Michael Patrick Schmiege

Michael Patrick Schmiege's Legal Cases (20)

Chicago, IL

Criminal defense Lawyer at Chicago, IL

Practice Areas: Criminal Defense, DUI & DWI ... +2 more

Message View Profile
Message View Profile
Criminal defense

People of the State of Illinois v. C.S.

Feb 01, 2011

OUTCOME: Case Dismissed

CASE DISMISSED Aggravated Criminal Sexual Assault The Defendant was charged with Aggravated Criminal Sexual Assault. In Illinois this is the crime of rape and is a Class 1 Felony that is punishab ... le by 4-15 years in prison as well as mandatory registration as a convicted sex offender. The Defendant, a senior in high school, was alleged to have forcibly raped a freshman girl while on a date. The Defendant in fear of going to prison and spending the rest of his life as a convicted sex offender, immediately hired Chicago Criminal Defense lawyer Michael P. Schmiege to represent him.

Criminal defense

People of the State of Illinois v. M.G.

Oct 12, 2010

OUTCOME: CASE DISMISSED - Motion Granted

The Defendant was charged with numerous counts of Cruelty to Animals a Class A misdemeanor with a possible penalty of up to a year in jail. In that case the Chicago Police had received a complaint of ... a foul smell coming from an apartment. The police went to that apartment and forced their way in and found numerous animals in deplorable conditions. The Defendant was arrested and hired Mr. Schmiege. The Defendant maintained her innocence and actually had taken numerous animals off the street and was helping them to recover. Mr. Schmiege believed that manner in which the police entered her house was illegal and filed a Peyton Motion pursuant to Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 100 S. Ct. 1371 (1980) and argued that the warrantless entrance into the house absent barring exigent circumstances was illegal and the Judge agreed and the evidence was suppressed and the case was DISMISSED.

Criminal defense

People of the State of Illinois v. C.J.

Sep 21, 2010

OUTCOME: CASE DISMISSED - Motion Granted

The Defendant was charged with Possession of a Controlled Substance with Intent to Deliver and Possession of Cannabis with Intent to Deliver in violation of 720 ILCS 550/5(d). In this case members of ... a Chicago Police Department Narcotics task force allegedly received information the Defendant was dealing drugs. The Chicago Police officers armed with that information set up surveillance on the Defendant when they observed the Defendant exit his residence, shove a plastic bag containing an object into his waistband and get in his car and drive off. The Chicago Police officers stopped the Defendant and ordered him out of his vehicle and recovered from his person a large amount of cannabis. The Defendant then signed consent to search his residence where the police found a large amount of cocaine. The Defendant was charged with a Class 1 Felony and if found guilty was looking at 4-15 years in prison. Mr. Schmiege believed that the Defendants constitutional rights had been violated and the stop of the Defendant was illegal so they filed a Motion to Quash Arrest and Suppress Evidence. The Judge agreed that the stop was illegal, without probable cause and violative The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution which protects you from unreasonable search and seizure. The evidence was suppressed and the case was DISMISSED.

Criminal defense

People of the State of illinois v. C.H.

Aug 05, 2010

OUTCOME: NOT GUILTY

The Defendant was charged with the offense of Battery which is a Class A misdemeanor that is punishable by up to 1 year in prison and a fine of $2500.00. In this case the Defendant had an ongoing dis ... pute with her neighbor over a fence line. The Defendant was alleged to have spit in the face of her elderly neighbor. The alleged victim and another witness testified and were cross-examined by Chicago Criminal Defense Lawyer Michael P. Schmiege. Through the cross-examination discrepancies of the victim and witness statements emerged and the Judge found the Defendant - NOT GUILTY.

Criminal defense

People of the State of Illinois v. P.J.

Jul 08, 2010

OUTCOME: CASE DISMISSED - Motion Granted

The Defendant was charged with Possession of a Controlled Substance a Class 4 Felony. If convicted the Defendant was facing 1-3 years in prison. In this case Chicago Police Officers received a tip tha ... t the Defendant was selling drugs on a street corner. The police officers relocated to the corner and stopped and searched the Defendant and recovered heroin. The Defendant hired Chicago Criminal Defense Attorney Michael P. Schmiege. Mr. Schmiege believed that the manner in which they stopped and searched the Defendant was illegal and in violation of the Defendants Fourth Amendment rights that prohibit unreasonable searches and seizures. Mr. Schmiege filed a Motion to Suppress Evidence which was granted by the trial court and the recovered heroin was suppressed and the State had no choice but to DISMISS the case. CASE DISMISSED.

Criminal defense

People of the State of Illinois v. B.G.

Apr 14, 2010

OUTCOME: NOT GUILTY

The Defendant was charged with numerous counts of Predatory Criminal Sexual Assault, Criminal Sexual Assault and Criminal Sexual Abuse. If found guilty the Defendant was looking at 6-30 years in prison ... . The Defendant maintained his innocence and hired Chicago Criminal Defense Attorney Michael P. Schmiege. Mr. Schmiege took the case to trial and the Defendant was found NOT GUILTY. April 2010.

Criminal defense

People of the State of Illinois v. B.G.

Jan 20, 2010

OUTCOME: NOT GUILTY

The Defendant was charged with numerous counts of Predatory Criminal Sexual Assault, Aggravated Criminal Sexual Assault and Criminal Sexual Abuse. In that case the Defendant allegedly did some very bad ... things to his two nieces. The Defendant maintained his innocence and hired Mr. Schmiege to represent him. If found guilty as charged the court would be required to impose a sentence of life in prison. The Defendant went to trial and Mr. Schmiege was able to cast doubt on the alleged victim's story and the Defendant was found NOT GUILTY.

Criminal defense

People of the State of Illinois v. A.B.

Sep 03, 2009

OUTCOME: NOT GUILTY

The Defendant was charged with Possession of Cocaine with Intent to Deliver in violation of 720 ILCS 570/401(a)(2)(A). In this case the Cicero Police Department executed a search warrant at the Defend ... ant's residence and allegedly recovered over 100 grams of cocaine from a tool box underneath the bed the Defendant was sleeping in. After his arrest and the recovery of the cocaine the Defendant admitted that the cocaine was his and that he had been selling it. Based on the amount of cocaine and the residence location to a public park the Defendant was charged with a Class X Felony and was facing 6-30 years in prison. Mr. Schmiege believed that the Defendant was innocent of the charges and that his confession had been coerced. Mr. Schmiege took the case to jury trial and the Defendant was found NOT GUILTY and went home to his family a free man. After the finding of NOT GUILTY the Defendant filed a civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Cicero and settled the case for a confidential monetary amount.

Criminal defense

People of the State of Illinois v. F.S.

Jul 14, 2009

OUTCOME: NOT GUILTY

The Defendant was charged with Possession of a Controlled Substance in violation of 720 ILCS 570/402(a) (2) (A) and Disorderly Conduct in violation of 720 ILCS 5/26-1. In this case the Defendant was a ... llegedly intoxicated and acting in a disorderly manner at a bar in Cicero. The Defendant was arrested by the Cicero Police Department and during a search incident to arrest the Cicero Police Department allegedly found 2.5 grams of cocaine in the Defendants pocket. If found guilty the Defendant, having been charged with a Class 4 Felony, was facing 1-3 years in prison. Mr. Schmiege took the case to jury trial and argued that the drugs were planted by the police because the Defendant was acting in an unruly and disrespectful manner. The jury agreed and the Defendant was found NOT GUILTY.

Criminal defense

People of the State of Illinois v. D.P.

Jun 25, 2009

OUTCOME: NOT GUILTY

The Defendant was charged with Attempted Murder of a Police Officer, Disarming a Police Officer, Aggravated Battery of a Police Officer and Aggravated Discharge of a Firearm. In this case the Chicago ... Police officers allegedly encountered the Defendant in an apartment in a CHA building and suspected that the Defendant had been packaging narcotics in that apartment. The Defendant then allegedly escaped the apartment and the officers and attempted to flee the building. According to the testimony and reports of the Chicago Police the Defendant encountered one of the officers in the buildings hallway, struggled with the officer, disarmed the officer and then shot the officer in the arm. The Chicago Police officer allegedly regained control of his weapon and the shot the fleeing Defendant in the back. The Defendant was charged with Class X Felonies and was facing a minimum of 20 years in prison. The Defendant maintained his innocence and hired Mr. Schmiege to represent him. Mr. Schmiege closely reviewed the evidence and found that there was no physical evidence corroborating the police officers story and in fact the reports of the other officers provided factual impossibilities to the victim's story. Mr. Schmiege took the case to jury trial where the Defendant was found NOT GUILTY on all counts and went home a free man to his family. After the finding of NOT GUILTY the Defendant filed a civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the City of Chicago and that case is currently pending in Federal Court.

Ad

Transform legal challenges into solutions.

Connect now to review your situation.

The Avvo Rating explained

display-bg

The Avvo Rating explained

Avvo Rating

Our Rating is calculated using information the lawyer has included on their profile in addition to the information we collect from state bar associations and other organizations that license legal professionals. Attorneys who claim their profiles and provide Avvo with more information tend to have a higher rating than those who do not.

What determines Avvo Rating?
  • Experience & background Years licensed, work experience, education
  • Legal community recognition Peer endorsements, associations, awards
  • Legal thought leadership Publications, speaking engagements
  • Discipline Disciplinary information may not be comprehensive, or updated. We recommend that you always check a lawyer's disciplinary status with their respective state bar association before hiring them.
Avvo Rating Levels
Learn More About the Avvo Rating