Address: 4037 West 26th Street, Chicago, IL 60623
Lawyer Firm: Herrera Law Group
|Areas of Practice||Criminal Law, DUI, Traffic, Immigration & Naturalization Law, Personal Injury — Plaintiff, Civil Rights|
Attorney Ruben Herrera was raised by parents who immigrated from Durango, Mexico and moved into the Chicago South Lawndale neighborhood known as “La Villita” or “Little Village” in the early 1980s. As a lifelong resident in Little Village, Mr. Herrera is proud to continue to serve the community as a Criminal Defense and Traffic attorney. Recently, he formed the Herrera Law Group and expanded his legal practice into the areas of personal injury, civil rights and immigration law. Mr. Herrera graduated from Curie High School in Chicago’s southwest side and earned his Bachelor of Arts in Communications at Roosevelt University, where he graduated in the University’s Scholars Program in 2003. As a college student, Mr. Herrera held a variety of positions. He was an intern at The Pilsen-Little Village Information Center, where he informed small business owners of Federal Empowerment Zone benefits and helped them write grant proposals. In addition, Mr. Herrera was a contributing writer for The North Lawndale Community News, where he wrote about the issues of housing, economic development, and crime in Lawndale. In addition, Mr. Herrera spent several summers as an intern for Metra Railroad’s Personnel Department, where he organized orientation for incoming federal employees. He was also a tutor at Roosevelt University for three years on the subjects of English, Political Science and Spanish. Mr. Herrera earned his juris doctor from The John Marshall Law School in 2007. As a law school student, Mr. Herrera was a law clerk in the Narcotics Division of The Cook County Public Defender’s Office. Mr. Herrera helped litigate Class X drug cases in both jury and bench trials for indigent defendants. Mr. Herrera also prepared for several motions, interviewed clients, and researched criminal laws. Even as a student, Mr. Herrera’s supervising attorneys expressed great confidence in him, thus, his first two trials were jury trials, where he delivered opening statements, as well as cross-examined the officer. During law school, Mr. Herrera was a member of the International Law School Society and the Latino Law School Association, an organization that seeks to bolster and sustain the number of Latinos in law school through education, workshops, and student aid. Mr. Herrera joined a criminal defense firm in February 2008 shortly after graduating from law school. He handled all stages of criminal proceedings and won several trials and motions. He also became familiar with several courthouses and developed a reputation for never believing a case was too small or insignificant. Mr. Herrera has won dozens of cases through trials, motions and hearings. In 2012, he started the Herrera Law Group on the commitment to serve and defend the rights of indigent, poor and working class citizens throughout Cook, DuPage, and Will County. The Herrera Law Group hopes to expand access to legal services and provide a quality legal representation. All consultations are free.
PRIOR CASES INCLUDE:People vs. A.H.The Defendant was charged with Theft and alleged to have possessed several stolen University of Chicago laptop computers, which he sold online. Having not had any prior convictions, the Defendant wanted to maintain a clean record. At trial, Chicago Criminal Defense Attorney Ruben Herrera made opening statements that the prosecution would fail to prove that the Defendant had knowledge that the computers were stolen and mere possession of stolen goods is insufficient evidence. For the Prosecution, a University of Chicago Police officer and a Detective testified that the laptops had “U of C property” listed on the computer, and they found the computers at the Defendant’s home. However, Mr. Herrera argued that surveillance never captured the theft of the computers, the Defendant never admitted to having knowledge of any theft, and the Defendant’s consent to a search of his home demonstrated that he did not believe the computers were stolen. The Judge agreed and found the Defendant NOT GUILTY!
People vs. G.G and J.S. (Co-Defendants)The Co-Defendants were charged with Battery and alleged to have hit the victim with bottles and sticks in front of the victim’s front porch. One Defendant was on Probation for Burglary and was taken into custody for violating his probation based on the Battery charge. As a result, the Defendant sought immediate representation. Chicago Defense Attorney Ruben Herrera went to visit the Defendant at the Cook County Jail and learned his side of the story. There was an alibi defense, and the Defendant wanted to get out of prison as soon as possible. Attorney Herrera met with other witnesses and answered ready for trial on the Defendant’s first court date. The prosecution presented four witnesses who were part of a “party crew” and present at the scene. Mr. Herrera highlighted the inconsistent versions of the witnesses. After noting that the prosecution witnesses were part of a rival “party crew” who disliked the Defendants, the Judge agreed with Mr. Herrera that there was insufficient evidence and granted his motion for directed finding. Both Defendants were NOT GUILTY!
People vs. J.B: The defendant was alleged to have committed Domestic Battery against her young teenage daughter by hitting her with a meat tenderizer throughout her body. She had no criminal background, a full-time job working security and was in the more advanced stages of becoming a Chicago Police Officer. She would lose her security job is she was found guilty and her dream of become a police officer could suffer as well. Both of the defendant’s teenage daughters testified against her. The doctor who treated the alleged victim also testified. However, at trial, Mr. Herrera cross-examined the young girls and the doctor. The cross-examination revealed that the alleged victim had previously misled DCFS in a separate investigation in order to satisfy the wishes of her father, who had separated from the defendant and wanted full custody rights to the children. Mr. Herrera subsequently called the father, who disliked the defendant, as a witness. The judge found him to be very biased and capable of manipulating the minds of both young girls for his own benefit. After a six witness bench trial, the Judge found the State could not meet their burden and found the defendant NOT GUILTY!
People vs R.P.The jury returned a verdict of not guilty on charges of Unlawful Use of a Weapon. Two police officers testified that they approached a van and saw the defendant, a passenger, take a gun out of his waistband and drop it. In closing arguments, Mr. Herrera argued that the officers’ testimony was inconsistent because they approached the van at the same time yet saw the defendant reach into his waistband at completely different times. After pointing out that the officers’ version was not consistent, the jury returned a verdict of NOT GUILTY!
People vs J.C.The defendant was found not guilty of battery against his wife, who testified that the defendant struck her and scratched her several times at her front door with her young son and brother present. Mr. Herrera began the bench trial with opening statements: He told the judge that the defendant was simply there to pick up his son when his wife claimed a battery because she desired to obtain a divorce and more financial support from the defendant in exchange for visitation. On cross-examination, Mr. Herrera also questioned her dislike of the defendant and her brother’s failure to help her during an alleged battery. The judge did not find her credible and entered a finding of NOT GUILTY!
People vs. A.WThe defendant was alleged to have been smoking cannabis in her vehicle while smoke emanated from the window. On a motion to suppress evidence, the judge ruled that there was no probable cause since Mr. Herrera impeached the officers by not allowing them to deviate from their arrest reports. After the police officers, passenger, and defendant testified, the judge found no probable cause and suppressed the cannabis found on the defendant’s person during the illegal search. CASE DISMISSED!
People vs. O.R.The defendant, who had prior DUI arrest, was charged with Driving on a Revoked License. On a Motion to Quash Arrest and Suppress Evidence, Mr. Herrera argued that the evidence could not establish that the defendant was driving since he was in his own private drive way when the police arrived, he was never seen on a public highway, and that the drive way was not publicly maintained, as required by statute. The judge granted the motion. CASE DISMISSED!
Other lawyers in Chicago, Illinois
- Riess, Sarah L. - 0 views
- Sutter, Mark P. - 7 views
- Bour, Sara M. - 8 views
- D’Agostino, Anthony S. - 0 views
- Phalen, Stephen S. - 3 views
- Casciari, Marie E. - 8 views
- Gruszeczki, Michael R. - 1 views
- Teichner, Leon J. - 5 views
- Topolewski, Jon - 14 views
- Kumor, John Esq. - 13 views
Popular lawyers in Chicago, Illinois
- Chessick, Kenneth C. M.D. - 19 views
- Vainikos, Jim M. - 13 views
- Sullivan, Terry - 13 views
- Lerum, Catherine Eleanor - 21 views
- Fowler, Philip J. - 23 views
- Pocari, Flavia - 13 views
- Citino, Maria A. - 13 views
- Alasauskas, Amanda J. - 14 views
- Hill, Jennifer M. - 18 views
- Perl, Allen R. - 18 views