Name: Michael Schmiege
Item: Michael Schmiege
Author: mikeschmiege

Bio

in founding his criminal defense law firm, Michael P. Schmiege set out with the goal of offering effective and aggressive representation to clients whose cases other firms had turned down.

Many individuals facing serious criminal charges and the prospect of lengthy years, even lifetimes, in prison, were having difficulty securing effective legal representation because attorneys reviewing their cases thought they could not win. Mr. Schmiege had perceived a need for a criminal defense attorney who could help the clients that other attorneys turned away. He set out with the mission of winning those cases said not to be winnable against whatever odds were faced. No client wants to be turned down because a lawyer feels that their dire situation is not worth their time.

Quite a few of the criminal defense attorneys out there market their value as former prosecutors. But prosecutors' interests lie in resolving as many cases as they can as quickly as possible. They are in the business of working out plea deals, not always advantageous to the accused, in order to help clear the crowded dockets of government courts.

Mr. Schmiege's interest, on the other hand, has always been to stand up for the rights and interests of the individual accused, an individual who often feels powerless and intimidated when faced with the pressure of the vast machinery of the state. A proud graduate of John Marshall Law School, a school dedicated to the attorney training for real world problems, he makes it his business to stay on top of the latest developments in civil rights law, criminal trial practice and sentencing guidelines so that his clients can have a maximum chance at winning justice against the single-minded pursuit of the state. Mr. Schmiege's ultimate goal is to stand up for the rights of accused individuals and protect their constitutional rights so that they have the maximum chance to win a positive outcome in an important case.

Mr. Schmiege treats clients with respect and listens to their concerns and their side of the story. He believe in personal legal service. A client should get the services of the lawyer who has been hired, not those of a nameless associate. A client is not a number to Mr. Schmiege. The client is an individual with a problem that he has been specially trained to address and solve.

Super Lawyers named Michael P. Schmiege as a Rising Star in the area of Criminal Defense in conjunction with Chicago Magazine. This high honor is based on peer review and is given to only 2.5% of the lawyers in Illinois.

Notable Cases and Results:
People of the State of Illinois v. R.W.
Reckless Conduct / NOT GUILTY

The Defendant was arrested and charged with reckless conduct by the Chicago Police Department. The defendant interviewed numerous prominent Chicago Criminal Defense Lawyers and decided to hire attorney Michael P. Schmiege. The judge agreed with Chicago Criminal Lawyer Michael Schmiege and found the defendant not guilty of the charge of Reckless Conduct and the defendant went home a free man with a clear and clean criminal record.

People of the State of Illinois v. J.C.
Domestic Battery / Reckless Conduct – NOT GUILTY

The Defendant was charged with Domestic Battery and Reckless Conduct. It was alleged that the defendant intentionally ran over the foot of his daughter in a fit of rage. Realizing the stakes, the defendant hired Chicago Criminal Defense Attorney Michael P. Schmiege to represent him. Mr. Schmiege reviewed the file, police reports and interviewed all of the witnesses and set the case for trial.

People of the State of Illinois v. AM
Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol – NOT GUILTY

The Defendant was charged with Driving under the Influence of Alcohol which is a class A misdemeanor in the State of Illinois. Furthermore, a conviction for this offense will result in a revocation of one's driving privileges. The Defendant hired Chicago Criminal Defense Lawyer Michael P. Schmiege to represent her. Mr. Schmiege, being an experienced criminal lawyer, thoroughly reviewed the case file and police reports and filed the proper and necessary motions.

People of the State of Illinois v. IQ
Delivery of Cannabis to a Police Officer - NOT GUILTY

The Defendant was charged with Delivery of Cannabis to a police officer. According to the police the defendant delivered various amount of cannabis to undercover police officers during a three week period. The Defendant, not wanting to go to prison, hired Chicago Criminal Defense Attorney Michael P. Schmiege to represent him in his delivery of cannabis to police officer case.

People of the State of Illinois v. D.P.
Not Guilty - Attempted Murder of a Police Officer

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. When responding officers arrived they found the Defendant lying face down, shot twice in the back and about 40 feet away from the officer.

People of the State of Illinois v. B.G.
Attempted Aggravated Kidnapping / Child Abduction - NOT GUILTY

The Defendant was charged with Attempted Aggravated Kidnapping and Attempted Child Abduction. Chicago Criminal Defense Attorney Michael Schmiege argued that the prosecutors failed to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt and that while all of the circumstances of the case appeared to look bad there simply was no direct evidence that the Defendant had the requisite intent to abduct these two girls. The judge agreed and found the Defendant NOT GUILTY of Attempted Aggravated Kidnapping and Attempted Child Abduction and the defendant went home a free man and avoided a long prison sentence as well as lifelong registration as a sex offender.

USA v. SV Delivery of 1/2 kilo of Crystal Meth
Mandatory Minimum 10 year sentence reduced to 14 months

The Defendant was charged with conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. Chicago Criminal Defense Lawyer, Michael P. Schmiege argued that the Defendant was a first time offender who did not deserve to be given a harsh sentence - the Judge agreed and sentenced the Defendant to 14 months in prison - a much shorter sentence than the mandatory ten years she was facing prior to hiring Chicago criminal lawyer Michael P. Schmiege.

People of the State of Illinois v. M.G.
NOT GUILTY - THEFT

The Defendant was charged with Theft in that she allegedly stole a Chicago Police Department ticket book. The Defendant did steal this item. However, the reason why she stole was relevant and resulted in the Defendant hiring Chicago Criminal Defense Attorney Michael P. Schmiege to represent her. The jury agreed with attorney Michael Schmiege that the police officers were absurd in charging her with Theft when her intent was not to permanently deprive the officers of the book but to simply record the license plate of the police car. The Defendant was found NOT GUILTY by a jury.

People of the State of Illinois v. CS
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 punishable by 4-15 years in prison as well as mandatory registration as a convicted sex offender. 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. Mr. Schmiege poked numerous holes into the story the young girl was telling. After the testimony Mr. Schmiege argued to the judge that the girls' testimony was inconsistent and simply not credible. As a result of that cross-examination the judge made a finding of no probable cause and the case was dismissed.

People of the State of Illinois v. C.H.
NOT GUILTY - BATTERY

The Defendant was charged with the offense of Battery. Mr. Schmiege argued that the witnesses could not be believed and proof beyond a reasonable doubt was not present and the judge agreed and found the Defendant not guilty.

People of the State of Illinois v. P.J.
MOTION TO SUPPRESS GRANTED - CASE DISMISSED - PCS

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. Believing that his clients rights were violated Mr. Schmiege filed a Motion to Suppress Evidence. A suppression hearing was held where the arresting officers and the Defendant testified concerning the circumstances of the arrest. After the hearing Mr. Schmiege argued to the judge that the arresting officers did not have probable cause to search and seize the Defendant and granted the motion and suppressed the evidence. With the evidence suppress the State no choice but to dismiss the charge. The Defendant hired Chicago Criminal Defense Attorney Michael P. Schmiege.

People of the State of Illinois v. B.G.
NOT GUILTY - PREDATORY CRIMINAL SEXUAL ASSAULT

The Defendant was charged with numerous counts of Predatory Criminal Sexual Assault, Criminal Sexual Assault and Criminal Sexual Abuse. Defendant maintained his innocence and hired Chicago Criminal Defense Attorneys Michael P. Schmiege to represent him. Mr. Schmiege argued to the judge that the victim's testimony was not credible based upon her late outcry and inconsistent statements and the judge agreed and found the Defendant NOT GUILTY. The Defendant went home that night a free man without 30 years in prison hanging over his head as well as lifelong sex offender registration.

People of the State of Illinois v. A.B.
NOT GUILTY – Possession of a Controlled Substance w/ Intent to Deliver

The Defendant was charged with Possession of Cocaine with Intent to Deliver in violation of 720 ILCS 570/401(a)(2)(A). The Defendant not wanting to go to prison for the next thirty years of his life hired Chicago Criminal Defense Lawyers Michael P. Schmiege to represent him. Mr. Schmiege cross-examined the police officers and further developed inconsistencies in the officer's testimony. The jury agreed and found the Defendant NOT GUILTY of Possession of Cocaine with Intent to Deliver and went home a free man avoiding a lengthy prison sentence.

People of the State of Illinois v. F.S.
NOT GUILTY – Possession of a Controlled Substance

The Defendant was arrested and 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. Chicago Criminal Defense Attorney Michael P. Schmiege was hired and he conducted a full investigation and reviewed all of the necessary reports. The case went to jury trial and Mr. Schmiege cross-examined the arresting officers and developed the theme that the officers planted the cocaine on the Defendant because he was acting in a disorderly, unruly and disrespectful manner and that he contested their authority.

People of the State of Illinois v. R.R.
NOT GUILTY - DUI

The Defendant was charged with Driving under the Influence of Alcohol in violation of 625 ILCS 5/11-501. The Defendant hired Chicago Criminal Defense Attorney Michael P. Schmiege to represent him and took the case to a jury trial. Mr. Schmiege cross-examined the officers who admitted that there were innocent explanations for his slurred speech, blood shot eyes, and erratic driving and that these observations were not necessarily an indication of guilty.

People of the State of Illinois v. C.J.
CASE DISMISSED – Possession of a Controlled Substance w/ Intent to Deliver

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). The Defendant not wanting to go to prison for 15 years hired Chicago Criminal Defense Attorney Michael P. Schmiege to represent him. Mr. Schmiege filed a Motion to Quash Arrest and Suppress Evidence stating that the stop of the Defendant and subsequent search were illegal and in violation of the Defendants’ rights.

People of the State of Illinois v. M.G.
CASE DISMISSED - Animal Cruelty

The Defendant was charged with numerous counts of Cruelty to Animals under510 ILCS 70/3.01 which states no person or owner may beat, cruelly treat, torment, starve, overwork or otherwise abuse any animal. The Defendant was arrested and hired Chicago Criminal Defense Attorney Michael P. Schmiege. 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 motion was granted and the evidence was suppressed and the case was DISMISSED.

People of the State of Illinois v. N.S.
ASSAULT - NOT GUILTY

The Defendant was charged with Assault in violation of 720 ILCS 5/12-2. The Defendant retained Chicago Criminal Defense Attorney Michael P. Schmiege to represent her. Mr. Schmiege reviewed the file and interviewed the witnesses that were present during the altercation. Mr. Schmiege argued to the judge that the complaining witness was not credible and simply could not be believed and the Judge agreed and the Defendant was found NOT GUILTY.

People of the State of Illinois v. F.A.
FIRST DEGREE MURDER - CASE DISMISSED

The Defendant was charged with First Degree Murder. In the State of Illinois the Defendant was facing the prospect of spending the rest of his life behind bars. The Defendant hired Chicago Criminal Lawyer Michael P. Schmiege to represent him. After reviewing the evidence and speaking with the Defendant Mr. Schmiege realized that the Defendants statement was taken illegally and was coerced. Mr. Schmiege argued that the arrest was made without probable cause and the statement was the result of the illegal arrest and need to be suppressed.

People of the State of Illinois v. T.M.
NOT GUILTY PCS w/ Intent to Deliver

The Defendant was charged with Possession of a Controlled Substance with Intent to Deliver in violation of 720 ILCS 570/401(c) (2). Not wanting to go to prison he hired Chicago Criminal Defense Attorney Michael P. Schmiege. Mr. Schmiege took the case to trial and cross-examined the officer extensively regarding what he saw in the Defendants' hand and Mr. Schmiege questioned him on his ability to be able to actual see what he said he saw.

People of the State of Illinois v. S.A.
Possession of a Controlled Substance with Intent to Deliver – 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). The Defendant, the passenger of the vehicle hired Chicago Criminal Lawyer Michael P. Schmiege as one of his lawyers to represent him. The Judge after hearing all of the evidence found that the prosecutor had not proven the case beyond a reasonable doubt as there was no evidence that the Defendant had any knowledge that there were drugs in the car and the Defendant was found NOT GUILTY.

People of the State of Illinois v. H.V.
Unlawful Use of a Weapon – CASE DISMISSED

The Defendant was charged with Unlawful Use of a Weapon in violation of 720 ILCS 5/24-1. The Defendant was basically caught red handed with a firearm in his possession. Wishing to protect his record and avoid jail the Defendant retained Michael Schmiege as his Chicago Criminal Defense Lawyer. Mr. Schmiege argued that the stop and search of the Defendant was without probable cause and violative of The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution which protects you from unreasonable search and seizure.

People of the State of Illinois v. C.H.
Resisting Arrest / Obstruction of Justice – NOT GUILTY

The Defendant, a juvenile was charged with resisting arrest and obstruction of justice in violation of 720 ILCS 5/31-1. Not wishing to plead guilty to something that he was not guilty of the Defendant hired Chicago Criminal Lawyer Michael P. Schmiege to represent him. Mr. Schmiege took the case to trial and extensively cross-examined the police officers about what happened that day and developed inconsistencies in their stories which clearly showed that the officers were not telling the truth.

People of the State of Illinois v. J.G.
Harassment by Telephone – 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 Illinois. The Defendant wishing to protect her record and adamant that she didn’t commit a criminal act hired Chicago Criminal Lawyer Michael P. Schmiege to represent her. Mr. Schmiege argued that there was no crime here, just two teenagers being teenagers and the judge agreed and the judge found that the phone calls were not intended to harass and found the Defendant NOT GUILTY.

People of the State of Illinois v. J.R.
Possession of a Controlled Substance with Intent to Deliver – 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) and was facing up to 60 years in prison. The Defendant not wanting to spend the rest of his life in prison hired Chicago Criminal Defense Attorney Michael P. Schmiege and co-counsel to represent him. Mr. Schmiege argued to the judge that there was not any evidence showing that the Defendant knew there were drugs in the vehicle and the judge agreed and found the Defendant NOT GUILTY thereby avoiding a lengthy prison sentence.

People of the State of Illinois v. J.R.
Possession of Cannabis with Intent to Deliver – CASE DISMISSED

The Defendant was charged with Possession of Cannabis with Intent to Deliver in violation of 720 ILCS 550/5(d). The Defendant hired Chicago Criminal Defense Attorney Michael P. Schmiege to represent him. Mr. Schmiege filed a Motion to Quash Arrest and Suppress Evidence stating that the manner in which the vehicle was stopped was illegal. The evidence was suppressed and as a result of the evidence being suppressed the State's Attorney was forced to DISMISS the case and the Defendant went home a free man without a 5 year prison sentence hanging over his head.

Bar Admissions:
Illinois, 2005
7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
U.S. District Court
Northern District of Illinois
Southern District of Ohio
Southern District of Texas

Year of Birth: 1977

Additional languages spoken:
Spanish

Law School: The John Marshall Law School, J.D., 2005

Law School Honors/Involvement: Trial Advocacy Team

Undergraduate School: Villanova University, B.A., Liberal Arts and Sciences/Liberal Studies, 1999

Employment History:
Law Offices of Michael P. Schmiege, 2006 – present
Acosta, Batovski & Schmiege
Kane & Fischer (securities litigation and NASD complaints and disputes)

During law school:
Cook County State's Attorney's Office, clerk, Felony Trial Division
Mora, Baugh, Waitzman & Unger, clerk, handling NASD complaints and disputes

Awards; Honors; Distinctions:
Super Lawyers^® Rising Stars℠ lists, 2009-2016
Emerging Lawyers, 2015-present

Michael Schmiege

Find Featured Recipients

Attorney Acceptance Form

Attorney Login

Michael Schmiege

Login

Sign up for