The Illinois Supreme Court handed down five opinions on Thursday, December 3. They included opinions in two criminal cases and three civil cases.

In People v. Reed, the court answered the question of whether a guilty plea prevents a defendant from later asserting an actual innocence claim under the Post-Conviction Hearing Act. In People v. Knapp, the court considered a case in which the defendant, after his attempted murder conviction was affirmed on appeal, filed a post-conviction petition that alleged that his waiver of his right to testify was neither knowingly nor voluntarily made.

In State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Elmore, the court considered the meaning and enforceability of a “mechanical device” exclusion in an automobile insurance policy that covered a grain truck used in a grain farming operation. In Gillespie v. Edmier, the court agreed that the defendant manufacturer was not entitled to summary judgment on the plaintiff’s strict product liability claims. In People ex rel. Lisa Madigan v. Stateline Recycling, LLC, the court reviewed a contempt order and remanded a case involving a civil enforcement action brought by the Attorney General under the Illinois Environmental Protection Act.

The U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Illinois is seeking experienced, highly qualified attorneys for litigation and trial advocacy, with the intellect and proven ability to handle federal criminal prosecutions as an Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA) in their Criminal Division in the Fairview Heights Office.

The Illinois Supreme Court has announced the amendment of Rule 21, which grants chief circuit judges the administrative authority to direct judges into a voluntary program to address certain types of judicial conduct.

The Committee Comments to the Rule were also updated. All changes are effective January 1, 2021.

Perhaps no one has been more outspoken regarding the importance of oral arguments in appellate courts than Illinois Supreme Court Justice Karmeier, who has reiterated the importance of providing appellate counsel an opportunity to “isolate and clarify the core issues in a case and to direct the court’s attention to matters that may have been overlooked or misunderstood.” As chief justice, he categorized the “interactive nature” between counsel and the justices as being “invaluable” to the court’s decision-making process and emphasized the importance of the interaction between the justices themselves during oral argument. Justice Karmeier also lauded oral argument as a key component to “providing public visibility and institutional legitimacy to our system of judicial review.” All of these statements came to fruition in an amendment of Illinois Supreme Court Rule 352, known affectionately by some as “Thou shalt oral,” which into effect July 1, 2018, and has had a significant impact on appellate advocacy. In her November Illinois Bar Journal article, “Oral Arguments: More and Less Remote,” Amanda Hamilton discusses the steady increase in oral arguments in Illinois appellate courts and why Illinois appellate practitioners must be prepared to present and defend their positions on complex issues at oral argument with increasing frequency.