Criminal Appeals

A criminal conviction is a serious matter. Unfortunately, too often, defendants are wrongly convicted or sentenced, due to legal errors that occurred during the judicial process. This does not have to be the end of the road for you.

There is hope in the form of an appeal, which can be filed at either a state or federal court level. Although continuing to combat the criminal justice system may seem daunting, it is imperative that you continue to fight for your rights. It’s quite possible that you may have your conviction overturned or your sentence reduced. Your future depends on your persistent pursuit of justice, and you don’t have to go it alone.

You Need A Champion

Frank Himel is the advocate you need by your side in these critical moments. Even if the verdict has gone against you, Himel will vigorously pursue an appeal on your behalf. He has the knowledge and experience needed to argue your case, and he can get your conviction reversed or your sentence reduced. You know this because he has done it before.

A Few Examples of Frank Himel’s Victories on Appeal

Issue Raised on Appeal:

5^th Amendment Refusal to Testify

People v. Nelson 377 Ill.App. 3d 1031 (1^st Dist. 2007)

In that case, Himel’s client, Nelson, was charged with first-degree murder. Two of Nelson’s co-defendants had given videotaped confessions implicating themselves and Nelson in the murder. After the jury was selected the State tried to call as witnesses, Nelson’s co-defendants, to testify against him. Both co-defendants asserted their 5^th Amendment right and refused to testify against Nelson. The State argued to the judge that the co-defendants had been granted immunity and the court should force them to testify. The trial court refused. The State proceeded to trial with the evidence they had. The jury was unable to reach a verdict and the trial court declared a mistrial. After the mistrial was declared the State appealed the judge’s earlier decision refusing to force the co-defendants to testify against Nelson.

At the Illinois Appellate Court, Himel argued that the judge was right and the State waited too long. The appellate court agreed with Himel, holding that “(w)hen the State opted to prosecute the case, it essentially took a chance on whether (Nelson) would be convicted without (the co-defendants’) testimony,” and therefore, “(t)he State forfeited its right to appeal.”

Issues Raised on Appeal:

Prosecutorial Misconduct and Jury Instructions

People v. Smith, 402 Ill.App.3d 538 (1^st Dist. 2010)

In that case, Smith went to trial with another attorney, and he was convicted of attempt murder of a police officer and sentenced to 35 years in prison.

During closing arguments, the prosecutor repeatedly made comments to the jury that Smith had never presenting any evidence that he didn’t try to kill the police officer.

Himel got the case on appeal and argued to the Illinois Appellate Court that Smith was deprived of a fair trial due to the prosecutor’s improper remarks. Himel also argued that based on the evidence in the case, the trial judge should have instructed the jury on the lesser-included offense of reckless conduct.

The appellate court agreed with Himel and found that the prosecutor violated Smith’s federal and state constitutional rights. The appellate court also found that the trial court’s refusal to give the reckless conduct instruction denied the jury the important option of finding Smith guilty of a lesser charge. The appellate court reversed Smith’s conviction and vacated the 35-year sentence.

Issue Raised on Appeal:

Judge Bias

People v. Swift, 40 N.E.3d 1197 (1^st Dist. 2015)

In that case, Himel’s client, Swift, was charged with attempted first-degree murder. The jury convicted Swift and he was sentenced to 45 years in prison. Himel appealed the case to the Illinois Appellate Court contending that Swift did not receive a fair trial because the trial judge was biased against him. Specifically, Himel argued that the trial judge acted as an advocate for the prosecution throughout the trial by making up his own objections and sustaining them, interrupting defense lines of cross-examination, and by taking over the examination of a State’s witness.

The appellate court agreed with Himel and held that “the trial judge committed reversible error,” and concluded that “the trial judge’s advocacy for the State required reversal of Swift’s conviction.”

Frank understands the gravity of your situation. Nothing about the criminal justice system is more intimidating than being convicted of a criminal offense and going through the appeals process. He will be by your side every step of the way. Appeals cases can hinge on very small details, this is why it is so important to choose the best appellate attorney. You want to give yourself the best possible chance of successfully appealing your verdict. With unshakable dedication to protecting your constitutional rights, clients can be sure of getting high-quality legal representation with Himel’s winning strategy.