criminal defense

Client Reunited with Family after 24 Years Apart

Roberto Lazcano received a 55-year sentence in 1996 following his conviction as an accomplice to first-degree murder. Mr. Lazcano was 15 years old at the time of the offense. Following his family’s relocation from Mexico, he was pulled into a gang. At the time of the offense, our client and fellow gang member Mario Ramos spotted a car full of boys they believed to be rival gang members. Mr. Lazcano, on a bike, took Mr. Ramos towards the car, and Mr. Ramos shot the driver, Andrew Young. At trial, our client was represented by a lawyer later disbarred for incompetence, illegal conduct amounting to fraud, and abusing drugs during the time he represented Mr. Lazcano. Following his sentencing, Mr. Ramos pleaded guilty and received a 40-year sentence—he was released from prison in 2016.

Mr. Lazcano underwent a remarkable transformation while incarcerated. He had dropped out of school at 14, but in prison, he prioritized education and helping others. He earned a GED and a bachelor’s degree and served as a tutor. Accepting responsibility for his role in the crime and the harm he caused, he sought and received forgiveness from the parents of the victim.

Jenner & Block took Mr. Lazcano’s case in 2000 after hearing his story. Over the years, the firm filed three clemency petitions for our client. A team including Partner Elin Park drafted the first petition. Partner Caroline Meneau and former partner Elizabeth Coleman (now general counsel at Uber) drafted the subsequent petitions with assistance from Staff Attorney Anna Margasinska and Paralegal Mary Patston.

Between clemency petitions, Caroline and Elizabeth successfully filed a motion that advanced our client’s out-date by helping him get credit he was entitled to for his time in juvenile custody. Partner Cliff Berlow, Caroline, Associate Joshua Levin, and Elizabeth also worked on a successful legislative effort to provide further sentencing credit for education for numerous Illinois prisoners.

Mr. Lazcano’s third clemency petition was filed in 2019. It stressed his transformation, incompetent prior representation, and juxtaposed the length of his sentence with that of the shooter, Mr. Ramos, who had already been released on time served. Caroline presented the petition before the panel. She was joined by the victim’s father, Mr. Young, who explained that he forgave our client and asked the panel for his release. The State’s Attorney’s Office did not oppose the petition, and remarked that Mr. Lazcano was the unique case fulfilling penological justifications prior to release.

Following a change in juvenile sentencing law, Cliff and Associates Sarah Youngblood and Hanna Conger filed a post-conviction petition arguing for a resentencing hearing crediting Mr. Lazcano with time served. The post-conviction team was aided by the third clemency petition. The State’s Attorney’s Office agreed not to oppose resentencing. Ultimately, the parties brokered a deal reducing Mr. Lazcano’s sentence to secure his immediate release. In approving the deal, the court credited Mr. Young’s remarkable support of our client through his clemency process.

Our client was then released from IDOC custody on March 19. Following his release, he was taken into ICE custody pending deportation to Mexico. Facing concerns regarding potential COVID-19 infection while detained, Cliff, Hanna, and Sarah counseled Mr. Lazcano through the deportation process with assistance from Partner Michele Slachetka.

On April 3, after 20 years of clemency, sentencing credit, and post-conviction petitions, Mr. Lazcano was released from custody and returned home to his family. He reunited with his parents after 24 years apart. A week later, a team of current and former lawyers held a Zoom video conference with our client from his family’s home in Mexico. He is looking forward to a bright future.

Illinois Governor Commutes Life Sentence to Time Served

In April, Illinois Governor Pritzker granted the clemency petition of longtime firm pro bono client Charles Harris, commuting his life sentence to time served and ordering his release from Pontiac Correctional Center.

Mr. Harris was sentenced to life in prison under the Illinois Habitual Criminal Act in 1988 for committing three armed robberies, even though two of the robberies occurred when Mr. Harris was a juvenile, no one was injured during any of the robberies, and a total of only $235 was taken during the course of all three robberies combined.

The team was led by Partner Tom Sullivan and included Associates John Frawley and Bethany Felder. Together, the team drafted a petition for executive clemency in which they argued that Mr. Harris’ life sentence constituted a gross miscarriage of justice given the nature of the crimes, the mitigating factors that led to those crimes, and the astounding personal reforms Mr. Harris made while incarcerated.

Additionally, the team collaborated with Mr. Harris’ family and friends to obtain letters in support of the petition. The team also coached Mr. Harris for his interview with the Illinois Prisoner Review Board.

Mr. Harris’ release ended a total of 40 years spent in prison. He had previously submitted three petitions for executive clemency, all of which were denied. Mr. Harris reunited with his family upon release and looks forward to spending time in his community educating young people about the criminal justice system.

Judge Grants Habeas Petition for Client Kenneth S.

When the firm first took Kenneth’s case in 2006, the Illinois Second District Appellate Court had reversed and remanded his conviction for murder and 67-year sentence for a new trial. Since that time, various teams led by Partner David Jimenez-Ekman have represented the client through a second trial, a direct appeal, a third trial, another direct appeal, and now, a federal habeas petition.

The charges against Kenneth stem from a botched armed robbery. In March 2001, the owner of a strip mall burrito shop in McHenry, Illinois, was shot to death after he chased two armed, masked robbers out of his store carrying a knife. There was no physical evidence, identification, or eyewitness testimony that connected our client to the murder.

Instead, Kenneth was convicted based on a “confession” of an alleged co-conspirator, which was (a) procured after police falsely told him that his friends had already confessed and implicated him, (b) riddled with major inaccuracies that demonstrated he had no knowledge of the crime, and (c) force-fed through leading questions that supplied the only correct information in the entire statement.

The supposed accomplice has since testified that the statement was wrong and coerced at the last two trials, but the trial court admitted the prior statement as substantive evidence – the only evidence against our client. Kenneth has steadfastly maintained his innocence and turned down several opportunities to take a plea bargain.

Meanwhile, in the years Kenneth’s case has been pending, compelling evidence emerged showing that the crime was committed by three individuals completely unrelated to our client and his friends. At the last trial in 2013, the team put on evidence that those other individuals confessed – unprompted – numerous times to friends, family members, and police; they knew details about the crime that had never been made public.

Those other individuals were seen with cuts and scrapes in the days after the crime; they were connected with a gun that matched the characteristics of the bullets recovered from the victim and found at the scene; and they were riding around in a car on the night of the crime that later was found burned in a field in Wisconsin with the help of an accelerant. However, the court excluded some important evidence implicating the other group and also limited our ability to cross-examine the only eyewitness to the crime.

After three days of deliberation, the jury, still only having heard part of the story, convicted Kenneth again. After his direct appeal was denied in January 2015, the firm filed a federal habeas petition for Kenneth that was assigned to Judge Andrea Wood of the Northern District of Illinois.

On March 10, 2020, Judge Wood granted the habeas petition and vacated Kenneth’s conviction and sentence, ruling that evidentiary errors violated his constitutional rights. The court found that the Illinois Appellate Court improperly affirmed evidentiary exclusions that violated his right to present a complete defense and his right to engage in effective cross-examination.

The court wrote that “[g]iven the weaknesses of the State’s case,” the evidentiary errors had a “highly significant effect” on the trial result. The court wrote that “the evidence of the [other group’s] involvement is highly compelling if not conclusive,” that the court was “confounded as to how [the] evidence could not give a rational jury reasonable doubt as to [Kenneth’s] guilt,” and that, “[e]specially in combination with the exceedingly thin evidence supporting [his] convictions, the court is concerned that a miscarriage of justice has occurred here.”

Though the court’s habeas decision marks a significant victory, the battle to secure Kenneth’s freedom is far from over. The State appealed Kenneth’s habeas victory, and Kenneth cross-appealed, asking for a ruling that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction and that he should be released without possibility of retrial. The appeal and cross-appeal have been briefed and argued, and we are now awaiting the Seventh Circuit’s ruling. 

The current habeas team includes Partner Katie Ciliberti and Associates Emma O’Connor and Elena Olivieri. The past trial teams included Partners John Storino, Greg Boyle, and Paralegal Chris Ward.

Associates Help Achieve a Potentially Life-Saving Victory

For years, we have represented a client as part of our service on the Criminal Justice Act panel of the US District Court for the Southern District of New York. Our client was initially charged in an aggressively charged gang/drug conspiracy – to the point that it was the subject of a documentary criticizing the case as an abuse of prosecutorial discretion. Facing enormous potential prison time, the client pleaded guilty, served a relatively short prison sentence compared to his potential exposure, and was placed on supervised release. He has struggled with various issues that have increased the challenge of succeeding on supervised release.

With supervision from Partner Tony Barkow, Associates Bina Peltz and Kara Brandeisky joined the case early in their tenure at the firm. Our client had been arrested –several weeks after the alleged incident – while making a routine visit to his probation officer. He was charged both in the New York state criminal system and with a “violation of supervised release” in federal court.

Because the client could not meet his cash bail, and because federal probation placed a hold on him preventing his release, he was detained for a month in local jail – a prison barge docked in the Bronx, colloquially known as “The Boat.”

As the state case lingered, he was finally brought before a federal magistrate judge, who ordered him released on bail. The US Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York immediately appealed. The presiding federal judge overturned the magistrate, ordered the client detained, and scheduled (at our request) a prompt hearing on the violation charges.

As Bina and Kara prepared for the hearing, the COVID-19 pandemic struck, essentially closing the courts and putting every individual in the crowded and unsanitary federal detention center where the client was detained at significant risk. The team filed a motion to reconsider bail before the same presiding federal judge on the ground that our client’s life was at risk in federal detention due to the poor conditions.

The core evidence in the case was a blurry security video taken at a bodega. When the government produced the three-hour video in advance of the emergency hearing, the team scoured the video repeatedly and identified various weaknesses that had not been aired at the bail appeal (at which time neither the government nor we yet had the video).

The federal prosecutor then disclosed that law enforcement had initially identified a different person, not our client, as the person shown on the video. The team artfully crafted this into their brief – filed days after the pandemic struck – to argue that the evidence was weaker than depicted at the bail appeal, the client’s life was at risk at the federal detention center due to the pandemic, and therefore, the court should reconsider its decision (made just a week prior) to overturn federal bail.

Three days later, the federal judge agreed with Bina and Kara. The judge issued a seven-page written opinion adopting large parts of the team’s brief. She ruled that they had established by clear and convincing evidence that he is not a danger to the community and that, as argued in the brief, COVID-19 and the resulting suspension of all legal visits to detainees in the federal detention center interfered with the ability to prepare the client’s defense to the point that release was required.

The judge ordered the client’s immediate release to home confinement pending adjudication of the allegations. As of that point, the client had been incarcerated – without having being adjudicated guilty or innocent on the new charges – for nearly two months. 

As a direct result of the team’s effective and zealous advocacy, the client spent the next seven months in home confinement rather than in the local federal jail, remaining safe and removed from life-threatening conditions during multiple severe COVID-19 outbreaks in the jail.  

The abhorrent conditions in jails and prisons around the country and the inmate population’s extreme risk due to COVID-19 has been widely reported. Significantly, word of this decision spread locally among lawyers for indigent clients and on social media nationwide among criminal justice reformers and defense lawyers.

Judges in other parts of the country immediately began analyzing and citing the opinion in decisions releasing other defendants situated similarly to our client, and defense lawyers and public defenders repeatedly cited it in support of advocacy to that end.

Illinois Governor Grants Clemency Petition, Commuting 88-Year Sentence to Time Served

Pro bono client Henry Lewis received an 88-year sentence in 1993 for offenses related to possession with the intent to deliver cocaine and marijuana. No act of violence occurred during these offenses. Additionally, Mr. Lewis received a sentence greater than the 50-year statutory maximum sentence because he was previously convicted in 1989 for possessing ten dollars’ worth of cocaine.

A firm team led by Partner John Storino, and including Associate Brandon Polcik, represented Mr. Lewis in connection with his Section 1983 lawsuit, which was successfully resolved via a settlement. Shocked by the length of his sentence, the team then drafted a petition for executive clemency and represented Mr. Lewis at a clemency hearing before the Prisoner Review Board. 

They argued that our client’s sentence was extraordinarily and unnecessarily long and served no penological purpose, when applied to the facts of Mr. Lewis’ offenses, when compared to sentences in other cases, and considering his rehabilitative potential.  The team also identified for the Prisoner Review Board several inaccuracies in the State’s Attorney’s opposition. 

 At the clemency hearing, the Prisoner Review Board was impressed by the support Mr. Lewis had from family, friends, and his lawyers. Governor Pritzker’s Office also commended the team for the quality of the clemency petition, of which Brandon took the lead on drafting, lining up supporting witnesses for the hearing, and presenting the argument before the Prisoner Review Board. Mr. Lewis had previously submitted three petitions for executive clemency, all of which were denied.

In April, Illinois Governor Pritzker granted the clemency petition of our client, commuting his 88-year sentence to time served and ordering his release from the Stateville Correctional Center. Mr. Lewis was released days later, ending over 26 years spent in prison.