Practice Areas
Federal & State
Federal & State
Practice Areas
Appeals
Marc Martin has vast experience in appellate litigation. He has been preparing briefs and orally arguing cases ever since he became a lawyer in 1987. Marc Martin has handled appeals in the Illinois Appellate Court, including in the First, Second, Third and Fourth Districts. He regularly handles appeals in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
Trial Work
Marc Martin has represented individuals in all types of criminal cases in State court, from misdemeanors (e.g., theft, battery, assault, domestic violence, marijuana possession) to felonies (e.g., arson, drug trafficking, official misconduct, aggravated battery, pornography, sex, narcotics possession, criminal medical neglect, weapons, attempt murder, manslaughter and first-degree murder offenses).
Marc Martin also has a knack for jury selection. While he has worked with “jury selection” experts in the past, he prefers to rely upon his own instincts when selecting juries. The success of Marc Martin’s efforts is evidenced by cases in which the juries have returned not guilty verdicts. In addition, Marc Martin has experience in cases in which the courts have used jury questionnaires during jury selection.
Both “white collar” and “blue collar” cases are brought in Federal court. Marc Martin has also represented individuals in all types of criminal cases in Federal court, (e.g., RICO, mail fraud, wire fraud, bankruptcy fraud, health care fraud (Medicare/Medicaid), money laundering, structuring, bribery, obstruction of justice, perjury, theft of government funds, 666, bribery, extortion, tax, securities, drug distribution, conspiracy, political corruption, Social Security, mortgage and weapons offenses).
Sometimes a federal prosecution begins with the government seeking to detain the defendant without bond. Marc Martin has experience litigating matters under the Bail Reform Act.
Marc Martin has appeared in United States District Court for the Northern, Central and Southern Districts of Illinois, as well as in district courts in Indiana and Wisconsin. The majority of his cases have been in the Northern District of Illinois in Chicago, Illinois.
Motion Practice
Before a case ever gets to trial in either State or Federal court, the file must be thoroughly analyzed to determine whether any pretrial motions should be brought. Marc Martin has expertise in the preparation and filing of a wide variety of pretrial motions, having earned the nickname “Motion” early in his career.
Motions may be “boilerplate” motions, which are routine or form motions. Motions also may be substantive in nature, directed at the unique aspects of the case. What motions may be brought depend on the legal expertise and creativity of the lawyer and the facts of the case.
Examples of some pretrial motions are as follows:
Motions to Dismiss or Strike
A motion to dismiss may be brought when there is irregularity in the manner in which the prosecution has obtained the charges. Perhaps there are issues relating to the grand jury. The prosecution theory may be legally invalid. Even accepting the allegations in the indictment, it may not state an offense. There may be multiple conspiracy, multiplicity (single offense alleged across multiple counts) or duplicity problems (charging more than one crime in a single count) with an indictment. Or, the indictment may contain prejudicial surplusage/information that needs to be stricken.
Motions to Suppress Evidence
If your case involves a search or seizure, then it must be analyzed to determine if the police or agents complied with the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Such motions involve presentation of a legal theory to the court, and, sometimes, an evidentiary hearing. A grant of such a motion my result in dismissal of the charges, or, limitation of the prosecution’s case.
Motions to Suppress Statements
If your case involves an alleged statement or confession, then it must be analyzed to determine if the police or agents complied with the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Such motions involve presentation of a legal theory to the court, and, sometimes, an evidentiary hearing. A grant of such a motion my result in dismissal of the charges, or, limitation of the prosecution’s case.
Motions for Severance
Federal prosecutors are known for including many individuals in a single indictment. Depending on the circumstances of the case, a joint trial with multiple defendants or unrelated counts may be prejudicial, or on the basis of a legally invalid theory. Relief from being tried in a single trial is obtained by way of a severance motion.
Non-Routine Discovery Motions
In State court, discovery (e.g., police reports, grand jury testimony, witness statements, witness lists) is fairly routine. In Federal court, however, there are stringent limitations to access to discovery in criminal cases. Thus, to prepare a case for trial as effectively as possible, written motions seeking discovery sometimes must be brought in Federal criminal cases.
Motions in Limine
As a case approaches trial, and while a case is on trial, the prosecution will often seek to introduce irrelevant, legally inadmissible or unduly prejudicial evidence. Defense opposition to this often comes in the form of a written motion in limine.
Wiretaps
A large number of state and criminal cases involve audio recordings. In Federal court, the government will often seek permission to wiretap telephone or places of business under Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control Act of 1968. This is a complicated statute under which a defendant has broader rights than the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Marc Martin is no stranger to challenging government eavesdropping efforts by preparing a written motion to suppress.
Forensic Audio
Defense Use of Recordings in Court
A large number of state and criminal cases involve audio recordings. Many times, wiretap recordings, or recordings made by an informant, are difficult to hear because they were poorly recorded. What the prosecution says is on the recording may not be what was in fact said. Or, there may be an issue with the identity of the actual speakers.
Marc Martin is experienced in working with audio recordings in the forensic context. He spends free time playing and recording music. www.lostimestudio.com He is a co-author of an article (Click Here for PDF) about the use of audio recordings in criminal cases.
More important, Marc Martin has access to professional digital and analog audio recording ipment necessary to enhance audio recordings or present them in court. Examples of forensic audio work presented in court are:
In R. Kelly’s defense, Marc Martin’s knowledge of the recording industry assisted in cross-examining a recording studio employee, as well as the presentation of an expert witness who testified about the poor fidelity of the audio/video recording that was the centerpiece of the state case. This expert testified about how audio or videotapes can be forged.
In the so-called “Family Secrets” case, pretrial preparation showed that a person a government witness claimed had participated in a murder, was at home talking on a telephone that had been “bugged” by the FBI. Marc Martin assembled a recording of this person repeatedly talking on the phone throughout the day of the murders and admitted it into evidence.
In another trial, there was an issue of whether an informant had actually paid the defendant a bribe. In conjunction with a professional recording studio, Marc Martin assembled a “looped” recording that showed that, on every instance in which the informant had paid money, he counted the bills, but, on the instance in question, the informant failed to count any bills.
Investigations
Both targets and witnesses in federal grand jury, police and government agency investigations often are in need of representation. Marc Martin has represented individuals and corporate employees in the context of such investigations. A successful result in such a situation is a decision not to bring charges. Unlike trials and appeals, investigations are rarely in the public domain. Investigations usually do not result in a public court proceeding or a reported court case.
Guilty Plea Negotiations
Any criminal defense lawyer who claims to have “won” every case is probably lying to you. In some cases, a client’s interests are best served by a guilty plea. In such a case, the goal is to attain reduced charges or most lenient sentence possible. Guilty pleas typically require negotiation with prosecutors.
Sentencings
Marc Martin has experience in sentencing matters. Sentencings require the presentation of a strong mitigation case to the judge.
Sentencings in federal court are complicated by the need to address the United States Sentencing Guidelines, which are advisory after United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), but still important. Marc Martin has been handling “guidelines” cases since the inception of the guidelines. A sentencing in Federal court often involves the filing of written objections to the pre-sentence investigation report prepared by the probation officer, and/or a written sentencing memorandum. A defendant also has the right to appeal unfavorable sentencing guidelines rulings. Marc Martin has handled appeals raising issues under the sentencing guidelines.
Certiorari Proceedings
At the conclusion of an appeal, a litigant has the right to file a petition for a writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court in Washington, D.C.. Such a petition should raise important issues of constitutional or federal law. Marc Martin has experience preparing such petitions. Grants of such petitions have resulted in clients having their sentences vacated. Presently, the United States Supreme is considering a case (being handled by other lawyers) in which Marc Martin prepared the district court pleadings and assisted in the appellate arguments forming the basis of arguments.
Sometimes following a successful appeal, the prosecution will petition the United States Supreme Court for certiorari. Opposition to such petitions is important to preserve the victory. Additionally, a government petition for certiorari has a greater chance of being accepted by the Supreme Court. Marc Martin has experience successfully opposing such requests.
First Ammendment
In high profile cases, the media sometimes intervenes in an attempt to gain access to confidential or non-public information on First Amendment grounds. In such cases, a client’s rights and interests may conflict with those of the media. In other cases, a reporter may be the source of information that is important to the defense. Courts may consider the reporter’s sources confidential, and it is not easily attainable. Marc Martin has experience dealing with these types of matters.
Post Conviction and Habeas Corpus Petitions
Following the exhaustion of a direct appeal of a felony conviction in State court, a defendant has the right to bring a post-conviction in State court. Such a petition must be based on constitutional issues that were not previously raised. Following the completion of a direct appeal in Federal court, or the exhaustion of State remedies, a person has the right to bring a “2255” petition or a habeas corpus petition usually based on constitutional issues. While these petitions are usually long-shots, and must be based on viable issues, they require the preparation of a written petitions and briefs. Marc Martin has experience preparing these types of petitions, but will handle select cases in this area.
Civil & Criminal Asset Forfeiture
In recent years, law enforcement has often turned to asset forfeiture. Marc Martin has handled civil and criminal asset forfeiture cases in a variety of contexts.
Professional Discipline
Marc Martin has experience representing attorneys in matters before the Illinois’ Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission (“A.R.D.C.”), as well as judges in matters before the Judicial Inquiry Board (“J.I.B.”) and the Illinois Courts Commission. The goal in such cases is for closure/dismissal without any public proceeding.
Marc Martin has vast experience in appellate litigation. He has been preparing briefs and orally arguing cases ever since he became a lawyer in 1987. Marc Martin has handled appeals in the Illinois Appellate Court, including in the First, Second, Third and Fourth Districts. He regularly handles appeals in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
Trial Work
Marc Martin has represented individuals in all types of criminal cases in State court, from misdemeanors (e.g., theft, battery, assault, domestic violence, marijuana possession) to felonies (e.g., arson, drug trafficking, official misconduct, aggravated battery, pornography, sex, narcotics possession, criminal medical neglect, weapons, attempt murder, manslaughter and first-degree murder offenses).
Marc Martin also has a knack for jury selection. While he has worked with “jury selection” experts in the past, he prefers to rely upon his own instincts when selecting juries. The success of Marc Martin’s efforts is evidenced by cases in which the juries have returned not guilty verdicts. In addition, Marc Martin has experience in cases in which the courts have used jury questionnaires during jury selection.
Both “white collar” and “blue collar” cases are brought in Federal court. Marc Martin has also represented individuals in all types of criminal cases in Federal court, (e.g., RICO, mail fraud, wire fraud, bankruptcy fraud, health care fraud (Medicare/Medicaid), money laundering, structuring, bribery, obstruction of justice, perjury, theft of government funds, 666, bribery, extortion, tax, securities, drug distribution, conspiracy, political corruption, Social Security, mortgage and weapons offenses).
Sometimes a federal prosecution begins with the government seeking to detain the defendant without bond. Marc Martin has experience litigating matters under the Bail Reform Act.
Marc Martin has appeared in United States District Court for the Northern, Central and Southern Districts of Illinois, as well as in district courts in Indiana and Wisconsin. The majority of his cases have been in the Northern District of Illinois in Chicago, Illinois.
Motion Practice
Before a case ever gets to trial in either State or Federal court, the file must be thoroughly analyzed to determine whether any pretrial motions should be brought. Marc Martin has expertise in the preparation and filing of a wide variety of pretrial motions, having earned the nickname “Motion” early in his career.
Motions may be “boilerplate” motions, which are routine or form motions. Motions also may be substantive in nature, directed at the unique aspects of the case. What motions may be brought depend on the legal expertise and creativity of the lawyer and the facts of the case.
Examples of some pretrial motions are as follows:
Motions to Dismiss or Strike
A motion to dismiss may be brought when there is irregularity in the manner in which the prosecution has obtained the charges. Perhaps there are issues relating to the grand jury. The prosecution theory may be legally invalid. Even accepting the allegations in the indictment, it may not state an offense. There may be multiple conspiracy, multiplicity (single offense alleged across multiple counts) or duplicity problems (charging more than one crime in a single count) with an indictment. Or, the indictment may contain prejudicial surplusage/information that needs to be stricken.
Motions to Suppress Evidence
If your case involves a search or seizure, then it must be analyzed to determine if the police or agents complied with the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Such motions involve presentation of a legal theory to the court, and, sometimes, an evidentiary hearing. A grant of such a motion my result in dismissal of the charges, or, limitation of the prosecution’s case.
Motions to Suppress Statements
If your case involves an alleged statement or confession, then it must be analyzed to determine if the police or agents complied with the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Such motions involve presentation of a legal theory to the court, and, sometimes, an evidentiary hearing. A grant of such a motion my result in dismissal of the charges, or, limitation of the prosecution’s case.
Motions for Severance
Federal prosecutors are known for including many individuals in a single indictment. Depending on the circumstances of the case, a joint trial with multiple defendants or unrelated counts may be prejudicial, or on the basis of a legally invalid theory. Relief from being tried in a single trial is obtained by way of a severance motion.
Non-Routine Discovery Motions
In State court, discovery (e.g., police reports, grand jury testimony, witness statements, witness lists) is fairly routine. In Federal court, however, there are stringent limitations to access to discovery in criminal cases. Thus, to prepare a case for trial as effectively as possible, written motions seeking discovery sometimes must be brought in Federal criminal cases.
Motions in Limine
As a case approaches trial, and while a case is on trial, the prosecution will often seek to introduce irrelevant, legally inadmissible or unduly prejudicial evidence. Defense opposition to this often comes in the form of a written motion in limine.
Wiretaps
A large number of state and criminal cases involve audio recordings. In Federal court, the government will often seek permission to wiretap telephone or places of business under Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control Act of 1968. This is a complicated statute under which a defendant has broader rights than the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Marc Martin is no stranger to challenging government eavesdropping efforts by preparing a written motion to suppress.
Forensic Audio
Defense Use of Recordings in Court
A large number of state and criminal cases involve audio recordings. Many times, wiretap recordings, or recordings made by an informant, are difficult to hear because they were poorly recorded. What the prosecution says is on the recording may not be what was in fact said. Or, there may be an issue with the identity of the actual speakers.
Marc Martin is experienced in working with audio recordings in the forensic context. He spends free time playing and recording music. www.lostimestudio.com He is a co-author of an article (Click Here for PDF) about the use of audio recordings in criminal cases.
More important, Marc Martin has access to professional digital and analog audio recording ipment necessary to enhance audio recordings or present them in court. Examples of forensic audio work presented in court are:
In R. Kelly’s defense, Marc Martin’s knowledge of the recording industry assisted in cross-examining a recording studio employee, as well as the presentation of an expert witness who testified about the poor fidelity of the audio/video recording that was the centerpiece of the state case. This expert testified about how audio or videotapes can be forged.
In the so-called “Family Secrets” case, pretrial preparation showed that a person a government witness claimed had participated in a murder, was at home talking on a telephone that had been “bugged” by the FBI. Marc Martin assembled a recording of this person repeatedly talking on the phone throughout the day of the murders and admitted it into evidence.
In another trial, there was an issue of whether an informant had actually paid the defendant a bribe. In conjunction with a professional recording studio, Marc Martin assembled a “looped” recording that showed that, on every instance in which the informant had paid money, he counted the bills, but, on the instance in question, the informant failed to count any bills.
Investigations
Both targets and witnesses in federal grand jury, police and government agency investigations often are in need of representation. Marc Martin has represented individuals and corporate employees in the context of such investigations. A successful result in such a situation is a decision not to bring charges. Unlike trials and appeals, investigations are rarely in the public domain. Investigations usually do not result in a public court proceeding or a reported court case.
Guilty Plea Negotiations
Any criminal defense lawyer who claims to have “won” every case is probably lying to you. In some cases, a client’s interests are best served by a guilty plea. In such a case, the goal is to attain reduced charges or most lenient sentence possible. Guilty pleas typically require negotiation with prosecutors.
Sentencings
Marc Martin has experience in sentencing matters. Sentencings require the presentation of a strong mitigation case to the judge.
Sentencings in federal court are complicated by the need to address the United States Sentencing Guidelines, which are advisory after United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), but still important. Marc Martin has been handling “guidelines” cases since the inception of the guidelines. A sentencing in Federal court often involves the filing of written objections to the pre-sentence investigation report prepared by the probation officer, and/or a written sentencing memorandum. A defendant also has the right to appeal unfavorable sentencing guidelines rulings. Marc Martin has handled appeals raising issues under the sentencing guidelines.
Certiorari Proceedings
At the conclusion of an appeal, a litigant has the right to file a petition for a writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court in Washington, D.C.. Such a petition should raise important issues of constitutional or federal law. Marc Martin has experience preparing such petitions. Grants of such petitions have resulted in clients having their sentences vacated. Presently, the United States Supreme is considering a case (being handled by other lawyers) in which Marc Martin prepared the district court pleadings and assisted in the appellate arguments forming the basis of arguments.
Sometimes following a successful appeal, the prosecution will petition the United States Supreme Court for certiorari. Opposition to such petitions is important to preserve the victory. Additionally, a government petition for certiorari has a greater chance of being accepted by the Supreme Court. Marc Martin has experience successfully opposing such requests.
First Ammendment
In high profile cases, the media sometimes intervenes in an attempt to gain access to confidential or non-public information on First Amendment grounds. In such cases, a client’s rights and interests may conflict with those of the media. In other cases, a reporter may be the source of information that is important to the defense. Courts may consider the reporter’s sources confidential, and it is not easily attainable. Marc Martin has experience dealing with these types of matters.
Post Conviction and Habeas Corpus Petitions
Following the exhaustion of a direct appeal of a felony conviction in State court, a defendant has the right to bring a post-conviction in State court. Such a petition must be based on constitutional issues that were not previously raised. Following the completion of a direct appeal in Federal court, or the exhaustion of State remedies, a person has the right to bring a “2255” petition or a habeas corpus petition usually based on constitutional issues. While these petitions are usually long-shots, and must be based on viable issues, they require the preparation of a written petitions and briefs. Marc Martin has experience preparing these types of petitions, but will handle select cases in this area.
Civil & Criminal Asset Forfeiture
In recent years, law enforcement has often turned to asset forfeiture. Marc Martin has handled civil and criminal asset forfeiture cases in a variety of contexts.
Professional Discipline
Marc Martin has experience representing attorneys in matters before the Illinois’ Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission (“A.R.D.C.”), as well as judges in matters before the Judicial Inquiry Board (“J.I.B.”) and the Illinois Courts Commission. The goal in such cases is for closure/dismissal without any public proceeding.
Marc Martin, Ltd.
53 W. Jackson Blvd.
Suite 1420
Chicago, IL 60604
(312) 408-1111
53 W. Jackson Blvd.
Suite 1420
Chicago, IL 60604
(312) 408-1111
The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. You should always consult an attorney for individual advice regarding all legal matters.
• Appeals
• Trials
• Wiretaps
Testimonials
“The finest appellate lawyer, Federal and State, in the State of Illinois.”
Edward. M. Genson, Dean of the defense bar in Chicago.
“It is such a pleasure to be on trial with Marc Martin. His knowledge of the law is a great comfort to his co-counsel. He has a natural ability to target the issues at hand in any case and he pursues those issues with tenacity.” Thomas M. Breen, highly esteemed trial lawyer with whom Marc Martin has tried cases.
“Marc Martin is the criminal defense expert most other criminal defense lawyers turn to when they want the very best for their clients. Judge Maher, the only judge acquitted in the Greylord investigation, would have spent his last days in the federal penitentiary if he had had any lawyer other than Marc Martin.” Sam Adam, reknowned Chicago defense attorney, legal scholar and co-counsel in Maher case.
“Because of Marc Martin's relentless pursuit for justice, Dickie and Clemie Messino were released in 2003 after receiving life sentences in the United States District Court. I was Dickie’s trial lawyer after Marc had the convictions reversed. Marc devoted 13 years of his life to free the Messino’s.”
Joseph R. Lopez, colorful and effective Chicago trial lawyer with whom Marc Martin has tried cases and argued appeals.
“Marc is the rare lawyer that excels at both writing motions and trying cases. He is sought after for the most serious trials by those in the most serious trouble.” Damon Cheronis, a rising star in Chicago’s criminal defense bar.
“My relationship with Marc Martin dates back over 20 years and if it wasn’t for his dedicated and relentless personality in pursuing what he believes to be the letter of the law and what is Justice and what is blatant injustice, I would have spent many, many, more years in the Federal B.O.P. system than I did.” Dick Messino, client of “Shake Rattle and Run” race-car fame.
“I’ve got the best lawyers in the world.”
Jim Phelan, client following acquittal in trial where he was represented by Edward Genson and Marc Martin.
“I thank God for putting Marc Martin in my path. He is a righteous and honest person.”
Joe Velasquez, client
“Words cannot express how grateful I am to you.”
Letter from client following successful litigation.
“The finest appellate lawyer, Federal and State, in the State of Illinois.”
Edward. M. Genson, Dean of the defense bar in Chicago.
“It is such a pleasure to be on trial with Marc Martin. His knowledge of the law is a great comfort to his co-counsel. He has a natural ability to target the issues at hand in any case and he pursues those issues with tenacity.” Thomas M. Breen, highly esteemed trial lawyer with whom Marc Martin has tried cases.
“Marc Martin is the criminal defense expert most other criminal defense lawyers turn to when they want the very best for their clients. Judge Maher, the only judge acquitted in the Greylord investigation, would have spent his last days in the federal penitentiary if he had had any lawyer other than Marc Martin.” Sam Adam, reknowned Chicago defense attorney, legal scholar and co-counsel in Maher case.
“Because of Marc Martin's relentless pursuit for justice, Dickie and Clemie Messino were released in 2003 after receiving life sentences in the United States District Court. I was Dickie’s trial lawyer after Marc had the convictions reversed. Marc devoted 13 years of his life to free the Messino’s.”
Joseph R. Lopez, colorful and effective Chicago trial lawyer with whom Marc Martin has tried cases and argued appeals.
“Marc is the rare lawyer that excels at both writing motions and trying cases. He is sought after for the most serious trials by those in the most serious trouble.” Damon Cheronis, a rising star in Chicago’s criminal defense bar.
“My relationship with Marc Martin dates back over 20 years and if it wasn’t for his dedicated and relentless personality in pursuing what he believes to be the letter of the law and what is Justice and what is blatant injustice, I would have spent many, many, more years in the Federal B.O.P. system than I did.” Dick Messino, client of “Shake Rattle and Run” race-car fame.
“I’ve got the best lawyers in the world.”
Jim Phelan, client following acquittal in trial where he was represented by Edward Genson and Marc Martin.
“I thank God for putting Marc Martin in my path. He is a righteous and honest person.”
Joe Velasquez, client
“Words cannot express how grateful I am to you.”
Letter from client following successful litigation.