The Oppenheimer Firm The Oppenheimer Firm 2026-06-01T23:36:34Z https://www.oppenheimer-firm.com/feed/atom/ WordPress /wp-content/uploads/sites/1404343/2024/04/cropped-favicon-32x32.png On Behalf of The Oppenheimer Firm <![CDATA[Seeking justice after a groundless criminal case: how to prove malicious prosecution]]> https://www.oppenheimer-firm.com/?p=47623 2026-06-01T23:36:34Z 2026-06-01T23:36:34Z Section 1983), victims of institutional misconduct can file a civil claim for malicious prosecution to hold bad actors financially accountable.

The legal anatomy of a malicious prosecution claim

Filing a civil lawsuit against law enforcement introduces built-in immunities. To pierce these protections, a plaintiff must satisfy a rigorous burden of proof under federal civil rights standards, establishing four core elements:
  • Initiation of a criminal proceeding: You must demonstrate that the defendants (the arresting officers or detectives) were actively responsible for initiating or maintaining the criminal case against you.
  • Absence of probable cause: You must prove that at the time the charges were filed, the facts would not lead a prudent person to believe you committed a crime. Fabricating evidence or coercing witnesses completely destroys probable cause.
  • The presence of malice: In a legal context, malice means the proceeding was initiated or maintained for an improper, unlawful purpose other than bringing a legitimate offender to justice.
  • Favorable termination of the case: Your criminal case must be completely over, and it must have concluded in a manner that reflects your technical innocence.
Under federal civil rights frameworks, a total absence of probable cause at the time of your arrest is frequently used by civil courts as presumptive evidence of malice.

Why a dismissal is just the first step

A common point of confusion is the exact definition of a "favorable termination." The national legal landscape was clarified by the United States Supreme Court in the landmark case Thompson v. Clark (2022). The Supreme Court ruled that under Section 1983, a plaintiff satisfies the favorable termination element simply by showing that their criminal prosecution ended without a conviction. Whether your case was thrown out by a judge for lack of evidence, dismissed by a prosecutor via a nolle prosequi motion, or resolved via a unanimous "not guilty" jury verdict, the courthouse doors are legally open for you to pursue civil accountability. The Thompson precedent effectively lowered the federal threshold, ensuring that prosecutors cannot block your civil rights lawsuit simply by dropping charges on a technicality.

Pursuing full civil compensation

A successful federal judgment can secure dynamic financial recovery across multiple categories of damages:
  • Economic damages: Direct reimbursement for money spent on criminal defense attorneys, bail bonds, and expert witnesses, alongside compensation for lost wages.
  • Non-economic damages: Compensation for the profound psychological trauma, severe emotional distress, and permanent reputational staining caused by a baseless crime.
  • Punitive damages: In cases involving willful institutional corruption, a federal jury can award punitive damages specifically designed to punish the offending officers.
Because Section 1983 claims adopt strict, unforgiving state-level statutes of limitations for personal injuries, waiting to file after an exoneration can permanently bar your path to recovery. Reviewing the statutory rules for federal civil rights claims is an indispensable step toward reclaiming your agency. Partnering with an analytically rigorous civil rights litigator allows you to launch a meticulous forensic review of the police department's internal files and force the individuals who upended your life to answer for their misconduct.]]> On Behalf of The Oppenheimer Firm <![CDATA[The impact of “testilying” by police on Chicago criminal cases]]> https://www.oppenheimer-firm.com/?p=47619 2026-05-21T15:44:13Z 2026-05-21T15:44:13Z Criminal cases depend largely on the evidence and testimony that are part of the case. Even if the case doesn’t go to trial, those factors have a profound impact on how a case is handled.  Unfortunately, not every piece of evidence or testimony is valid. Sometimes, the very people who are expected to uphold the law the most – the police – subvert justice by giving less-than-truthful statements. When a case rests on an officer’s word against the defendant’s, it can take a skilled defense strategy to expose fabrications.

What is “testilying” by police?

Testilying occurs when a police officer gives false testimony under oath. This may mean that the officer exaggerates what they saw, changes the reason for a traffic stop or misstates what a person said. It also includes situations in which the officer gives any sort of testimony that conflicts with video, reports or physical evidence.  False testimony doesn’t impact only individual cases. It undermines public trust in police officers and the overall confidence people have in the court system. This can make it difficult for the public, judges, jurors and everyone involved in the criminal justice system to believe the testimony of police officers – even if the officer is telling the truth. On the flip side, some judges and juries give too much weight to an officer’s statements when a critical approach would show that those statements are inconsistent or unverifiable. When that happens, a defendant can be unjustly convicted.

How is testilying unearthed?

Testilying can be exposed through a careful exploration of the evidence by a skilled defense attorney. Evidence that might conflict with an officer’s word include:
  • Body camera footage
  • Squad camera video
  • Dispatch recordings
  • Inventory logs
  • Arrest records
  • Witness statements
  • Medical records
Cross-examination is another way to uncover testilying. Questions can focus on how an officer’s accounts differ from one conversation to the next, even if the shifts are subtle. Even small inconsistencies can matter if they show that the officer isn’t trustworthy or didn’t have a valid reason for search, arrest or use of force.  Uncovering incorrect statements can be a critical factor in the defense strategy. Working with an attorney who’s familiar with these matters is vital for defendants. Cases involving testilying can be complex, but they are not insurmountable or automatically lost. ]]> On Behalf of The Oppenheimer Firm <![CDATA[Seeking justice for excessive force in Illinois county jails]]> https://www.oppenheimer-firm.com/?p=47611 2026-04-20T19:39:55Z 2026-04-26T19:38:37Z The 14th Amendment limits the use of force Law enforcement professionals cannot do whatever they want to the people they pursue or those in state custody. They generally need to use the least amount of force necessary for their safety, the safety of others and the apprehension of a person implicated in criminal activity. For those not yet convicted of a crime, the 14th Amendment’s due process clause protects them from unreasonable force that could constitute punishment for a crime. Especially because they have not yet been convicted in a court of law, punishing them with violence over allegations is a violation of their rights. Some correctional officers have experienced trauma that may make them overreactive to inmates in certain scenarios or to inmates with certain personal characteristics. Other times, people working as correctional officers may have strong feelings about people accused of specific types of crimes. Regardless of whether the law enforcement professionals involved have a history of excessive force or not, the use of unnecessary violence to subdue or punish a person in state custody can constitute a serious violation of their civil rights. Especially in cases where criminal proceedings eventually vindicate the person injured in state custody, there may be every reason to question a police officer's claim that they use force for their own protection. Reviewing the circumstances of excessive correctional officer force while in county jail awaiting trial with the assistance of a skilled legal team can help defendants awaiting charges and other inmates understand their rights. If brutality or excessive force injured an inmate, they may have grounds for a lawsuit. The advocacy of an attorney can help people demand accountability from those who abuse their authority as agents of the state.]]> On Behalf of The Oppenheimer Firm <![CDATA[Questioning the ‘good faith’ basis of a search warrant]]> https://www.oppenheimer-firm.com/?p=47613 2026-04-22T11:58:27Z 2026-04-22T11:58:27Z Warrant review can help defendants Minor mistakes with search warrants, including a missing signature or the wrong physical address, can allow individuals to deny police officers access to conduct a search. Issues with an otherwise valid warrant could undermine the usefulness of the evidence found during the search. A criminal defense attorney could also help show that a warrant was not valid because an officer intentionally provided inaccurate information to a judge. A defense attorney could also theoretically show that a judge failed to uphold their duty to act as a neutral arbitrator of the law and instead began approving warrants without reviewing the requests appropriately. If the affidavit submitted to the courts to request a warrant has such limited information that other police officers couldn't treat its contents as probable cause, then there may be questions about whether the warrant is valid and the officers searched in good faith. Prosecutors can counter attempts to set aside or suppress evidence due to an invalid warrant by showing that police officers acted in good faith while executing the warrant. Defense attorneys can potentially counter that strategy by showing that the warrant contains such minimal information that most officers would recognize the lack of probable cause. Additionally, if there is proof that officers engaged in misconduct to secure the warrant, then that can prevent the prosecutor from alleging they acted in good faith while executing it. Successfully challenging a warrant can lead to the exclusion of evidence, which can make mounting a defense easier or justify the dismissal of pending criminal charges. Reviewing the details of pending charges and search warrants used to gather evidence with a skilled legal team can help criminal defendants explore their options. Suppressing evidence by challenging the validity of a search warrant is a common criminal defense tactic that can help those facing unfair prosecution following a questionable search.]]> On Behalf of The Oppenheimer Firm <![CDATA[Signs of a coerced confession, and its potential impacts on a criminal case]]> https://www.oppenheimer-firm.com/?p=47609 2026-04-20T19:36:04Z 2026-04-20T19:36:04Z What are the warning signs of a coerced confession? A lengthy interrogation is one of the biggest red flags for coerced confessions. The Innocence Project, a national nonprofit that focuses on overturning unjust guilty verdicts, asserts that a significant amount of false confessions occur after 16 hours or more of questioning. Police officers can usually hold people for up to 48 hours after arresting if the state has not yet brought charges. They can continue questioning them throughout those 48 hours. The longer questioning persists, the more fatigued and desperate the person subject to questioning becomes, and therefore the more likely they are to confess to simply escape the interrogation session. Another red flag of a coerced confession involves police officers’ lies. Neither federal nor state laws prohibit police officers from outright lying to individuals about the case against them. If police officers stated that another party confessed but there was no confession or if they claimed to have forensic evidence that didn't actually exist, the confession that they secured may have been the result of coercion from someone terrified of an unjust conviction and the maximum penalties possible. Lies about police officer support or cooperation are also common warning signs of a coerced confession. Officers often misrepresent their legal authority by claiming that they can limit the penalties imposed, convince the prosecutor to reduce the charges or testify on behalf of the defendant. Any signs of manipulation and misrepresentation can indicate a coerced confession.

The impacts of a coerced confession

An experienced criminal defense attorney can challenge and potentially suppress a coerced confession. When there is proof that police officers or other investigators engaged in coercive tactics to manipulate someone into making a false confession, it may be possible to ask the courts to set aside the confession. A coerced confession could also be grounds for a future wrongful conviction lawsuit. Consulting with an attorney immediately after a coerced confession can help criminal defendants to protect themselves from unfair convictions. The right legal strategy can make a major difference for people who have been pressured into confessing under unfair circumstances accordingly.]]> On Behalf of The Oppenheimer Firm <![CDATA[What to do after a potentially unlawful police shooting]]> https://www.oppenheimer-firm.com/?p=47607 2026-04-17T12:05:42Z 2026-04-17T12:05:42Z A police shooting often leaves you trying to piece together what actually happened and why officers used force. In some cases, courts or investigators may later review the facts to see whether officers acted within legal limits or crossed a line set by constitutional standards. The details matter because small moments, like what officers said or how fast events unfolded, can shape how people view the entire incident later.

How to know if the shooting was legal

Legal review of a police shooting usually focuses on whether the use of force matched what a reasonable officer would have done in the same situation. This does not rely on one detail alone but on the full context of the encounter. Several factors often shape that review, including the severity of the situation, whether there was an immediate threat to the safety of officers or others and whether the person was actively resisting arrest or attempting to flee. Video footage, witness accounts and physical evidence can also influence how people interpret the situation. Even the timing of movements or decisions can change how courts or investigators assess the event under the law.

What to do

After the incident, attention often shifts toward preserving details that may later help explain what occurred. Keeping information organized early can make a difference as memories fade and accounts begin to differ. Before looking ahead, certain steps may help create a clearer record of events:
  • Saving medical records can show how injuries developed and when treatment began.
  • Preserving photos or video footage can help reflect what happened in real time.
  • Collecting witness names can support independent perspectives on the incident.
  • Securing clothing or personal items can help maintain physical evidence.
These materials can work together to form a clearer timeline. Legal assistance can also help you evaluate how these details fit within civil rights standards and how they may be viewed during an investigation.

Where the facts meet the law

At this point, attention often turns from what happened to how it is evaluated under legal standards for police conduct. Courts and investigators tend to look at whether the use of force aligned with what a reasonable officer could justify under the same circumstances in officer-involved shooting cases. That review depends on timing, available information and how each decision fits into the unfolding situation, rather than on one moment in isolation.]]> On Behalf of The Oppenheimer Firm <![CDATA[What police officers can and can’t do during a car chase]]> https://www.oppenheimer-firm.com/?p=47603 2026-04-16T11:03:25Z 2026-04-16T11:03:25Z What rules restrict police conduct during car chases? While some rules exist on a department-to-department basis, one of the most critical rules is actually part of Illinois state law. Police officers should only engage in a motor vehicle chase when the offense that occurred is serious enough to warrant the risk posed by a car chase scenario. Officers must consider the potential danger to the public generated by a chase as opposed to the risk caused by the suspect fleeing without ending up in state custody. Typically, traffic infractions and minor property crimes are not serious enough to justify car chase pursuits, with an exception for drunk driving offenses. If a chase occurs, police officers should make every effort to drive in a manner that reflects traffic density, weather and road conditions. Unless a supervisor at the police department provides explicit authorization, the chase should generally only involve one or two police vehicles. Additionally, only those in vehicles with emergency lights and sirens can conduct a chase, and they must keep the lights illuminated and the sirens engaged throughout the chase process. If police officers know who the suspect is, then a chase is likely not necessary because officers can apprehend them later. If a police officer can no longer communicate with other vehicles or dispatch, they should stop chasing the suspect. Additionally, they must halt chase efforts immediately if an outside party ends up hurt. There are also restrictions on maneuvers and the amount of force used. For example, Precision Immobilization Technique (PIT) maneuvers are only legal when performed at lower speeds. The maneuver is considered a form of deadly force at speeds over 40 miles per hour. When police officers disregard the laws that pertain to them and the restrictions on chase activities, other people can end up injured. Both egregious civil rights violations and willful and wanton misconduct on the part of police officers can potentially warrant legal action on the part of those affected. Reviewing what transpired during a police chase with a skilled legal team can potentially help injured individuals hold officers accountable for their unnecessary and dangerous conduct.]]> On Behalf of The Oppenheimer Firm <![CDATA[Challenging a wrongful conviction based on faulty forensic science]]> https://www.oppenheimer-firm.com/?p=47601 2026-04-15T10:03:23Z 2026-04-15T10:03:23Z One of the leading reasons behind the rising number of exonerations in the U.S is false or misleading forensic evidence. When forensic science is misapplied, a case can result in a wrongful conviction. Here is how this can happen:

Unsupported techniques

Some forensic methods previously or still accepted by the legal system have been shown to lead to wrongful convictions due to a lack of scientific validation, vulnerability to subjective interpretation or to human error. Examples include:
  • Bite mark analysis - Comparing teeth impressions found on victims/objects with a suspect's dentition has low scientific validation.
  • Hair Microscopy - Comparing unknown hair samples with known samples under a microscope to identify similarities has been determined to have a high error rate.
Other forensic methods that lack scientific validation, but remain admissible, include arson investigations, bloodstain pattern analysis and dog scent evidence.

Exaggerated testimonies from experts 

Experts in criminology and forensic science may give overemphatic testimonies, which can lead to wrongful convictions. Cases of a forensic analyst overstating the connection between evidence and a suspect have been reported. 

Contamination

When evidence is contaminated during collection, transport or analysis, a wrongful conviction can happen. Fingerprint analysis is an example of a method that has led to wrongful convictions through contamination.

How to file a post-conviction petition 

You can challenge a state conviction based on constitutional violations using the Illinois Post-Conviction Act (725 ILCS 5/122-1).  The options given by the federal law include:
  • State prisoners filing a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 after exhausting state remedies
  • Federal prisoners filing a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in the federal court that entered the judgment.
You will need to submit the newly discovered scientific evidence, such as DNA, that proves the evidence used at the original trial was unreliable or false. Challenging a wrongful conviction can help restore your freedom. Consider legal guidance to build a strong case.  ]]> On Behalf of The Oppenheimer Firm <![CDATA[What your claim can include if you’re injured due to police force]]> https://www.oppenheimer-firm.com/?p=47599 2026-04-11T17:15:30Z 2026-04-11T17:15:30Z Encounters with law enforcement should be safe and controlled. Unfortunately, that is not always the case. In some situations, the use of force goes beyond what is reasonable. Police misconduct, like excessive force, can physically and emotionally scar you. If you have been harmed during an encounter with law enforcement, it is normal to feel confused about your options. Fortunately, the law allows you to pursue justice for the violation of your rights and the physical harm you suffered. 

Your right to compensation

Excessive force cases can involve intentional harm and negligence. This means you can seek compensation through different legal means simultaneously.  A civil rights claim focuses on the violation of your constitutional protections. This includes your right to be free from unreasonable force during any interaction with law enforcement. The law recognizes that officers are given authority, but that authority has limits. Once those stretches are crossed, your rights may be considered violated.  On the other hand, a personal injury claim examines how that force affected your body, finances and quality of life. If you pursue both, your claim may include:
  • Medical expenses: You can recover costs for hospital visits, surgeries, therapy and ongoing care.
  • Lost wages: If your injuries prevent you from working, you may seek compensation for lost income and reduced earning ability.
  • Pain and suffering: This includes physical pain and emotional distress caused by the incident.
  • Long-term disability: If the injury results in permanent disability, it can increase the value of your claim.
  • Punitive damages: In some cases, these are awarded to hold the officer accountable for especially harmful conduct.
Building a strong case often requires clear evidence. Things like body camera footage, witness accounts and official reports can help establish whether the force used was reasonable. The goal is to demonstrate that your rights were ignored, not by accident, but through actions that went beyond what the law allows. In the end, situations like this can feel overwhelming because you are dealing with recovery while trying to understand what happened. Having the right legal guidance can help you better understand your rights and the steps available to you so that you can move forward.]]> On Behalf of The Oppenheimer Firm <![CDATA[What to do if you are a victim of a retaliatory arrest in Chicago]]> https://www.oppenheimer-firm.com/?p=47597 2026-04-01T16:20:04Z 2026-04-01T16:20:04Z Speech is not obstruction: your rights in public spaces Under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, every resident of Chicago has a clearly established right to monitor and criticize the actions of law enforcement in public areas. This protection is robust and covers two primary forms of engagement:
  • The right to record: As long as you are not physically interfering with their duties, you can record police activity in any public space in the City of Chicago.
  • The right to verbal protest: You are legally allowed to swear at, criticize, or question a police officer’s authority without fear of a lawful arrest.
  • The right to peaceable assembly: Observing a police scene from a safe distance is a protected activity that does not constitute "loitering" or "interference."
The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that verbal criticism of the police is a core component of American liberty, regardless of whether the language used is considered "rude" or "unpleasant."

The "pretext" trap

In many local cases, the CPD will utilize minor city ordinances (such as "walking in the roadway" or "disorderly conduct") as a pretext to justify an unconstitutional arrest. However, if your legal team can prove that other individuals engaged in the same minor behavior were not arrested, but you were targeted because you possessed a camera, the arrest is deemed unconstitutional.

Filing a Section 1983 claim

A retaliatory arrest is a violation of a federal law that allows citizens to sue government officials for constitutional infringements. To win these cases, you must prove that the officer lacked "probable cause" or that their retaliatory intent was the primary driver behind the arrest. Winning a Section 1983 claim not only provides financial compensation for your ordeal but also holds the City of Chicago accountable for the misconduct of its officers. Because these cases involve complex "qualified immunity" defenses, you should consult with a civil rights litigator who understands the issue.]]>