The Illinois General Assembly amended the Criminal Code of 2012. The amendment bans the sale, offer, or transfer of an unserialized, unfinished frame, receiver, or firearm unless the purchaser is a qualifying federal entity.
On April 25, 2022, the First District of the Illinois Appellate Court held that a trial court is required to have an evidentiary hearing upon referral from the Illinois Torture Inquiry and Relief Commission (TIRC) unless it is against the manifest weight of the evidence.
Comparing the Illinois Pretrial Fairness Act, which eliminates the use of cash bail in Illinois, with the federal Bail Reform Act, which abolished cash bail in the federal criminal system in 1984.
The Privacy of Child Victims of Criminal Sexual Offenses Act is amended to exclude the identity of a child victim of a criminal sexual offense from law enforcement and circuit court records. A select few specific individuals may be exempt.
On Feb. 24, 2022, the Third District of the Illinois Appellate Court held that a charging instrument failed to give sufficient notice for the preparation of a defense when the charging document failed to identify who the defendant allegedly contacted in violation of a no-contact order.
On Feb. 2, 2022, the First District of the Illinois Appellate Court reversed and remanded a trial court’s finding involving three separate convictions with instructions to merge the offenses after a one-act, one-crime rule violation.
The Code of Criminal Procedure is amended to afford persons in police custody three telephone calls free of charge. No later than three hours after arriving at the first place of detention, the detainee must be given access to a telephone to make three phone calls.
On Jan. 21, 2022, the Illinois Supreme Court held that counsel must strictly comply with Rule 604(d) and overruled its 2019 decision in People v. Peltz.
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 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.
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.
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.
Cocaine is not defined the same way under Illinois and federal law. An analysis of the impact of United States v. Ruth on federal drug sentencing enhancements.
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.
