Attorney Michael Patrick Schmiege's Legal Cases

Criminal defense

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

Jun 15, 2009

OUTCOME: NOT GUILTY

The Defendant was charged with Assault in violation of 720 ILCS 5/12-2. In this case, the Defendant, a nursing student, allegedly got into an altercation with a fellow classmate and grabbed a knife in ... the school cafeteria an allegedly lunged at the alleged victim and threatens to kill her. The Defendant was charged with a Class C Misdemeanor Offense, which carries penalties of up to 30 days in jail. The Defendant was also in the United States on a Student Visa and risked losing the visa if convicted. Mr. Schmiege took the case to trial and through a cross-examination of the complaining witness cast doubt upon the story and the Defendant was found NOT GUILTY.

Criminal defense

People of the State of Illinois v. R.R.

May 12, 2009

OUTCOME: NOT GUILTY

The Defendant was charged with Driving under the Influence of Alcohol in violation of 625 ILCS 5/11-501. In this case Chicago Police officer's allegedly observed the Defendant drive in a reckless mann ... er, crash into three parked cars, stumble out of his car, have a strong odor of alcoholic beverage on his breath, slurred speech, blood shot eyes and had admitted to drinking. The Defendant was charged with a Class A misdemeanor and if found guilty was facing up to 365 days in jail and the possibility of having his licensed revoked. Mr. Schmiege believed in the client's innocence and took the case to a jury trial where the Defendant was found NOT GUILTY.

Criminal defense

People v. J.G.

May 01, 2009

OUTCOME: NOT GUILTY

The Defendant, a juvenile, was charged with Harassment by Telephone in violation of 720 ILCS 135/1-1, a Class A Misdemeanor. In this case the Defendant allegedly made hundreds of phone calls throughou ... t all hours of the day and night to a classmate. If found guilty the Defendant was facing up to 365 days in jail. Mr. Schmiege believed that the Defendant's reasoning for making the calls was not with to harass as required by the statute, but for other reasons. The Judge agreed and the Defendant was found NOT GUILTY.

Criminal defense

People v. C.H.

May 01, 2009

OUTCOME: NOT GUILTY

The Defendant, a juvenile was charged with resisting arrest and obstruction of justice in violation of 720 ILCS 5/31-1. In that case the Defendant was suspected of having been involved in a fight and ... was ordered up against a police car. The Defendant refused and allegedly swung his arms in an attempt to defeat arrest. The Defendant was charged with Class A misdemeanors and if found guilty could have been sentenced up to a year in jail. The Defendant refused to plead guilty and maintained his innocence even after the State agreed to reduce the charge to Disorderly Conduct. Mr. Schmiege took the case to trial and casted doubt upon the officer's testimony and the Defendant was found NOT GULILTY.

Criminal defense

People v. S.A.

Apr 14, 2009

OUTCOME: NOT GUILTY

The Defendant was charged with Possession of a Controlled Substance with Intent to Deliver in violation of 720 ILCS 570/401(a) (2) (D). In that case the Defendant was a passenger in a vehicle that was ... stopped by the Chicago Police and was found to contain 4 kilos of cocaine. The Chicago Police had information from a confidential source that the vehicle the passenger was in was going to be delivering a numerous kilograms of cocaine. If convicted the Defendant was facing between 15-60 years in prison. The Defendant hired Mr. Schmiege to represent him and the case was taken to trial where the Defendant was found NOT GUILTY.

Criminal defense

People v. T.M.

Mar 19, 2009

OUTCOME: NOT GUILTY

The Defendant was charged with Possession of a Controlled Substance with Intent to Deliver in violation of 720 ILCS 570/401(c) (2). In that case the police received information that the Defendant was ... selling drugs from his car. The police set up surveillance and observed the Defendant retrieve a small white golf ball sized object from the side of a building and return to his vehicle which was being occupied by another individual. The Defendant then drove away and his vehicle was stopped and cocaine was recovered from the rear center consol. If found guilty the Defendant having been charged with a Class 1 Felony was facing 4-15 years in prison. Mr. Schmiege believed that the State could not prove that the Defendant had possession of the drugs and took the case to trial where to Defendant was found NOT GUILTY.

Criminal defense

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

Mar 10, 2009

OUTCOME: CASE DISMISSED - Motion Granted

The Defendant was charged with First Degree Murder. In that case the Defendant was allegedly the driver of a vehicle used in a drive by shooting. Witnesses identified the vehicle used in the shooting ... as one being similar to that of the Defendants. Chicago Police Detectives arrested the Defendant based on the similar vehicles and while in Chicago Police custody the Defendant confessed to his role in the shooting. If found guilty the Defendant would have a minimum of twenty years in prison. The Defendant hired Mr. Schmiege to represent him. After reviewing the evidence and speaking with the Defendant Mr. Schmiege realized that the Defendants statement was taken illegal and was coerced. Therefore, Mr. Schmiege filed a Motion to Quash Arrest and Suppress Evidence and Motion to Suppress Statements. After a lengthy hearing was held the Judge agreed with Mr. Schmiege that the arrest of the Defendant was 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 and the Defendant went home a free man. After the case was DISMISSED 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.

Criminal defense

People v. H.V.

Mar 01, 2009

OUTCOME: CASE DISMISSED

The Defendant was charged with Unlawful Use of a Weapon in violation of 720 ILCS 5/24-1. In this case the Chicago Police were patrolling an area after hearing a call of shots fired. The saw the Defen ... dant walking down the street and observed a bulge in his waist band of his pants. Based on that observation the police stopped the Defendant and searched him and recovered a handgun from his waistband. Mr. Schmiege believed that the stop and search of the Defendant was illegal and filed a Motion to Quash Arrest and Suppress Evidence. A hearing was held on that motion and the Judge agreed that the stop and search of the Defendant was 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 v. J.R.

Jul 23, 2008

OUTCOME: NOT GUILTY

The Defendant was charged with Possession of a Controlled Substance with Intent to Deliver in violation of 720 ILCS 570/401(a) (2) (D). In that case the Defendant was a passenger in a vehicle that was ... stopped by the Illinois State Police and was found to contain 16 kilos of cocaine with an estimated street value of $1.5 million dollars. If convicted the Defendant was facing between 15-60 years in prison. The Defendant hired Mr. Schmiege to represent him and the case was taken to trial where the Defendant was found NOT GUILTY.

Criminal defense

People v. J.R.

May 21, 2008

OUTCOME: CASE DISMISSED

The Defendant was charged with Possession of Cannabis with Intent to Deliver in violation of 720 ILCS 550/5(d). In that case the Defendant was a passenger in a vehicle and just conducted a drug deal w ... here a large amount of cannabis was purchased. The vehicle was attempting to leave a private housing complex when it was stopped by the police. After being stopped the Defendant admitted that the cannabis was his and that he had just purchased it. If convicted the Defendant was looking at a Class 3 Felony sentence of 2-5 years in prison. Mr. Schmiege filed a Motion to Quash Arrest and Suppress Evidence stating that the manner in which the vehicle was stopped was illegal. A hearing was held on that motion and the Judge agreed that the stop and search of the Defendant and vehicle was 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.

Michael Patrick Schmiege's Legal Cases (20)

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

People of the State of Illinois v. R.R.

People v. J.G.

People v. C.H.

People v. S.A.

People v. T.M.

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

People v. H.V.

People v. J.R.

People v. J.R.