In November of 2017, despite his attorney’s pleas that his client was sincerely remorseful, a Chicago federal judge sentenced a reputed career train burglar to 11 years in prison.
According to prosecutors, 38-year-old Patrick Edwards and several accomplices slipped into a train yard and broke into a freight train bound from the Ruger Company in New Hampshire to Spokane. Things already looked bleak for Mr. Edwards, as Judge John Tharp had just sentenced one of his co-defendants to 10 years in prison for his role in contributing to the “epidemic of violence” in Chicago.
Prior to the hearing, prosecutors had asked Judge Tharp for 12 years in prison.
Elements of Theft Cases
Like most other states, Illinois law essentially takes most of the common-law theft elements and codifies them into a statute, mostly to ensure predictable results in these cases. In court, Illinois prosecutors must prove two elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
- Taking: In addition to unauthorized removal, the law defines this term as exerting unauthorized control over said property, obtaining control not by physical taking but by “deception” or “threat,” and knowingly exercising control over stolen property. It is also a crime to take property out of a police evidence lockup.
- Intent to Permanently Deprive: The prosecutor can either prove intent to deprive or offer evidence that the defendant disposed of the taken property in such a way that it deprived the owner of its use.
A property “owner” is not necessarily the record owner of the property. If the defendant allegedly steals a TV from Walmart, the prosecutor need not subpoena a representative of the retailer or television manufacturer. Anyone with a superior right of possession, such as a store security guard, normally suffices.
Common Approaches in Theft Cases
Prosecutors often take advantage of the “superior right of possession” loophole, particularly in retail theft cases. The security guard’s name usually appears in the police report, so it is easy to name this person as the property owner.
These cases often go to trial a year or more after the alleged theft. By that time, the store security guard has nearly always moved on to another job, and it is difficult to locate the person. Even if that is possible, the prosecutor’s subpoena power can be limited. If the witness is further away, the witness must voluntarily cooperate, and many former store security guards are understandably unwilling to do so.
Although delay is frustrating for the defendant, that may be the best approach. There is an old saying among Chicagoland attorneys that William Gladstone, who supposedly said that “justice delayed is justice denied,” was obviously not a criminal defense lawyer.
Another old saying, “time heals all wounds” may be a little more appropriate. As time goes by, many owners lose interest in the case, especially if the defendant has made restitution. It is illegal to bribe witnesses so they will not press charges, but it does sometimes happen that a defendant pays what is disputed in hopes that the owners abandon the cases.
If the owner is unavailable for whatever reason, the case normally collapses unless the prosecutor amends the pleadings and starts over. That normally never happens except in very high-profile cases.
Reach Out to Tenacious Lawyers
Theft cases are easy for prosecutors to start and difficult for them to finish. For a confidential consultation with an experienced criminal law attorney in Schaumburg, contact Glasgow & Olsson.
(image courtesy of Tom Barrett)