On Jan. 21, 2022, the Illinois Supreme Court held that a prosecutor did not impermissibly shift the burden of proof to the defendant when the prosecutor said in rebuttal closing argument that the defendant could have requested evidence testing.

On Nov. 18, 2021, the Illinois Supreme Court held that if an individual is found to be a sexually dangerous person under the Sexually Dangerous Persons Act (Act), it is not necessary to make a separate and express finding that the individual is substantially probable to reoffend.

On Nov. 22, 2021, the First District of the Illinois Appellate Court found that the trial court violated the right to due process by making factual findings not based on the evidence.

The Criminal Identification Act is amended to allow any individual to file a motion to vacate and expunge a conviction for a prior class 4 felony violation of prostitution.

On Oct. 21, 2021, the Illinois Supreme Court held that a search that uncovered child pornography did not violate the Fourth Amendment.

On Oct. 21, 2021, the Illinois Supreme Court held that no per se conflict exists where defense counsel previously represented the victim of the defendant’s crime if the representation concluded before trial.

On Sept. 13, 2021, the Fifth District of the Illinois Appellate Court held that a trial court’s application of a new Illinois parole statute to an 80-year sentence is constitutionally valid.

The Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 is amended to provide for remote court hearings in certain situations.

On Aug. 11, 2021, the Fourth District of the Illinois Appellate Court affirmed a circuit court’s judgment to impose a natural-life sentence.

On July 29, 2021, the Illinois Supreme Court reversed the Third District of the Illinois Appellate Court’s grant of summary judgment on claims of malicious prosecution, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and conspiracy following the reversal of a murder charge.

Defendant was convicted after jury trial of possession of a controlled substance and possession with intent to deliver.

This Act amends the Criminal Code of 2012 and repeals the statute that creates the offense of criminal transmission of HIV.

According to the plain and ordinary meaning of section 2-702(g)(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure, a defendant who has pleaded guilty caused or brought about his or her conviction is not entitled to a certificate of innocence.

On June 11, 2021, the Fifth District of the Illinois Appellate Court held that a new trial is warranted because the state impermissibly used the defendant’s other bad acts as substantive evidence of the defendant’s guilt.

On June 3, 2021, the Second District of the Illinois Appellate Court held that a new trial is warranted because a police officer impermissibly testified to his opinion on whether a crime occurred.

On May 26, 2021, the Fifth District of the Illinois Appellate Court held that a 55-year sentence does not violate Eighth Amendment rights.

On April 15, 2021, the Illinois Supreme Court held that a trial court may summarily dismiss a postconviction petition for lack of standing.

On March 31, 2021, the First District of the Illinois Appellate Court vacated a 19-year-old’s 50-year sentence on a first-degree murder conviction when the defendant did not fire the murder weapon and had a traumatic childhood.

On March 18, 2021, the Illinois Supreme Court ruled that admonishment requirements under 725 ILCS 5/113-4(c) apply only when a defendant pleads guilty at arraignment.

On Feb. 11, 2021, the First District of the Illinois Appellate Court dismissed a successive postconviction petition raising a due-process violation on fitness grounds because the defendant neither raised the claim earlier nor showed cause for such failure.

On Feb. 16, 2021, the Second District of the Illinois Appellate Court held that statements made in response to questions by a 911 operator can still be spontaneous enough to qualify for the excited-utterance exception to the hearsay rule.

On Jan. 7, 2021, the Fourth District of the Illinois Appellate Court invalidated a Miranda waiver by a defendant with an intellectual disability who at one point raised his wish for a lawyer.

On Dec. 31, 2020, the First District of the Illinois Appellate Court held that a defendant’s intellectual disability alone does not nullify his voluntary jury waiver.