm a peace officer at some point in time.

I didn't use circular reasoning, either, to claim to myself that I had knowingly attempted to disarm a peace officer. For instance, I never once thought to myself, "I am knowingly attempting to disarm a peace officer because I am knowingly attempting to disarm a peace officer."

I never once had sufficient circular reasoning to appeal to in order to claim that I was or had knowingly attempted to disarm a peace officer. It is presumed sufficient circular reasoning would be acceptable to the common public as reasonable in supporting a claim.

The police report never claimed that I used sufficient circular reasoning to know to myself that I was attempting to disarm a peace officer at some point in time.

So, the police report never stated that I had appealed to a sufficient (1) dogmatic argument, (2) infinite regress argument, or (3) circular reasoning to know to myself that I was attempting to disarm a peace officer at some point in time.

However, generalizations were made that because of my behavior and the way the officers were dressed that I knew one or more persons to be a peace officer and that I had knowingly attempted to disarm a peace officer.

I don't know if it's possible for anyone to ever have a sufficient infinite regress argument. My presumption has been that if the prosecutor is seeking evidence of absence of the crime, the police report and testimony from the police officers would show that no one had observed me having a sufficient argument to know onto myself that I had attempted to disarm a peace officer at some point in time.

In terms of being certain whether or not I knowingly attempted to disarm a peace officer, the prosecutor would have to appeal to a sufficient dogmatic argument, infinite regress argument, or circular reasoning to make the claim that I had.

For instance, for the prosecutor to claim with certainty with a dogmatic argument that I had knowingly attempted to disarm a peace officer, the prosecutor would have to claim that she knows that I knowingly attempted to disarm a peace officer because she is an infallible authority on such. If the prosecutor were to use an infinite regress argument, she would have an irrefutable argument that uses an infinite chain of premises that supports the claim that she knows that I knowingly attempted to disarm a peace officer. I think if the prosecutor uses circular reasoning to claim that she is certain that I knowingly attempted to disarm a peace officer, somewhere along the chain of premises, she would be re-iterating the claim as a premise (which I don't think would lead to a sufficient argument).

I think that knowing culpability laws are bunk because there exist no sufficient dogmatic, infinite regress, nor circular reasoning arguments a person can make to claim he or she knows or has knowingly done something. It seems to me that unless police are claiming that that a person had appealed to a sufficient argument to support a claim of knowing culpability, then the whole thing is a fishing expedition for a conviction based on something that doesn't exist in the first place, which is a sufficient argument to support a claim of knowledge.

Do you think my arguments as to how I didn't know that I was attempting to disarm a peace officer is understandable?

Have I made sense to any of you about what I mean in relation to making sufficient arguments to make a claim of certainty relative to the Münchhausen trilemma?

Do you think that if I write the prosecutor with a request to set aside the conviction based on information I've written here that the prosecutor will agree to set aside the conviction?

 

[Zigner]

You're a felon who pulled (or at least attempted to pull) a police officer's gun out of their holster and you think writing a letter to the prosecutor is going to make them want to move to set aside your conviction? You are delusional. Really.

 

[DennisB]

You think I'm delusional? How do you know that's true?

According to the Münchhausen trilemma, you have three ways to argue the claim as true: (1) a dogmatic argument, (2) an infinite regress argument, and (3) circular reasoning.

However, I doubt you have a sufficient argument of the three to support your claim with certainty that I'm delusional.

I had to have knowingly did the crime, which I didn't knowingly commit the crime. Due process was violated toward me.

Also, calling me delusional is an ad hominem (personal attack), which isn't really too productive.

"Fallacious ad hominem reasoning occurs where the validity of an argument is not based on deduction or syllogism, but on an attribute of the person putting it forward." source: Ad hominem - Wikipedia

 

[justblue]

You think I'm delusional? How do you know that's true?

According to the Münchhausen trilemma, you have three ways to argue the claim as true: (1) a dogmatic argument, (2) an infinite regress argument, and (3) circular reasoning.

However, I doubt you have a sufficient argument of the three to support your claim that I'm delusional with certainty.

I had to have knowingly did the crime, which I didn't knowingly commit the crime. Due process was violated toward me.

Also, calling me delusional is an ad hominem (personal attack), which isn't really too productive.

"Fallacious ad hominem reasoning occurs where the validity of an argument is not based on deduction or syllogism, but on an attribute of the person putting it forward." source: Ad hominem - Wikipedia

Based on your opening post, Zigner's assessment was fair and reasonable.

You have asked no questions here today, just posted a bizarre theory.

The type of help you need can not be obtained on this, or any other, legal site.

 

[DennisB]

The question was in the title of the thread. I'll edit my original post with one or more questions.

Also, Zigner's post was fallacious and unproductive. Additionally, I didn't ask questions, as I had asked one question, which I presume was not properly understood.

To argue that Zigner's post was fair and reasonable is to agree that the fallacious comment was productive. It wasn't.

I'm not delusional. I'm wise. I took philosophy classes for my B.S. in Neuroscience. Those philosophy classes provided me with critical thinking skills, such is in the realm of epistemology. I don't expect people to have the same background.

 

[justblue]

Based on your question the answer is: You can ask, prosecutor is likely to say no.

 

[DennisB]

Based on your question the answer is: You can ask, prosecutor is likely to say no.

Why do you think the prosecutor is likely to say no when the evidence (such as police reports and testimony) shows that I did not have a sufficient argument to appeal to in order to know myself as attempting to disarm a peace officer at any time nor that the prosecutor will have a sufficient argument for herself to claim with certainty that I had knowingly attempted to disarm a peace officer?

At best, the prosecutor has a theory that I had knowingly attempted to disarm a peace officer because the prosecutor does not have a sufficient argument to claim certainty of such. The prosecutor doesn't have an argument available to claim with 100% certainty that I knowingly attempted to disarm a peace officer.

My suspicion to falsify such theory is to argue how I never had a sufficient argument for myself to know onto myself that I was attempting to disarm a peace officer at any time.

I could only have held a theory that anyone was a peace officer rather than actual knowledge or certainty that anyone was a peace officer. Theories are not truth. They get tested, falsified, and the such to check their soundness and validity. For instance, I could only have held a theory that I was attempting to disarm a peace officer.

It might be argued that my actions fell within the realm of recklessness. However, I don't believe it's possible to consciously disregard that substantial and unjustifiable risk of something because a person does not have free will to consciously disregard something. For what I recall, I felt justified in my actions because the police (who I believe wrongfully brought me to the hospital) were violating my fourth amendment.

I was defamed as mentally in need of a welfare check.

 

[stealthy1]

Honestly, a reasonable person, when confronted by LE (armed and in uniform) would operate on the reasonable assumption that they are actually LE, rather than think "Oh, maybe you're just *saying* you're LE" and trying to disarm them.

I'd ask a CO to get you on the list for the prisoner therapist.

 

[flyingron]

What incentive does a prosecutor have to even consider helping you? You're expected to file your own PETITION (not motion) for post-conviction relief. The notion the prosecutor will file will be one to dismiss it. Note that even if one were to give any credence to your Munchausen Trilemma arguemnt, it's irrelevant. This sort of thing needed to have been made at trial. You arguing now that you have invented some new legal interpretation of the law that makes you not guilty isn't going to fly.

 

[Tax Counsel]

Do you think my arguments as to how I didn't know that I was attempting to disarm a peace officer is understandable?

I understand the argument. But it's not a winning one. The prosecutor didn't have to prove beyond all doubt that you were guilty; the standard is reasonable doubt. Moreover, in the context of the facts as you explained them, the arguments really don't hold up. You've given no good reason to believe that someone who for appearances was a police officer was not a police officer besides your own claims that in your mind you can't believe anyone is who they say they are. A jury won't buy that as a defense unless you went the insanity defense route, and even then the odds, while a little better, would have been stacked against you. Juries tend to be pretty skeptical of insanity defenses; you'd need something much better than your own testimony about your way of thinking to pull that off. I see nothing here that would compel a prosecutor to file a motion to set aside or overturn the conviction. Particularly where law enforcement are the target of the attack the prosecutor usually will stand pretty firm so as to let the public know that attacking a police officer simply won't be condoned.

Do you think that if I write the prosecutor with a request to set aside the conviction based on information I've written here that the prosecutor will agree to set aside the conviction?

If you were in my area the answer would be an easy no. I suspect that most prosecutors around the country would take the same attitude. But you can try it as see how far you get. If that does't work you'd need to make the appropriate motion in court if you have sufficient grounds for it to get it set aside. If you succeed, you may still face another trial. You'd get to try your insanity defenses then, but again juries are skeptical of those, so I'd not wager a lot of money on that.

See a local attorney who does post conviction relief cases to see if you have realistic shot at succeeding with any of this. But go into it realizing that the answer you may well hear is that it's too late to fix now.

 

[army judge]

I was convicted in 2019 for knowingly attempting to disarm a peace officer (a felony). I have arguments that I am thinking about making to the prosecutor to request that my convictions be set aside. I don't have any money, so I can't afford an attorney. I've been presuming that if I write a letter or e-mail to the prosecutor, then the prosecutor might motion for my charges to be dismissed.

Once a person has been convicted after a trial has been conducted, the only option to reverse the conviction is to make a TIMELY appeal to the appropriate appellate venue.

In Illinois, here's a thumbnail sketch of the criminal appeals process:

You are strongly advised to speak to a lawyer about your appeal. The appeals process can be long and difficult. The same rules apply whether you have a lawyer or not.

Fill out a Notice of Appeal
Fill out and sign the form listed below. Make multiple copies of the form.

Notice of Appeal: This form tells the court that you plan to appeal your conviction.
File the Notice of Appeal within 30 days
You must file your Notice of Appeal in the trial court no more than 30 days after a final order is entered by the court. You must serve a copy of the Notice of Appeal on any other parties in your case. If any other party is represented by a lawyer, then you must serve a copy on the lawyer.

Serve a copy of the Notice of Appeal within 7 days
Serve a copy of the appeal to the other parties Within 7 days of filing the Notice of Appeal, you must: Serve a copy of the Notice of Appeal on any other parties; and file a notice of appeal with the clerk of the Illinois Appellate Court. Include filing a Proof of Service form with the court that says you have sent copies of the document you are filing to the other parties or their lawyers. If you do not file your Notice of Appeal before the expiration of this 7-day deadline, the appellate court cannot hear your appeal.

File a docketing statement with the appellate court within 14 days
Within 14 days of filing your Notice of Appeal, you must file a docketing statement with the appellate court. The docketing statement is a snapshot of the case you are appealing:

File a docketing statement in the format found on the Illinois Courts website;
Send a written request to the circuit clerk and court reporter asking them to prepare their sections of the record on appeal. Check with your circuit court clerk to see if they have a certain way that you must order the record. Make sure to include a copy of these written requests with your docketing statement. As the appellant, you are responsible for the costs involved in preparing the record;
Each district of the appellate court has local rules about fee waivers. Please note that getting a fee waiver in the circuit court does not mean you can get a fee waiver in the appellate court. Use our program to create the forms for a Fee Waiver from the appellate court.
Send a copy of the docketing statement to each of the other parties in your case;
File the original docketing statement with copies of your written requests to the circuit court clerk and court reporter and one extra copy with the appellate court clerk, along with a Proof of Service. When you file the docketing statement, you must also pay a filing fee in the appellate court. This fee is in addition to any fees you paid in the circuit court. Use our program to create the forms to send to the court clerk for a Proof of Delivery.
File the Record on Appeal within 63 days of filing Notice of Appeal

You must file the record on appeal, or a Certificate in Lieu of the Record, with the clerk of the appellate court within 63 days of filing the Notice of Appeal. You must pay for the costs that come with preparing the record on appeal unless the appellate court waives these costs.

You will also need to send a written notice to the other parties in the case to let them know you have filed the record. You must also file a proof of service which lets the court know that you gave notice of the filing to the other parties in the case or their lawyers.

Record on appeal
The record on appeal has two parts:

The common law record. This includes all of the written documents created or considered by the circuit court during your case; and the report of proceedings. This is a record of what was said at any hearings held at the circuit court during your case.

The common law record and report of proceedings make up all the facts the appellate court can look at when deciding your appeal. The record on appeal must include everything that was in the circuit court file. This includes transcripts prepared by a court reporter.

will notify the parties of the date and time of the hearing.

The appellate court clerk will send a Notice of Decision to tell you when the court makes its decision. You will be able to pick up a copy of the decision from the clerk.

Losing your appeal
If you lose and the appellate court decided your criminal conviction was proper, you can fight the decision in the following ways:

File a Petition for Rehearing
File a Petition for Leave to Appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court
File a Petition for Rehearing within 21 days after appellate court decision
You can ask for a rehearing if you disagree with the appellate court's decision. You ask for a rehearing by filing a petition. In the petition, you must describe the errors that you think the appellate court made. The petition must be filed with the clerk of the appellate court within 21 days after the filing of the appellate court's decision.

Your petition must:

Be 27 pages or less;
Include a certificate of compliance with the appellate court rules; and
Have a light green cover.
You must file nine copies of the petition with the clerk of the appellate court. You must also send three copies to each of the other parties. All filed petitions need a proof of service attached to the back of the petition.

If you do not file your petition for rehearing on time, the appellate court cannot consider your petition.

File a Petition for Leave to Appeal within 35 days after appellate court decision
You may also file a Petition for Leave of Appeal (PLA). The PLA asks the Illinois Supreme Court to look at the appellate court's decision. The PLA must describe the mistakes that the appellate court made.

You must file your PLA with the clerk of the Illinois Supreme Court no more than 35 days after the appellate court makes its decision.

However, if you asked the appellate court for a rehearing and it was denied you must file your PLA no more than 35 days after the appellate court denies your rehearing.

Bottom line, mate, any appeal is an exhaustive process that must be done observing RIGID time lines and document preparation!!!!

Author's note:

I've done dozens of criminal appeals. None are easy, as the brief must be PERFECT, the legal arguments based solely on the law. Plus, the oral argument, too, must be perfect and compelling.

If I were sitting in your seat, I'd try reaching out to charitable groups to do this on my behalf.

Here is an example of one such group.

Innocence Project - Help us put an end to wrongful convictions!

There are many others.

Your job, seek them out, tell them your story, ask them for help!!!

Good luck.

 

[zddoodah]

All three questions in your original post are answered in the negative.