Chicago Child Pornography Defense Lawyer
Let Our Sex Crime Attorney Protect Your Rights
Sex crimes can lead to excessive fines, time in prison, and damage to your reputation when you register as a sex offender. Of all sex crimes, child pornography charges are associated with the most negative stigma. Upon hearing the words, it can result in immediate prejudice and animosity before the accused has the opportunity to defend themselves.
At the Law Office of Steven Fine, we know many such arrests could be the mistake of someone else’s wrongful act or could occur because the subject of the materials was assumed to be 18 years of age or older. Since the severity of such a charge carries such harsh connotations, it’s imperative that you seek highly experienced legal representation.
Understanding Child Pornography Charges in Illinois
According to Illinois criminal code 720 ILCS 5/11-20.1, child pornography is defined as materials involving the visual image of children under the age of 18, who are engaging in sexual activity, the simulation of sexual activity, or any other kind of sexual behavior meant to arouse the viewer.
Due to the various media outlets available, child pornography charges may derive from a wide array of scenarios:
- Distribution or sale of child pornography in person, mail, or online
- Downloading photographs from a website, e-mail, or online
- Possession of hard copy photographs
- Possession of photographs which were saved to a computer hard drive
- Producing child pornography, such as photographs or videos
- Soliciting or sending sexual photographs with a minor
Child pornography is considered a Class 1 felony, including a possible prison sentence of four to 15 years; although, the sentence may increase depending on the circumstances.
Defending Against Child Pornography Charges
Being accused of child pornography is a serious and complex legal matter that requires the expertise of a skilled defense attorney. At Law Office of Steven Fine, our Chicago child pornography defense lawyer has extensive experience in defending clients facing these charges. We understand the sensitive nature of these cases and are committed to protecting your rights and providing you with a strong legal defense.
When facing child pornography charges, it is crucial to have a knowledgeable attorney who can:
- Thoroughly investigate the allegations against you
- Challenge the evidence presented by the prosecution
- Protect your constitutional rights throughout the legal process
- Negotiate for reduced charges or alternative sentencing options
Call Our Chicago Child Pornography Defense Lawyer
With over two decades of criminal law experience, our attorney has a thorough understanding of the law and how to protect your rights. Don’t let these child pornography charges ruin your life, do not hesitate to contact our child pornography defense lawyer and get the help you need.
Our Chicago child pornography lawyers are available 24/7, so call us for a free, confidential, case evaluation.
Testimonials
-
I hired Mr. Fine and never felt so lucky to have him represent me
- EMT -
I can honestly say he is a great criminal lawyer that tries his hardest to beat cases. I was fighting a criminal case for a year & the outcome was great. Steven fine was A+ on my case. I recommend Steve fine as a great criminal lawyer.
- Michelle Ball -
If you are serious about your case then give this guy a chance to defend you!!!
- David H. -
He would help you with all he can and I guarantee you that you'll be happy and satisfied with the final results. I highly recommend him.
- A. E. -
STEVEN FINE is a great lawyer and I would recommend him to anyone who is looking for a good lawyer!!! In a bind call Steven Fine!!!
- Chris J.
Case Results
-
Dismissed People v CR
-
Dismissed People v DG
-
Defendant was found not guilty of all charges. People v EA
-
The defendant was found not guilty of murder. People v MC
-
Defendant was found not guilty of all charges. People v JV
-
The defendant was found not guilty at trial. People v RG
-
The case was dismissed. People v SB
-
The defendant was found not guilty of the charge People v QH