Criminal Defense Attorneys In Aurora, IL

Expreinced Criminal Defense Attorneys

criminal defense

The Law Offices of David Guy Stevens, LLC has attorneys with a combined 100 years of experience defending criminal felony and misdemeanor cases. Having a misdemeanor and/or felony conviction on your record can negatively affect your current and future employment opportunities. We will work with you to avoid any conviction on your record, and take the case to trial if it is in the best interests of our client.

Attorneys at the Law Offices of David Guy Stevens, LLC Have the Experience and Skills to Handle the Case

For criminal defense the Law Offices of David Guy Stevens, LLC knows every case is different and every client deserves and receives special attention. From traffic tickets to murder, David Stevens knows the court system and fights for his clients’ best interests through every step in that system.

Criminal Defense Overview

Becoming involved in the criminal justice system can be a frightening and intimidating process. Should you become involved in the criminal justice system it is important to involve an experienced criminal defense attorney early in the process, preferably as soon as you know you are being investigated or the police make contact with you. Many crimes now carry mandatory jail or prison sentences and the United States has a higher incarceration rate than any other industrialized country. It is important to protect your rights as early in the process as possible and you should not answer any questions of the police or investigators before speaking with an experienced criminal defense attorney.

Call the Law Offices of David Guy Stevens, LLC for answers to your questions from investigation to expungement.

  • Investigation
  • Arrest &amop; Bail
  • Preliminary Hearing
  • Arraignment
  • Plea Bargaining
  • Trial and Sentencing
  • Post Sentence
  • Conclusion

It is important to consult an experienced criminal defense attorney as soon as possible when you are involved in the criminal justice system. An experienced criminal defense attorney can help you navigate the system and insure that your rights are protected throughout the process.

David Guy Stevens, former criminal prosecutor, can be reached in Aurora, Naperville, Joliet, Elgin, and Chicago Illinois.

Recent Case Law and News:

  • Motions to Suppress 3d Dist.

    People v. Timmsen, 2014 IL App (3d) 120481 (July 25, 2014) Hancock Co (O’BRIEN) Reversed and remanded.

    Defendant was convicted, after stipulated bench trial, of driving while license suspended. Court should have granted Defendant’s motion to suppress. Defendant had made a U-turn just prior to a roadblock, a legal traffic maneuver which only raised suspicion that he was attempting to avoid contact with police, but absent any other suspicious activity, no specific, articulable facts that a criminal offense had been or was about to be committed sufficient to warrant Terry stop of Defendant’s vehicle. (HOLDRIDGE, specially concurring; SCHMIDT, dissenting.)

  • Search & Seizure 2d Dist.

    People v. Fox, 2014 IL App (2d) 130320 (May 23, 2014) Kane Co. (BIRKETT) Judgment vacated; reversed and remanded.

    Defendant was convicted of burglary, retail theft, and criminal damage to property. Officer observed two persons, in a residential neighborhood matching descriptions of suspects in burglary of smoke shop a block away, and ordered them to stop. As no specific information existed at time of stop that Defendant was then armed and dangerous, search violated Defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights. Although risk of flight must further justify the initial stop, it does not justify the search, as no relationship exists between flight and possibility of being armed. Court erred in admitting evidence obtained from improper search. (ZENOFF and JORGENSEN, concurring.)

  • Motions to Suppress 5th Dist.

    People v. Kofron, 2014 IL App (5th) 130335 (August 20, 2014) St. Clair Co. (SPOMER) Affirmed.

    (Court opinion corrected 9/12/14.) Defendant, who was at least an overnight gust in neighbor’s home, had reasonable expectation of privacy in private area of backyard, from which chemical materials near trash can were seized. In any “knock and talk” where officers approach entrance to home to make investigative inquiry and to attempt to obtain consent to search, there is no legitimate rationale for deploying multiple police officers to cover multiple entrances to a home in effort to prevent citizens from “escaping” from “consensual encounter” with police. Court properly granted motion to suppress evidence. (WELCH and SCHWARM, concurring.)

  • Motions to Suppress 2d Dist.

    People v. Gonzalez-Carrera, 2014 IL App (2d) 130968 (September 2, 2014) Du Page Co. (SCHOSTOK) Affirmed.

    Defendant was stopped based on officer seeing pickup truck for driving with one red taillight, as officer observed one taillight to have a hole the size of a couple inches in the red plastic covering, so that taillight emitted both red and white light when brakes were activated. State failed to establish valid basis for traffic stop, as it was daylight, dry, clear visibility, and none of the conditions requiring use of two red taillights existed at time of stop. Court thus properly granted Defendant’s motion to suppress evidence found in his vehicle during traffic stop. (ZENOFF and HUDSON, concurring.)

  • Cross-Examination 1st Dist.

    People v. Schaffer, 2014 IL App (1st) 113493 (January 17, 2014) Cook Co., 3d Div. (PUCINSKI) Reversed and remanded.

    Defendant was convicted of aggravated criminal sexual assault, home invasion, and armed robbery. Evidence was close and jury’s decision hinged on credibility determination. Thus, prosecutor’s repeated improper cross-examination questions, designed to demean and ridicule Defendant, denied Defendant a fair trial. Even though court sustained objections to four of improper lines of questioning, in light of the number of improper inquiries, court’s actions were insufficient to remove prejudice.(HYMAN AND NEVILLE, concurring.)

  • Statute of Limitations

    People v. Chenowith,No. 116898, 4th Dist.

    This case presents question as to whether instant indictment and subsequent information on charge of unlawful financial exploitation of elderly person was filed within applicable 3-year limitations period. Appellate Court, in vacating defendant’s conviction, found that instant prosecution was commenced after expiration of relevant limitations period, since indictment was filed on 12/21/09 that concerned conduct that occurred from 12/1/04 through 7/31/05. Ct. further found that section 3-6 of Criminal Code, which extends applicable limitations period under certain circumstances, did not apply since elderly victim of financial exploitation had discovered that defendant had been writing unauthorized checks more than one year prior to date of indictment.

  • Search & Seizure 1st Dist.

    People v. Hill,2012 IL App (1st) 102028 (May 4, 2012) Cook Co., 5th Div. (EPSTEIN) Reversed and remanded.

    (Correcting case link and case no.) Defendant was convicted, after bench trial, of unlawful use of a weapon by a felon. Police did not have lawful right to detain and transport Defendant incident to execution of search warrant, where there was no indication that police detained him as soon as practicable after observing him leave residence. Defendant was prejudiced by admission of his statement as to gun found underneath bed in one bedroom of a three-bedroom apartment, as State had not established, other than by Defendant’s statement, that he had access to apartment and therefore constructive possession of gun. No reasonable trial strategy in defense counsel’s decision not to file motion to suppress Defendant’s statement, which had reasonable probability of success, and thus ineffective assistance of counsel which prejudiced Defendant. (McBRIDE and HOWSE, concurring.)

  • Accountability Theory 1st Dist.

    People v. Phillips,2012 IL App (1st) 101923 (May 15, 2012) Cook Co., 2d Div. (CONNORS) Reversed.

    Defendant was convicted, after bench trial, of aggravated battery with a firearm and aggravated discharge of a firearm under accountability theory; co-Defendant was found directly guilty. Two vehicles were in near-collision and stopped within inches of each other, and blocked intersection. Co-Defendant, a passenger in Defendant’s vehicle, fired at other vehicle. No evidence that Defendant deliberately maneuvered vehicle to trap other vehicle, or that Defendant knew that co-Defendant was armed. Thus, insufficient evidence for conviction under accountability theory. (CUNNINGHAM, concurring; QUINN, dissenting.)

  • Marital Privilege 1st Dist.

    People v. Trzeciak,2012 IL App (1st) 100259 (May 9, 2012) Cook Co., 3rd Div. (SALONE) Reversed and remanded.

    Defendant was convicted, after jury trial, of first degree murder, and 50-year sentence was enhanced by 40 years for use of firearm in murder. Court erred in admitting testimony of Defendant’s wife which should have been excluded as marital privilege. Statute prohibits testimony as to communications and admissions made as to any private conversation between husband and wife during the marriage, regardless of whether marriage was harmonious. (STEELE, concurring; MURPHY, dissenting.)

  • Confession

    U.S. v. Wysinger,No. 10-3894 (June 22, 2012) S.D. Ill. Vacated and remanded

    In prosecution on drug distribution charges, Dist. Ct. erred in admitting defendant’s video-tapped statement containing inculpatory evidence made at police station after his arrest where Ct. of Appeals found that police gave inadequate Miranda warning that erroneously suggested that defendant had to choose between having lawyer present before police questioning or during said questioning, and where police used various tactics to both confuse defendant as to start of police questioning and to divert him from exercising right to counsel. Moreover, error was not harmless where majority of evidence against defendant came from cooperating co-conspirators who had strong motives to lie and cast blame away from themselves.

  • Photo Line-up Evidence

    U.S. v. Ford,No. 11-2034 (June 6, 2012) N.D. Ill., E. Div. Affirmed

    In prosecution on armed bank robbery charge where witness identified defendant as culprit after viewing 6-person photo array, Dist. Ct. erred in denying defendant’s motion to suppress instant identification of defendant where police’s presentation of all pictures at one time in side-by-side fashion improperly suggested to witness that culprit was included in photo array. Ct. further observed that array would have been less suggestive had police presented pictures in one-by-one sequence. However, error was harmless where govt. presented DNA evidence from robber’s mask that matched defendant’s DNA.

To our clients:With a focus on personal service, we are ready and willing to take your call and answer all your questions.Call Today (630) 486-1080


Call 630-486-1080 • Firm Wide Fax 630-622-1119

Dave Stevens is a great attorney and a tireless advocate for his clients.

-Attorney James Flores Avvo - Rate your Lawyer. Get Free Legal Advice.