The Law office of Louis M. Pissios has successfully handled many complex and high-profile cases in Illinois including everything from Driving Under the Influence Cases to Drug Cases to Murder Cases, and everything in between. We are in Lake County, Illinois and handle every case with the diligence necessary to get you the best results possible.
Our attorneys provide unparalleled legal representation to those who are facing serious criminal charges. We have extensive experience in all areas of Criminal Law. Our Firm has a reputation for providing top-notch, high quality representation.
We recognize that every person, and every criminal prosecution, is unique. We tailor our practice to the individual needs of each and every client. Our ethics, skill and knowledge will help you obtain the best possible results.
The lawyer you choose to represent you can affect the results of your case. Our legal defense team includes experienced private investigators, paralegals and translators. . We provide high quality, creative and thorough legal representation to each and every one of our clients. We are only as good as the results we obtain for our clients. Our greatest compliment comes from the fact that many of our former clients and other attorneys refer clients to us for representation.
You should not compromise your choice of an attorney. This may be one of the most important decisions that you ever make.
What can an Experienced Criminal Defense Lawyer do for me?
An evaluation of the facts of your case and your exact situation is where we start.
And we offer this case evaluation for free, with no obligation, to anyone charged in a crime in Illinois
There are numerous options when defending you in a criminal matter incluing demanding trial or filing motions to win your case and have the charges dismissed. Some of these motions include:
Motion to Suppress: Did the police officers have a right to stop and search you, enter your home, or stop the car? They must have a reasonable suspicion or probable cause, or their action is against the law. Or if they asked you questions after you were under arrest without telling your your rights under Miranda to remain silent.
Motions for Discovery: What do the prosecutor and the police know about the case that they may not be telling us? They could have evidence that suggests you are innocent or provides alternate explanations for your behavior.
Challenging police procedures and technical evidence: Are there chemical tests involve that allegedly prove you had a drug or controlled substance, or failed a breath test? These procedures and test samples must be made available in your defense, so we can challenge them with independent analysis.
In some cases, we dig even deeper, with a private investigator to interview witnesses, or provide expert witness testimony on your behalf to explain complicated procedures and help explain your side of the story.
Here are the top 13 criminal law cases from the Illinois court system for March 2016. The first 4 are from the Illinois Supreme Court. Number 4 was a victory for the defense at the lower level and the Illinois Supreme Court had something to say about that.
People v. Burns The “no-nights visits” rule is affirmed, can’t bring the sniffer dog to your front step for a little sniff action.
People v. Bradford
Prosecution no longer allowed to overcharge an ordinary retail theft to a burglary.
People v. Clark
Aggravated vehicular hijacking and armed robbery without a firearm are not lesser-included offenses of aggravated vehicular hijacking and armed robbery with a firearm.
People v. Timmsen
Apparently, the police can stop you for trying to legally avoid a roadblock.
People v. Abram
Officers approach defendant who was sitting in his car he then, to say the least, ensues in outright flight.
People v. Smith
This trial judge was overruled; there is nothing unconstitutional about requesting citizen’s to roll up their sleeves.
People v. Thompson
Some of the State’s remarks relied on questionable advocacy, but did not rise to the level of clear and obvious error.
People v. Meuris
In a leaving the scene of an accident prosecution the State must not only prove that Defendant knew he was involved in an accident but also that another person was involved.
People v. Weinke
Reviewing court says ASA exaggerated the severity of victim’s condition and misled the court as to the source and timing of her information in order to pressure the court into granting a quickie deposition.
People v. Tayborn
Trial counsel was ineffective for not challenging defendant’s confession given without Miranda warnings.
People v. Little
Cigarette break is not a sufficient amount of time to remove the taint of the original Miranda violation.
People v. Gray
These drug officers were themselves charged with distributing narcotics and Defendant was not told about the investigation before he plead guilty to his own drug charges.
People v. Fulton
In a charge of armed habitual criminal the same conviction can be used as one of the predicate offenses as well the predicate to the UUW Felony conviction that may be being used.
This is what the Illinois court system was up to in February of 2016. Here are the 9 best and worst cases. The last one is the one the prosecution doesn’t want you to know about.
People v. Boston
Sloppy grand jury work by State’s Attorney does not prejudice defendant. Go to case.
People v. Ligon
Many objects can qualify as dangerous weapons for purposes of aggravated vehicular hijacking, but not as to armed violence. In other other words, list of bludgeons is greater for AVH and smaller for armed violence. Go to case.
People v. Zayed
Smell of cannabis does not give this officer a free pass to search this passenger because the officer crossed the line by whipping out the defendant’s penis and essentially conducting an unreasonable strip search. Go to case.
People v. Jarvis
The visual examination of defendant’s buttocks might have exposed defendant’s anus. Nonetheless, any search for the “person” authorizes a strip search. Go to case.
People v. Little
This DWLR conviction stands because the police officer didn’t need proof of every element of the crime he was investigating. The stop with limited information was good. Go to case.
People v. Buschauer
The trial court’s finding was against the manifest weight of the evidence in that a reasonable person in would have felt free to leave at any point during the interrogation. Trial court just can’t ignore the factors that weigh against coercion. Go to case.
People v. Harrison
This force blood draw was not suppressed because it was done before the McNeely decision and binding precedent was in place. Good faith exception applies. Go to case.
People v. Moore
Lost photo arrays were not done in bad faith, so no due process violation occurred. The proper remedy for this discovery violation was to grant Civil Jury Instruction 5.01. Go to case.
People v. Nibbe
Second degree murder conviction is vacated outright because a blow with a bare hand is not ordinarily contemplated to cause death. Go to case.
People v. Pmulamasaka
This rape is overturned, in large part, because the State committed and the trial judge allowed gross prosecutorial misconduct. Among the list of error committed by the prosecution two stand out. He repeatedly argued the victim was mentally handicapped when there was no such evidence, and he sat in the witness box during closing argument. Go to case.