Case Successes

People vs. T.B. - A Defendant was stopped by the police for a routine traffic violation. The officer claimed that he smelled burnt cannabis emanating from the car. The officer, without a warrant, claimed that he had probable cause to search the Defendant and the vehicle, because of this alleged smell. The officer did not locate any illegal contraband or substances, but, after administering “Standard Field Tests” to this Defendant, he decided that the Defendant was driving under the influence of marijuana. The Defendant maintained his innocence. The case proceeded to trial, where the Defendant was acquitted solely on the cross examination of the officer, by Salvatore C. Miglore, on his lack of qualifications to determine or opine as to the effects of marijuana on a driver, and the lack of the applicability of field tests to marijuana cases. The defense did not have to call one witness and the Defendant was completely exonerated.

PEOPLE VS. T.H. - The same/similar facts as the above, but cocaine was located the person of the Defendant and she admitted to ingesting cocaine one hour before being stopped. The Defendant was completely acquitted, based upon the same principles stated above.

People vs. D.H. - The Defendant’s home was searched by the police after advised by the US Postal Authority and DEA that he was having illegal marijuana plants shipped from overseas to his home; plus having an unusually high electric bill. The police located, in a secured area of his home, several dozen growing marijuana plants, grow lights, dried marijuana and a built in irrigation system. Furthermore, Defendant’s 16 year old daughter lived in the house and slept right next to the grow area. The Defendant was arrested and charged with possession of marijuana, a felony; and, endangering the life and health of a child. After it was determined that the search and admissions by the Defendant were valid and admissible, Salvatore C. Miglore requested an evaluation of the Defendant by a neuro-psychologist/physiatrist. The results revealed serious mental illness, connected to an addiction symptom to marijuana, and other drugs. The Defendant was not eligible for any type of alternative to prosecution, so, Salvatore C. Miglore was able to negotiate the felony offense down to a misdemeanor, with probation and treatment based upon the mitigation of the mental issues in the case; and, the endangerment case was dismissed. The misdemeanor can be sealed from his record in 5 years from the date of his successful termination of

People v. J.D. - The Defendant was diagnosed with schizophrenia, Tourette and other serious mental issues. As a result of him not taking his prescribed psychotropic medication, he hallucinated one summer evening and wandered into a suburban police station, and stole a marked squad car parked running in front of the station by an officer whom quickly went into the station for a few minutes. The Defendant was spotted and took the police, from several departments, on a high speed chase for almost 40 miles, before he crashed the vehicle. Fortunately, nobody was injured and the Defendant only suffered minor injuries. As a result, the Defendant was charged with aggravated fleeing and eluding, burglary to an auto, possession of a stolen motor vehicle, reckless driving, amongst other charges, and, most of the charges were felonies. Salvatore C. Miglore requested a psychiatric evaluation for sanity, where the forensic psychiatrist felt that the Defendant was not able to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law, because he was “insane”, suffering from delusions at the time of the offense, flowing from not taking his medication. The matter proceeded to trial; and, the Defendant was found not guilty by reason of insanity, where, this finding is the functional equivalent to a finding of not guilty or total acquittal for court mandated treatment through the Illinois Department of Human Services as an outpatient. The arrest can be expunged upon completion of a successful course of treatment.

People vs. J.J. - The Defendant was charged with several counts of solicitation of a minor and indecent exposure, for allegedly performing a sexual act in public view. However, prior to retaining Salvatore C. Miglore, he plead guilty to several acts and was on probation. Thereafter, he was charged while on probation for another act. As a result, he faced probation violations and additional criminal penalties for the new charges. After the first interview, Salvatore C. Miglore determined that this person suffered from severe psychiatric problems and could not communicate effectively with his lawyer or understand the nature of the court proceedings. Accordingly, Salvatore C. Miglore filed a petition to declare this person unfit to stand trial; and, then a psychological examination was conducted; and, at a court hearing, the Defendant was declared unfit to stand trial and remanded to the Department of Human Services, as required by law, for the appropriate treatment to make him fit (the State must prove fitness, and they have the obligation to make him fit). If he cannot be found fit within one year, the Defendant must be released, or he cannot be held in a treatment facility for longer than the maximum sentence allowed by law. At this time, the Defendant was released with a treatment plan for schizophrenia, Tourettes Syndrome and anxiety, without a criminal conviction.

PEOPLE V. J. V. - The Defendant was convicted of a sex offense before Salvatore C. Miglore. The conviction required that he register as a sex offender with the local police in the City where he resided. The problem was that every time the police attempted to locate the Defendant at his registered address, he was not present. So, the police set up surveillance and discovered that he spent most of his time staying overnight at his girlfriend’s house in another city or overnight at his disabled mothers, also in a third city. The law required the Defendant to register at all three police departments in each city, but he only registered at one, where he was never home. The police arrested the Defendant and charged him with a Class 4 felony, alleging failure to register as a sex offender. The matter proceeded to trial where the Defendant was found not guilty, because, Salvatore C. Miglore was able to convince the trial judge that he was only required to register where he “resided”, of which he did. Further, he did not reside at the addresses, but was a guest and/or an invitee, of which the Statute did not require him to register because his driver’s license and base of operations was all within the city he registered within.

People vs. J.B. - The Defendant was a 38 year old man, twice divorced, and, remarried for a third time, where his two children, a 6 year old girl and an 8 year old boy, resided with him and his new wife, plus his new wife’s 9 year old daughter. Thus, the two girls went to school and told their teacher that their dad, the Defendant, was “touching them inappropriately”. As such, the matter was reported to “DCFS” and the police. A “victim sensitive” interview took place with the children, by an alleged qualified child advocate, where it was alleged that over a period of several months, the Defendant had oral, vaginal and anal sexual contact with all three children, where penetration occurred. The girls described the sexual acts with significant detail, and told the police that sex toys were used on them to penetrate their vaginal and anal areas, and a blue gel was used in the acts. Accordingly, the sex toys and blue gel were found exactly where the girls indicated, after a search by the police in the parent’s bedroom. A sexual assault examination by a doctor of the two girls showed no signs of injury or trauma to either girl. However, penetration, under Illinois law, does not require injury, or scarring, or a sign of trauma, and the act can be “penetration” “if ever so slight”. Moreover, the scientific medical literature indicates that you can have penetration in these cases without any signs of trauma, in order to satisfy the legal requirement. But, Defendant’s experts disputed the application of the scientific literature in this particular case, because of the manor of how the children described the acts. As a result, the Defendant was arrested and charged, amongst other things, with two counts of Predatory Criminal Sexual Assault, each a Class X Felony, punishable each consecutively by 30 years in prison. However, the Defendant without a criminal history, faced mandatory life in prison, if convicted, of each Class X Felony, by law. No charges were ever filed regarding the alleged assault on the boy. Accordingly, after a complete investigation and analysis by Salvatore C. Miglore, in retaining a child psychologist to review the victim sensitive interviews and protocol used, a DNA expert, Forensic Adolescent Gynecologist to review the physical examination, a sex offender clinical psychologist, and a forensic psychiatrist on false memory of a child, plus research and analysis of all the legal issues; in fact, the State withdrew their demand for life in prison, and offered 30 years, then 25 years, then 18 years, and then 15 years in the Illinois Department of Corrections. But, after a pre-trial conference the trial Judge recommended 25 years for a plea to one count, and a dismissal of all the other charges. The Defendant rejected each offer and the courts recommendation. However, after several pre-trial hearings took place regarding what evidence could be presented at trial over several months, including one prior, earlier allegation of sexual abuse between this Defendant and one of the same daughters, which was uncharged, but reported to the police, the State was allowed by the trial Judge to admit this allegation at trial, over the objection of Salvatore C. Miglore. This type of “other bad acts” is called Modus Opperandi or method of operation; which, generally is not allowed at trial to show that Defendant had the propensity to commit these types of crimes, except in sexual abuse cases, where it is called a People vs. Donoho hearing. However, Salvatore C. Miglore disclosed all of his experts with their opinion(s), to the State and the case was set for jury trial. Thereafter, the State approached Salvatore C. Miglore shortly before trial and offered to dismiss 4 of the 6 charges, in exchange for 13 years in prison, at 85% time, to be served (which is called Truth and Sentencing). If accepted, the Defendant would serve about 9.5 years. The average sentence in Illinois for one count of Predatory Criminal Sexual Assault is 27.5 years in the Department of Corrections with one victim, and here we had two charges with 2 victims of “predatory” assault, plus the State had the one other Act admissible at trial, which could be harmful if heard by the jury. In any event, Salvatore C. Miglore advised the Defendant of his options, risks and potential benefits of the trial, and/or plea agreement. Salvatore C. Miglore recommended that the matter proceeded to trial because he argued that with the proper experts, as he had, he felt that he could convince a jury to acquit the Defendant of the most serious charges, and possibly all 6 charges. But, after carful consideration by the client and his family, the Defendant choose to accept the plea agreement; where he would serve 9.5 years in prison; and, where it was possible to be released even earlier than 9.5 years, if he participated in treatment and other programs. As such, the Defendant reasoned that that the 9.5 years where he is 38 years of age, provides him the potential to start his life over at 47 years old, when released from prison; as opposed, to risking the remainder of his life in prison, without parole. In conclusion, the point is that this agreement could not have been reached without intense litigation, investigation, consultation with experts, a thorough evaluation of the law, tenacious advocacy, plus retaining and disclosing the correct experts; and, in short letting the State know they were in for a fight. Although, Salvatore C. Miglore desired to proceed to trial, the ultimate decision was left to the client, after all of the options were completely investigated and pursued, so that the client reached a knowing and fully informed decision, as to what is the correct course for him or her to follow. This was all based upon the individual risk tolerance of the Defendant, and, the quality of the admissible evidence, balanced against the probabilities of creating reasonable doubt at trial by the defense, in order to acquit the Defendant of all of the charges.

People vs. V.B. - A 17 year old Defendant was charged as an adult with Felony Aggravated Fleeing and Eluding of a Police Officer. The material facts are that the Defendant was allegedly speeding 100 MPH down a major highway, where part of the highway was geographically within the boarders of a City and other part was located in unincorporated DuPage County. The City Police Officer with his radar device was in a marked car, located in the center median in the highway, sitting stationary. However, he was on the portion of the road that was unincorporated. As a result, a high speed chase ensued where the police were in actual “hot pursuit” of the vehicle. The chase lasted about 18 minutes over several miles. After a complete investigation, it was determined that the officer could not specifically identify the driver, or get a license number or provide the current make or model of the car. Eventually, during the chase the police officer loss sight of the vehicle and abandoned the “hot pursuit”. Then, the officer returned back to the Police Department, where an anonymous tip from a confidential informant, whom purportedly called the station to tell the police that the car they sought was seen going into the “9500 block of Jackson”, in the City. In response, the police, with several units, without verification, traveled to the area, went house to house in a two block square area, where they simply went to the back yard of a house, surrounded by a fence, and allegedly saw a car “similar” to the one chased, where, the Defendant was present. The car or backyard could not be seen from the street. Therefore, without a search warrant or consent, or any other info connecting the Defendant to the chase, several armed officers interrogated the Defendant, where he admitted to the offense. As such, he was placed under arrest, the car was seized, and the State sought to forfeiture the vehicle, since it allegedly facilitated a felony offense. Accordingly, Salvatore C. Miglore filed a Motion to Quash the Arrest and Suppress the Evidence and the Statements of the Defendant, incriminating himself. A complete investigation by Salvatore C. Miglore’s forensic investigator with crime scene re-enactments, surveys of the highway for city boundaries, a working video, which contained a test of the purported chase and photo’s, recreating the scene and layout of the house and yard, thereby caused the trial court to quash the arrest and suppress all of the evidence, due to an illegal search of the premises, in an area of the backyard called the “curtilage”, which is protected, as if you were in your own home; and, where a reasonable expectation of privacy exists, under the Constitution. As a result, the case was dismissed and Defendant’s car was returned. The Court found that the search, seizure and arrest were constitutionally unreasonable, amongst other favorable findings.

People vs. W.M. - A 47 ½ year old man was charged with his second DUI and subject to a license revocation and jail. Hence, the Defendant refused breath testing but subjected himself to “standardized field sobriety testing” at the scene. The alleged reason for the traffic stop was “weaving” and failure to stop at a stop sign. The Defendant did have some health problems and the field tests were administered incorrectly, per the defense, regardless of the health problems. Thus, Salvatore C. Miglore retained an expert to testify at trial as to the incorrect procedures and incorrect conclusions of an officer with 25 years of law enforcement experience, upon the issue of alcohol impairment. However, at the close of the State’s case, solely on the strength of the cross examination of the officer by Salvatore C. Miglore, the court granted a directed finding of not guilty. So, the Defendant never even had to present any evidence at all. The Defendant was exonerated and discharged.

PEOPLE V. L.S. - The Defendant was the owner of a car where she was a passenger in the front seat, while she let her fiancée driver. The vehicle also had two other people in the back seat. As the car was proceeding down an express way, the vehicle was directed to stop by the State Police at a roadside safety check point (“road block”). The police discovered that the driver had a revoked license and warrant for his arrest. Thereafter the owner of the car/passenger, had a valid driver’s license and was unaware of the status of her fiancée’s driver’s license or his problems with the law. The driver was placed under arrest and the auto, all occupants and trunk were searched. Then, in the trunk, wrapped in Defendant’s clothes were a crack pipe and several ounces of crack cocaine and other drugs were discovered. The Defendant was placed under arrest and charged with a drug charge. Salvatore C. Miglore filed a Motion to Quash the Arrest and Suppress the evidence, due to the fact that the State Police did not follow the U.S. Constitutional and Illinois Constitutional requirements for a valid “Road Block”, where this one gave the officers unbridled discretion to stop whom they wanted without any reasonable suspicion or a crime. Further, since the Defendant had a valid driver’s license, Salvatore C. Miglore argued that there was no reason to search the vehicle, because the theory of search incident to a lawful arrest of the driver or an inventory search did not apply under these facts. At trial, it was argued that even if the road block was proper the Defendant/Passenger could not be connected to the drugs and paraphernalia, upon the theory of constructive possession; and, therefore she was found not guilty.

People v. LB - This was a first-degree murder case, where the client allegedly shot a rival gang drug dealer to death in a crowded parking lot. The Defendant faced 20 to 60 years in prison. After trial, there was a finding of Not Guilty, due to self-defense and/or a “Lynch defense.” The Defense was able to show that the victim had a propensity for violence, via Chicago Police detectives, and that he had the legal right to shoot first, because of his fear of death or great bodily harm. The Defendant was totally exonerated.

People v. TK - This case was a negligent homicide of a baby, whom was killed by her falling into a pot of boiling water. The client was the owner of the building, whom had not properly maintained the property for the victim’s parents as tenants; thus, forcing the tenants to boil hot water and get snow from the outside to use water. The water “buffalo box” outside was frozen in winter, thereby, depriving the building of water. The baby allegedly fell into the pot of water. After trial, the court ruled, as argued by the defense, that there was no nexus/connection to Defendant’s alleged failure to properly maintain the building’s water supply, causing the death of the child; and further, that the State failed to prove the death was caused by any act of the Defendant. The Defendant was found Not Guilty and was totally exonerated.

People v. DM - The Defendant was charged with first-degree murder and 5 counts of Aggravated Battery with a firearm by shooting 5 people whom did not pose a threat and killing one alleged rival gang member, whom did pose a threat. The Defendant was called to a party with a firearm because of a fight involving his younger brother. After a physical altercation erupted, the Defendant shot and killed one person and wounded 5 others. Also, before Salvatore C. Miglore was retained the Defendant confessed. The Defendant argued self-defense, or a belief that his brother was about to be shot, upon the theory of “self defense of another person facing death or imminent serious bodily injury.” The victim having a broken gun, of which Defendant only saw after it was pointed at him, but did not know it was not an operable weapon. However, Salvatore C. Miglore, at the client’s request, was able to convince the prosecutors for a reduction to second degree murder with a sentencing range of 10 to 20 years at 50% time and 4 out of the 5 Aggravated Battery charges dropped. This was done after several pre-trial motions and hearings; plus a thorough forensic investigation by experts retained. The Defendant faced a minimum of 45 years to life in prison for first-degree murder, and 4 to 15 years, as consecutive sentences on each of the 5 aggravated batteries. However, because of the reduction and dismissals, he will be released on parole serving about 12 years total, for 2 counts out of 7 with one person dead and 5 people whom were bystanders were shot and injured.

People v. MB - The Defendant was charged with first-degree murder. The Defendant was 15 years of age and a gang member, while on juvenile parole for another shooting. The Defendant shot and killed an 18-year old rival gang member in a drive-by shooting. Before Salvatore C. Miglore was retained, the Defendant confessed and did a crime re-enactment video for the police. The Defendant was tried as an adult automatically under Illinois law, and faced a sentencing range of 45 years as a minimum, at 100% time, to life in prison as an adult, which the State sought. After many pretrial motions, upon suppressing the confession and crime re-enactment video, the matter proceeded to trial. The defense was able to convince the judge that the Defendant did not formulate the requisite intent to commit first-degree murder, due to being chased and confronted by rival gang members while the car he was in passed by. The Defendant was found Not Guilty of all 5 counts of first-degree murder, but was found guilty of a lesser offense of armed violence based upon aggravated discharge of a firearm. At trial, Salvatore C. Miglore was able to point our several problems with the State’s case with forensic experts and psychological evaluations of Defendant, whom were hired. The Defendant was sentenced to prison, but for a much shorter term than a first degree murder conviction. The issue of whether this was a properly formulated lesser charge is currently on appeal, by the defense. But, this was one of only a few acquittals of first-degree murder charges in DuPage County in the last 25 years.

People v. KB - The Defendant was charged with Aggravated Battery to a child, with a sentencing range of 12 to 60 years with all charges, based upon “shaken baby syndrome. The Defendant was the caretaker of a foster child whom obtained severe brain injuries and retinal bleeding as a result of Defendant allegedly shaking the baby so violently that the top of her brain dislodged from the skin or membrane in the skull, causing a subdural hematoma, where the baby could not breathe without a respirator or carry on normal bodily functions. The Defendant alleged the baby fell out of a crib; however, the State argued that the scientific evidence showed that this type of injury could not occur from a 5-foot fall. However, Defendant retained a biomedical mechanical engineer, a brain surgeon, a medical researcher, a psychologist and psychiatrist, whom were all able to convince prosecutors and the trial court, after several hearings, that the fall from the crib was possible, and that Defendant’s “ADHD” contributed to her lack of attention for a hyper active, crack baby, falling out of the crib. The resulting charge was significantly reduced, but there was liability for neglect and abuse of the child, while in the care of the Defendant for her failure to properly supervise the child. As was noted, the crime was significantly discounted and the punishment greatly diminished. Thus, the Defendant received a 3-year sentence at 50% time, and actually served about 10 months total in the Department of Corrections for a simple aggravated battery, instead of a minimum of 12 years to 60 years at 85% time, or “Truth & Sentencing” to apply upon the original charge.

Pardon/Clemency - People vs. J.P. - Salvatore C. Miglore was retained by a Non-US Citizen/legal resident, after she plead guilty to one Cook County Misdemeanor Theft, and was found guilty of a Felony Theft, after a trial in DuPage County, in another unrelated theft charge, shortly after the first conviction. The client faced deportation/removal from the United States, and the loss of her legal residency status from the Department of Homeland Security, due to the above criminal convictions. Furthermore, the time to appeal the conviction was long gone at the time she retained Salvatore C. Miglore; and unfortunately, neither offense could be sealed or expunged. Therefore, the only remedy was to seek an Executive Pardon or Clemency from the Governor of the State of Illinois. Thereafter, the Petition for Pardon was filed and a hearing took place in Springfield, Illinois, before a three member panel of the prison review board, whom provided a recommendation to the Governor, as to whether to grant or deny the pardon. Unfortunately, the right to a decision provides for no time period upon which a decision must be provided. As such, the remedy is solely in the “sound” discretion of the Governor. In conclusion, after the evidence was presented and the arguments offered, Governor Patrick Quinn granted a full Pardon with a complete expungement of both charges, 5 years after the hearing concluded. As a result, the Defendant was completely exonerated and her record was cleared.

People v. VL - The Defendant, whom was an undocumented immigrant, had a 4-Count felony indictment for Financial Identity Theft and Forgery. The Defendant worked at a factory for minimum wage, with false identification and a false social security number. At trial, the judge agreed with the Defense’s argument that the State produced no evidence whatsoever for Financial Identity Theft, i.e., Defendant’s intent to defraud, even though he admitted to the police, before retaining counsel, that he bought the identification solely to work, because he was undocumented, and could not work legally in the United States. The court accepted the argument that he worked and got paid, and thus, there was no theft; and, there was no proof that the purported identity was a person who actually existed. Later, the US Supreme Court ratified this argument in another case of Flores-Figueroa v. United States. All counts were dismissed or directed out and the Defendant was completely exonerated of all 4 counts with a judgment of acquittal, without even putting on one witness.

People v. SS - The Defendant was on probation for a few months for burglary, when he was arrested for a residential burglary, a non-probationable Class 1 felony. The Defendant faced re-sentencing on the original charge, and 4 to 15 years on the new charge, as consecutive sentences. Salvatore C. Miglore did not represent the Defendant on the first offense. The Defendant was arrested about one mile from the scene as a passenger in an auto, allegedly being chased both on foot and in patrol cars by the police. A search of the auto, after the arrest, allegedly contained “burglary tools.” The Defendant was supposedly identified at the scene, as he ran by the owner of the house, whom happened to walk in, as the crime was in progress; and a responding police officer whom chased him through an alley. At trial, Salvatore C. Miglore challenged the identification of the police, plus the description of the Defendant; and also the few seconds in the dark that the witnesses had to identify the Defendant; plus the lack of physical evidence linking the Defendant to the crime. As such, the Defendant was found not guilty and he was completely discharged of both offenses (Defendant’s probation on the first offense was not revoked and that first case Petition to Revoke probation was also dismissed).

People v. GK - The Defendant was charged with a 4th DUI offense, which was a felony, and was facing prison time. Salvatore C. Miglore challenged the sufficiency of the evidence and field testing, thereby placing the police officers on trial, as to their proper training and expertise in alcohol detection. The jury returned a verdict of Not Guilty on all counts.

People v. MR - The Defendant was charged with 5 counts of Felony Aggravated DUI, drugs and alcohol, involving an Accident with great bodily harm, where he was allegedly driving in excess of 100 mph before losing control and hitting a pole. Both he and the passenger were physically thrown from the car several feet from the impact. The Defendant was the driver of the car with one passenger in a one-car accident. Both the passenger and Defendant suffered severe brain injuries and serious medical problems, where it was believed neither would survive. At the hospital emergency room, a blood draw of Defendant was taken for a medical diagnosis. Salvatore C. Miglore researched, investigated and prepared himself for trial regarding the blood and urine draws, by retaining experts and private investigators to expose the weaknesses in the State’s case, based upon the failure of the hospital to conduct the analysis, according to a proper scientific protocol. After several motions to bar the blood draw results, the State offered a plea agreement for a reduction to a lesser offense of a misdemeanor “reckless driving” due to the issues with the blood and urine tests, and other proof issues. The Defendant received one year probation on the misdemeanor and all the felony counts were dismissed. (Note: The Defendant had prior convictions for felonies.)

People v. CJ - The Defendant was charged with a second DUI within 2 years involving a BAC of .114. The Defendant faced a lengthy driver’s license revocation, resentencing on his first DUI case, where supervision was still pending, and jail, if convicted. Salvatore C. Miglore raised several points regarding field sobriety testing, the portable breath test (PBT), and a Motion to Bar the Breath test due to the breath test equipment in question not being properly certified accurate, as required by law, after an investigation. The Motion to Bar was granted by the court and accordingly, all testimony and evidence regarding the result of the .114 breath test was barred from evidence at trial. However, several other counts remained. Thereafter, the State agreed to amend the DUI count to a reckless driving, a Class A Misdemeanor, and saved the Defendant’s driving privileges. All of the other remaining counts were dismissed. The Defendant received 2 years probation, plus 60 days work release. Moreover, the State agreed not to violate the Defendant’s supervision; and thus, his driving privileges remained in tact, and no additional punishment was ordered for the violation of supervision.

People v. MQ - This Defendant was charged with felony theft. He was employed as a computer repair technician at a Fortune 500 company and held an MS. He assembled lap top computers from spare parts owned by the company, and sold them illegally on E-bay. He was also a non-US citizen facing deportation, if convicted. The federal investigators with the local police, learned of the scheme, and arranged two controlled buys. Before Salvatore C. Miglore was retained, the Defendant was confronted and confessed. The matter, after a number of pretrial motions, proceeded to trial, where the Defendant was found not guilty on all counts, due to the fact that the State could not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the component parts of the computers in question actually belonged to the victim. So, no inventory markings or identifications were on the items establishing ownership. The Defendant was totally exonerated.

People v. JP - The Defendant, an adult, was charged with possession of crack cocaine, after a traffic stop for speeding, where the Defendant possessed a valid driver’s license. The Defendant was arrested as a pretext for a search for speeding, where the arrest was not arguably authorized by law, as long as the Defendant had a valid driver’s license. The Defense filed a motion to quash the arrest and suppress the evidence, based upon an illegal arrest and illegal search and seizure. The Motion to Suppress was granted, and the Defendant was discharged, but he did receive a straight conviction on the speeding charge only, for speeding 100 mph in a 55 mph zone. (The Defendant here also possessed a significant criminal history.)

People v. CD - The Defendant was charged with 2 counts of Criminal Sexual Assault, both non-probationable Class 1 felonies, for allegedly having intercourse with a family member whom was under the age of 17 at the time. The Defendant allegedly confessed to the investigators and wrote a letter of apology to the victim, before counsel was retained. The Defendant was facing mandatory minimum consecutive sentencing of 8 to 30 years at 85% time; plus life time sex offender registration. The offer before trial was 8 years in the Illinois Department of Corrections, at 85% time. After a Frye hearing that was granted (hearing on scientific acceptance of certain evidence the defense tendered), for the first time in the state of Illinois, the trial court allowed expert testimony regarding “false confessions,” where one admits to a crime he did not commit, or one that was embellished by the police or victim. The reasons for the admissions are due to psychological pressures and oppressive “John Reed” police interrogation techniques. Salvatore C. Miglore retained renowned psychologist and lawyer, Dr. Salomon Fulero, in order to testify as to his expertise on the “false confessions phenomena.” Dr. Fulero was the psychologist the US Supreme Court referred to in Atkins v. Virginia, which held that executions of juveniles in the United States, and/or mentally retarded people is cruel and unusual punishment, and therefore, unconstitutional, and therefore, the ruling was based primarily on these types of confessions. Also, Salvatore C. Miglore produced crime scene recreation, forensic investigators and other psychiatrists to illustrate that the “act” was embellished by the “victim.” After several hearings, the prosecution offered the Defendant an amendment or reduction to an “Attempted criminal sexual assault,” and a dismissal of the second count. The Defendant received 30 months probation, 180 days work release, plus sex offender registration for 10 years, instead of the demanded prison time and lifetime registration.

People v. JP - The Defendant was charged with Gun Running, a non-probationable Class 1 felony in state court, which involved the sale of 3 weapons to an undercover federal ATF agent in an alleged joint federal-state prosecution. He was on felony probation for the possession of firearms at the time and faced re-sentencing to prison. Salvatore C. Miglore did not represent him on the first charge of which he was on probation at the time. The authorities had the 3 guns sold and the cash Defendant received; plus, the entire transaction was tape-recorded. The Defendant was facing a minimum term of incarceration in the Illinois Department of Corrections of 4 years to a maximum term of 15 years at 50% time on the new offense, plus a consecutive sentence on the first case. The issue raised was the validity of a federal over-hear and other evidentiary problems. The Defense filed a Motion for Supplemental Discovery, of which, the State failed to provide. Also, the Defense also issued subpoenas to the federal government, of which they did not comply. Therefore, the Defense filed a Motion in Limine to bar all the federal witnesses from testifying or producing any evidence; and thus, argued several pre-trial motions including a Motion to Dismiss the Indictment due to the United States Government’s failure to comply with Defendant’s subpoenas. The State court cannot compel a federal government agent to comply with a State subpoena; but, it can bar the evidence or dismiss the case as a sanction. On the date of trial/hearing on the matter, the State agreed to reduce the charge to “attempted gunrunning” and Defendant received 48 months probation plus 100 hours community service on both cases, without any prison time, which basically boiled down to simply the first sentence he had on the first conviction, because they both were to run concurrently. So, there was no additional punishment.

People v. NR - The Defendant was charged with Endangering the Life or Health of a Child. Also, the Defendant was a non-U.S. citizen, facing removal from the United States, if convicted. The Defense argued that the complaint was legally defective and unconstitutional, based upon a mandatory presumption that the child was alone for 15 minutes in a car, while it was cold outside. The matter proceeded to trial and the motion was heard with the trial. A directed finding of acquittal was entered, thus the Defendant was found Not Guilty and was totally exonerated without putting on any evidence.

US v. MW - The Defendant was a 21-year-old woman with psychiatric issues. She was alleged to have participated and aided in the brutal sexual assault, leaving the victim with severe life threatening injuries after a beating; and, conspiring to kidnap the victim, in order to keep her from testifying at trial. The two male perpetrators were enlisted in the US Army, stationed in California, where the assault took place. But, before she was represented by counsel, she uttered an incriminating statement to federal and US Army investigators in DuPage County, Illinois. Hence, Salvatore C. Miglore was retained thereafter, and secured immunity for MW from the US Department of Justice in Washington, D.C. and local prosecutors, with the assistance of James Hammer (local counsel in California), in exchange for her testimony against the two Defendants. Hence, she could never be prosecuted by the State or federal authorities, where if she was, she faced a long prison term (Two army Defendant’s received 40 years in federal prison each.)

US v. AB - This Defendant was a foreign national facing deportation, where she was an accountant for a company alleged to have committed mail fraud, money laundering, income tax and “RICO” violations by diverting money from union contributions by paying cash under the table to employees. The Defendant faced several years in prison and deportation. Before she was represented by counsel, she confessed to federal agents. After Salvatore C. Miglore was retained, he secured complete immunity from prosecution from the US Department of Justice, in exchange for her testimony, against the organized crime operated company. Hence, she avoided a conviction, federal prison time and deportation.

B vs. B - Salvatore C. Miglore was retained for a Post Judgment Petition to Remove a 14 year old child to the State of Florida, in order to relocate with his mother and her new husband. The mother was the residential parent in a joint custody situation. Salvatore C. Miglore was the third attorney on the case, where all of the previous attorneys, including the Guardian ad Litem, who represented the interest of the minor, opposed the removal, because the father had a close relationship with the father. Also, because the mother was 61 years old, on her 3rd marriage, and the new husband was 72 years old, plus the fact that they met on the internet; plus they only saw each other in person about 5 times over 3 years, significantly complicated the removal request. In addition, there were several other legal problems with the case. However, after six months total of Salvatore C. Miglore being on the case, and retaining an expert psychologist to conduct a proper removal evaluation on the material facts focusing on the best interest of the child; and, thereafter, proceeding to seven days of trial, the Petition to Remove was granted; and, the mother was allowed to move to Florida with the minor child, “as it was in the child’s best interests”, after a careful weighing of all the evidence by the trial Judge. Further, a suitable visitation schedule with the father was ordered by the court, where the child would spend summers, holidays and breaks with the father in Illinois.

IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF M AND L - Salvatore C. Miglore represented the former wife in this matter, where the case involved a post judgment custody petition filed by the Husband seeking custody of the three minor children, which was motivated by the wife moving from Kane County to Lake County; and, the wife’s petition for an increase in child support and to set an arrearage on the back due amounts the Husband owed. The Husband was self-employed as a house painter and did not provide accurate income records; nor did he properly disclose a current amount of income, in order to get an accurate amount of support. Thus, Salvatore C. Miglore retained a forensic accountant and a private investigator; plus, issued many subpoenas for records, where several secreated bank accounts were discovered; plus personal financial statements of which the husband provided to financial institutions to secure credit, where he represented his income to be over $120,000.00 a year. Also, assets were discovered transferred to third parties. Moreover, the forensic accountant was able to establish that the husband’s income was over 6 figures per year, using investigative and forensic accounting principles. Accordingly, on the day of trial, the Husband withdrew his petition for custody, agreed to a substantial child support arrearage, set the child support at the proper level; and he paid a substantial portion of the wife’s attorney’s fees and costs.

IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF K - This matter involved another post decree situation where Salvatore C. Miglore represented the former wife, whom instituted post judgment proceedings to establish a child support arrearage; and, to set the proper amount of child support for three minor children. Further, the wife filed a petition to remove the children to the State of Wisconsin for her to secure new employment. The Husband was a convicted felon, served prison time, and was an allegedly self employed contractor. He never complied with discovery requests, so again, a forensic accountant and private investigator were consulted to establish a correct amount of income and to locate assets. Thus, through the process it was discovered that several bank accounts and assets existed, of which were never disclosed, and significant fraud committed by the Husband in under reporting his income. In this case, after the trial began, and it became apparent to the Husband that he had a serious problem, the case was settled where he withdrew his objection to the removal of the children to the State of Wisconsin to relocate with the Wife. Also, a child support arrearage was established with a payment plan, current support was set at the proper amounts, and, the enter matter was resolved.

2017 and 2016 Family Law Changes Prior to July 2017, Illinois courts determined the amount of child support payments using a straightforward calculation of a percentage of the paying parent's net income. On July 1, 2017, this system was done away with when an update to the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (IMDMA) went into effect. Illinois now uses an income-sharing system that bases child support on both parents' incomes and each parent's percentage share of their combined income. Courts will also consider each parent's amount of parenting time and parental responsibility, and parents may be required to contribute to their children's healthcare, childcare, and extracurricular expenses.

2016 Updates to Child Custody and Visitation Laws