Navigating an Illinois DUI From Arrest to Resolution

Episode 4 Transcript

Matt Skye:
Welcome to Defending the Windy City with David Druecke. As founding partner of DRD Law, David brings a razor focus on criminal defense, known for his fierce courtroom presence and expert knowledge of evidentiary procedure, passionately defending his clients' rights. David, thanks for joining.
Thanks for having me again, Matt. Happy to be here.

So let's just jump in. I've read recently that violent crime has gone up 18% over the past 10 years in Chicago. What would you attribute this to?

David Drwecke:
Like many things in life, there probably are no one simple, easy answer, but a lot of contributing factors. Recently, part of this would be tied, I think, to COVID, which is obviously only, fortunately, only a few years ago now at this point. But there's economic impact, education impact, opportunity impact, and then some of it comes from the top down, even in our criminal justice system.

When we look to our state's attorney or the lead prosecutor specifically in Cook County, who currently is Kim Fox, though she is going to be stepping down and there will be a new state's attorney starting in the new year in 2025, there just was less of an emphasis on tough policing and tough sentencing. Which from my perspective and for a lot of my clients, that's great. We were able to work out deals where they spent less or no time in prison, but from a societal impact, well, people were back on the streets who maybe should not have been there or there were never charged in the first place because Chicago is a big, busy city, and unfortunately, the police may not be the most well-funded organization in Cook County.

So like I said, there's multiple factors, but I believe some of the most biggest contributing ones would be COVID most recently. I believe the police are understaffed and underfunded, and that there really has been a lack of emphasis on tough sentencing and taking people off of the street to focus more on programming and second chances, which maybe should be more on a case-by-case basis rather than a grand overarching philosophy that applies to every case. And that's what it felt like the state's attorney's approach was, that everybody gets that second chance. Everybody should be out. Let's avoid putting people in prison. And again, that's great for my individual clients, maybe less great for society at large.

Matt Skye:
So we've seen this uptick since COVID and a myriad of factors. What are some of those common violent crimes prosecuted in Chicago courts currently?

David Drwecke:
Well, from just sheer volume, it would start with domestic violence. So this is the classic example, husband and wife or a boyfriend and girlfriend that get into some level of a fight where they've made contact with one another of a harmful or offensive nature. That's all it takes. It doesn't actually have to be a knockdown drag out fight, but domestic violence is undoubtedly the most common.

And then you get into just batteries. These are two folks who aren't related, who don't live together, who don't have a relationship together, but they're in a fight. It's a bar fight. It's two people who have words that turn violent on the street. And then you start to look at some of the more serious offenses. Now we are talking about murder or a reckless discharge where nobody is dead, but maybe a gun was fired in the direction of somebody. It could be an attempt murder.

Those are the most common. It starts with slightly lower level, somebody touched somebody else when they shouldn't have, up to the most egregious and most violent situation where somebody's dead. They've been shot or stabbed or beaten to death. And we see a great deal of it. And some of that is attributable to the fact that, again, it's Chicago. There are millions of people in a pretty tight area, and with more people is more crime. It kind of goes hand in hand to a certain extent.

We do have gang violence in Chicago. It is a thing. There's no reason to deny that. That plays a role in it as well, and there's violence associated with that, violence associated with the drug trade as well. That's a part of Chicago. But when it comes to what we see the most, again, domestic violence, batteries, and then we get into the more serious violent offenses.

Matt Skye:
David, can we speak a little bit to the presumption of innocence and how that applies in the defense of violent crime cases in Chicago?

David Drwecke:
Absolutely. This is my focus in every case. And my clients will hear me say it a lot. And I think at this point, because I'm in court so often, states, attorneys and judges have heard me say this.

First and foremost, that I'm not so worried with what you're charged with. I'm worried with what the state can prove. What evidence do they have? Because allegations are free, allegations are easy. Someone accuses someone else of touching them or punching them or slapping them. I had a case quite literally this week where there were neighbors and there'd been a history of the neighbors not getting along, people parking cars at the end of the driveway so that the other neighbor couldn't get out, verbal altercations and threats, things that were even recorded on a ring doorbell. Well, it eventually came to a head where one neighbor accused the other neighbor of attacking them. And they had visible injuries. They had photographs of black eyes and bruises and scrapes and so forth. So they went to the police, made the allegation, accused the neighbor of effectively savagely beating them up, not just being pushed or shoved, but a pretty serious beat down.

And the police, unfortunately, their hands are somewhat tied. They have somebody making an allegation. They can see that there are injuries. They went forward and pressed charges. Well, we went to trial this week and it gets to the point of the presumed innocence in that the state has to overcome this presumption that you are innocent, and they have to have evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you've done what you've been accused of.

And what we were able to unpack through cross examination and understanding the history between these parties was that the victim, and I'd like to air quote that because I don't believe the person really was a victim, just lied and told a story that didn't make any sense. And the judge eventually at trial saw through that. And what do I mean to get a little more fact specific?

The neighbor's story was that the defendant came home, they blocked the driveway yet again. She was merely asking them to move the car. And rather than moving the car, they rushed out of the vehicle and beat her up for 15 minutes. She has no idea why they did that. She eventually extricated herself from the situation, ran to the police and filed this report. And you pause for a moment and go like, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. If they're the bad guys and they're blocking your driveway, why would they all of a sudden run out of the car and just beat you up? And you played no role in this whatsoever?

And again, by knowing the file, looking at the evidence, you can see first and foremost that some of the injuries didn't add up. These are photographs within 30 minutes of the alleged fight. You read the written report and then you compare that to what she had told the police and what's in their report, and then what she was testifying to at the day of trial. You messed up and left a lot of really specific details out. Isn't that unusual? It's like, yeah, it is. That's what happens when you're lying. And the judge, again, saw through that.

And so that's just one example of allegations free, cheap, easy. You can bring a charge with very little effort. But can you prove it? Can you get over that hurdle of proving this beyond a reasonable doubt? Because that is on the state. This is something I bring up with my clients all the time and that I hammer at trial. I have no burden as the defense. I don't have to ask a question. I don't have to have an opening or closing statement. I don't have to present any evidence. This is purely on the state, 100%. And they have to prove to you, judge or jury, beyond a reasonable doubt, they've satisfied all of this. This is their problem. Make them live up to it.

Matt Skye:
And it's so pivotal for courtrooms to bear in mind that burden of proof. So I want to jump around a little bit. How do recent gun law changes influence your defense strategies involving violent crimes? There have been some changes.

David Drwecke:
Well, Cook County, specifically in Illinois at large, has some of the toughest gun laws that there are in how difficult it is to obtain a gun legally. And in Illinois, we'll call it a FOID card. It's a firearm identification card. And then there's also the CCL, which is the Concealed Carry License. And Illinois makes it difficult. You can be rejected for a host of different reasons. And if you're rejected, can't buy a gun, can't possess a gun.

And then even if you have a FOID card, you can buy and possess it. Very specific context of when and where and how you can possess that gun if you don't have the CCL. Beyond that, just in making it more difficult to get a gun, Illinois has some of the strongest penalties as it relates to guns because, at least in our state and in Cook County, they believe it's just a scourge and that possessing a gun leads to violence and we're going to stop that before the violence actually happens. So we're going to put people away who have guns, at least in theory.

Now, how does that affect my defense? It's really the reality of what my client is looking at. And what I mean by that is really two things. I have an awful lot of young clients. And what I mean by that, they're maybe in their teens, late teens and into their early 20s. If they have never had a gun case before, as tough as our laws are, there are special programs to avoid A, that's going into criminal background, B, you're going to prison.

The single biggest and best example of that is what's called the second chance gun offender probation. So you're 20 or approximately 21 because they played with the law a little bit here. Around 21 years old, you've never had a violent offense in your background, including as a juvenile. This is your first gun. You don't have to go to jail. We're gonna put you on probation. There are some things you need to do while you're on probation. If you successfully complete, the case is dismissed. You are not a felon. You do not have this on your background.

When it comes to older clients or those who do have a background, so you're not eligible for this special program, it really goes back to something that we talked about in a different episode, and that's understanding the law of possession in Illinois, that constructive or actual possession. And that is probably the single most nonviolent criminal case I have are possession cases, drugs or guns. And as it relates to guns specifically, really understanding the law as it relates to actual or constructive possession, because we've had a great deal of success at trial, getting cases either dismissed or just winning outright, getting the not guilty for a client. And that is having experience and understanding the law and understanding the concept of possession.

Matt Skye:
Now, when we look at the Chicago Police Department's use of technology and surveillance right now, how does that impact you?

David Drwecke:
Huge, really big. And I love technology. It's a big part of my practice, but it also can make some of our cases that much more difficult. And what I mean by that is we live in a modern age. There are cameras everywhere. There are cameras that aren't even related to the police. We're talking about ring doorbells and surveillance cameras and security cameras. And the police are going to get access to that. It doesn't take what they just approach a neighbor in a residential area and say, looks like you have a ring doorbell. Can we take a look at that? And more often than not, the neighbor is going to give that up.

There are what are called pod cameras around the city of Chicago. You'll routinely see them near red light cameras as well. There are license plate reader cameras that are out there. So even if they can't see you, they can track a vehicle and they can track the license plate. There is a technology, I'm not so sure I believe in its efficacy, but it's called ShotSpotter in Chicago or in Cook County, where what it does, it triangulates sounds and that it is supposedly tuned to gunshots so that it can triangulate a location, identify how many shots, the approximate location of those shots, and they then can send out the police.

I have had cases both relating to possession, but then even more serious cases like murder, where the use of technology is what put the case together for the state. They had a location and an approximate time of when something happened, a shooting occurred. They then unpack that and go, that happened at 11:15. Let's go back. And then they follow a car and they follow the license plate reader. And then if they eventually have a suspect or a person in mind, they can track their cell phone and get cell phone records and obtain the phone itself. Now we're talking about GPS data and everything else.

I mean, it's incredible what can be done in that there are cameras, again, everywhere, even when you're not thinking about it, or it's not that one that's flashing in the sky at you. Again, between surveillance, security, ring doorbell, pod cameras, and the like, that is huge. And that's probably the single biggest thing is how often a client is surprised, like, this was on camera? It's like, yeah, the entire incident, the shooting was on camera, and this is how they then unpacked and came back to you is because then they tracked you, or they tracked your vehicle, or they tracked your phone all the way back. I mean, so technology in 2024, incredible.

Matt Skye:
Yeah, it's pretty spectacular, the propagation of, you know, surveillance technologies everywhere. I want to ask you, what do you say to people when they feel like their situation is hopeless and they just want to plead guilty, they want to get their legal troubles over with, or maybe even just serve time, even if they feel they're innocent?

David Drwecke:
That's tough. It really is because I can appreciate the frustration that clients feel. They feel like my life is over. I've been charged with a felony, maybe a very serious felony at that. I'm not going to be able to get a job. I'm not going to see my family. I'm going to lose my children, all of these considerations that go in their head. And some of that might be true, or some of that may be true to a certain extent.

What I tell the client even in the strongest states case is that all hope is not gone. There is an opportunity to negotiate. And let's leverage relationships that I have with states' attorneys. Let's leverage the fact that we can get in front of the judge, that there are mitigating circumstances. Maybe 100% you've done what they're accusing you of, but we can still negotiate. We can put you in the best light possible. Let's get letters of support. Let's show how you were raised and came up that you didn't have these opportunities, and we could present that to the state or to the judge in lessening what that charge might be or lessening what the ultimate sentence would be.

Maybe it does involve still having to go to prison, but it could be exponentially less than you would think. I have examples from just the last month where a client served at least a third less than the minimum by not going to trial. We eventually came to a plea agreement, but on a case we had 0% chance of winning at trial because we negotiated, we presented mitigating circumstances to the state, and they were willing to come back and say, you're right, he's still guilty, but we can appreciate the situation he was in, here's what we'll do. And then they made an offer not including a weapon enhancement, as this is the example I'm thinking of right now.

There are others where they say, listen, it's the first time they've been in trouble. Yeah, again, they're 100% guilty. It was on camera. We know it was them. Maybe they admitted to it. We've got them. But we also want to consider that they're a human being. People make mistakes. We're not going to hold this against them. So I tell clients, take a deep breath. Let's work through the process. Even if you are guilty, there's still a way of working to a best result for you by not rushing, by not just going in and pleading guilty, because we can negotiate. We might be able to reduce the charge, reduce what the sentence ultimately would be.

So that's what I tell clients who I have to have that uncomfortable conversation about. It's like, they got you. This is a strong case. This is not one we want to go to trial. What is oftentimes more difficult and unfortunate, but it's the reality of our system, are those clients that are adamant. We're having a conversation. I did not do this. I don't want to plead guilty. And it's good. I'm with you. I don't want you to plead guilty either. If you haven't done this, let's go to trial. But it becomes this cost benefit analysis. The state maybe also knows this isn't the strongest case, so they make a sweetheart deal, or at least that's the way I word it. They're going to reduce the charge. You're looking at significantly less time than you would get if you were to go to trial, and that becomes the question. Do you want to roll the dice and go to trial? Because we all know what happens if we went to trial. You're going to go home. You're not guilty. That's great. That's what I want.

But here's what you're looking at if it doesn't go your way. And that's the pros and cons and risk benefit analysis that clients have to do. And that's tough, especially in the higher level charges. If you're charged with murder, and maybe it's not a particularly strong case, and you're looking at a minimum of 45 years, and it could go to, hypothetically, it could go to life, and the state rolls in on a reduced charge to a reckless discharge or something like that to 12 years, and you're sitting there going, well, I can get zero if I'm not guilty. I can get 12 now, maybe at 50% or 85, meaning how much time I have to serve. Do I roll the dice on this, or do I accept it to just minimize my potential damage here? Those are the toughest conversations. Those are the toughest decisions.

Matt Skye:
Those are phenomenally difficult decisions. How do you make that determination when it's time for a plea bargain or a time to go to a trial? What metrics do you use?

David Drwecke:
Really, it's the evidence from my perspective. And I'll blend evidence with my experience at trial. And because I am in trial as much, if not more so than any other attorney in Chicago, I can tell a client, listen, I've had a fact pattern similar to this, maybe not identical, but here's how it bore out. This is what happened at trial. This case was successful. This other case, for whatever reason, was not successful.

I want you to go in, and it's me talking to a client, with your head up, eyes open, understanding the pros and cons, the risk reward, and then the likelihood of success. A saying I use all the time is that just because I can come up with an argument doesn't mean it's a persuasive argument. Is this what carries the day? Do we win? Just because I can critique the way that the investigation was done, or I may be able to show an inconsistency with something a witness had to say, that's good. That helps the defense. Does that win? Or is that just me scoring a point during trial, but we ultimately lose?

The point is to win if we're going to trial. There are no gray area moral victories in a trial. You either win, or you lose. It's very binary. So when it comes to the ultimate decision is the client's, but I want them to make a very educated decision about what I expect to happen at trial. Is this defendable? Do we have a really good chance? Is the offer reasonable? Because there could be times where the offer is just roll the dice. It isn't a reduced charge. It isn't a reduced sentence. Well, then why accept that offer? You're not getting anything for pleading guilty. Let's just go to trial.

It's more difficult, like the example I gave earlier, where very serious ultimate punishment if we're unsuccessful, but the state has made it so sweet that you have to think about this because it's real time if it doesn't work the way we want it to work.

Matt Skye:
So as we wrap up, can you speak to how your negotiating skills are so imperative when clients are facing violent criminal charges in Chicago?

David Drwecke:
One of the biggest skills that a criminal defense attorney can have is the ability to negotiate. And I think the ability to negotiate, but then also ties into relationships that you have. I've been doing this for a number of years, so I have professional relationships with most of the state's attorneys, with most of the judges, because I've had cases with them. I've had to negotiate with and talk to them about.

Now, what goes into that? Well, first and foremost is that I'm reasonable and that I'm also candid and honest about a case. I have cases that are very, very tough. I get the state isn't going to give me the sweetheart deal. Then there are other cases where it is really strong for the defense. Like, listen, if you're not making this offer that we want, that my client's going to accept, I'll just see you in trial. So if you want to do that, be my guest.

Beyond that is also leveraging some tools. And I subscribe to tools and some services that prepare mitigation, complete evaluations, so that I can present that again both to the judge and to the state to get the best possible outcome. And I'm the only attorney that I'm aware of in Cook County that uses some of these tools. That is another competitive advantage.

And then beyond that is the ability to know what works and what doesn't work at trial. It's something we talked about earlier that in having the reputation of knowing that I will go to trial. There are other attorneys in Cook County, in Chicago right now that the state's attorney knows they can make any offer, and that the defense attorney is going to try to strong arm their client into taking that deal. I won't. Not if I don't think it's a reasonable offer and I don't think the facts are there. If we can't come to an agreement that my client wants, I'm not afraid to go to trial. In fact, I want to go to trial.

And by having success at trial and not being afraid of going to trial, the state takes that as one of multiple factors. Listen, this is not a great case for us. David knows what he's doing at trial. Do we want to take the L or risk it on our own? Because it's a lot of work. It's their own reputation on the line. Do we want to lose or do we give them what they want to make this go away?

So plenty of things that go into negotiating, but relationships, the ability to negotiate, putting yourself in the best light possible. And then of course, being able to be the hammer in the room and have that reputation as a trial attorney and getting results, that carries weight. I'm not considered somebody who just rolls on their client and somebody who pressures them into taking deals that they shouldn't be taking. I'm there to get the best result possible. And if they can't do that by way of an agreement, well, we're going to do it at trial then. And that ultimately pays dividends for my client.

Matt Skye:
Yeah, being able to go to trial sounds like immense leverage in these cases.

David Drwecke:
It's a lot of work. And even on strong cases, and the state's aware of this, that you just don't know what will happen. Will a witness flake on you, not appear, change their story? A number of different things. What will they say at trial that will surprise you because they're not prepared or whatever it may be? There's always some risk on both sides. And this is true for my clients as well. The strongest case for the state, there can be cracks. The strongest case for the defense can have cracks, and we're dealing with other human beings. So if it's a bench trial, I have a relationship and understand most of the judge's proclivities. But when it comes to a jury trial, those 12 people who ultimately make that decision about guilt or not guilty, you never know. Who are those 12 people going to be? From what part of Cook County are they going to come from? And so there's a risk.

But again, that can cut both ways. But trying cases and trying as many cases as I do pays huge dividends, and that experience counts. Earning that reputation in the community counts as being somebody who wins a great deal of trials. Because again, if we can't get what we want, well, then we're going to get at a trial somehow. And if we can't think we can get a trial, we're going to negotiate the other way around, too. But that's what I'm here for. Again, it's results. This is a results business because there are a lot of gray areas. Again, this is win or lose. It's ones and zeros. It's very binary. And that's all the client cares about are results, keeping you out of jail or getting the not guilty or negotiating something and minimizing the damage to their life. That is the job. And I wouldn't stay in business very long if I wasn't getting those results.

Matt Skye:
David, one last question before we go. Any major takeaways for our listeners today?

David Drwecke:
From this episode is, when it comes to negotiating and dealing with serious crimes, and specifically we started with violent crimes, gun offenses, violent crimes carry some of the most serious punishments that there are, up to and including life in prison, potentially. You want an expert criminal defense attorney, somebody who specializes in the problem that you have, somebody who doesn't just then specialize, but can point to success in handling a case that you have, either winning at trial, negotiating an appropriate outcome and plea agreement, and that is the big takeaway. Find somebody who can help you because they're an expert at the problem you have.

Matt Skye:
Everybody, thank you so much. This has been Defending the Windy City with David Druecke. For more information or to connect with David, visit drdlawllc.com and find him on social media. David, thanks so much for your time today.

David Drwecke:
Thank you very much, Matt.