Criminal Law

Silha v. ACT, Inc.

Federal 7th Circuit Court
Silha v. ACT, Inc.
Criminal Court
Standing
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 15-1083
Decision Date: 
November 18, 2015
Federal District: 
N.D. Ill., E. Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed
Dist. Ct. did not err in dismissing for lack of Article III standing plaintiffs-students’ putative class action alleging that, as part of plaintiffs taking ACT examination, defendants sold or licensed plaintiffs’ personally identifiable information (PII) to third-party educational organizations under circumstances where plaintiffs were unaware at time they consented to said disclosure of fact that defendants would be receiving $.33 per student, per buyer for said PII. Instant complaint failed to adequately plead elements of injury in fact arising out of defendants’ alleged misconduct, where there was no allegation that plaintiffs had lost anything of value as result of defendants' alleged misconduct. Fact that defendants allegedly obtained gain as result of their actions did not require different result, since: (1) standing under Article III required allegations based on plaintiffs’ losses; (2) plaintiffs had consented to sending of PII to third-parties; (3) fact that defendants received fee from third-parties did not make plaintiffs worse off; and (4) plaintiffs otherwise did not allege how defendants’ profiteering deprived them of economic value of their PII.

Crockett v. Butler

Federal 7th Circuit Court
Crockett v. Butler
Criminal Court
Habeas Corpus
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 14-2320
Decision Date: 
November 17, 2015
Federal District: 
N.D. Ill., E. Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed
Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s habeas petition challenging his murder conviction, after finding that defendant had procedurally defaulted on both issues (sufficiency of evidence and Confrontation Clause violation) contained in habeas petition, where: (1) defendant had failed to raise sufficiency of evidence issue in original direct appeal; and (2) defendant failed to appeal Illinois Appellate Court’s denial of his Confrontation Clause issue in any petition for leave to appeal to Illinois Supreme Court from Appellate Court’s original decision. Fact that defendant raised both issues in second appeal to Appellate Court following Appellate Court remand in original decision and in subsequent petition for leave to appeal to Illinois Supreme Court did not cure instant default, since: (1) Appellate Court rejected Confrontation Clause issue in second appeal based on law of the case doctrine, which effectively precluded Illinois Supreme Court from reviewing on merits Confrontation Clause issue; and (2) Appellate Court could properly find that defendant had waived sufficiency of evidence issue because he could have, but failed to raise it in his original direct appeal. Moreover, sufficiency of evidence issue was really matter of state law that could not be addressed in any federal habeas petition.

People v. Smith

People v. Smith
Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
Postconviction Petitions
Citation
Case Number: 
2015 IL App (1st) 140494
Decision Date: 
Tuesday, November 10, 2015
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co., 3d Div.
Holding: 
Reversed and remanded.
Justice: 
MASON
Defendant was convicted of first degree murder for shooting death of gang member who was playing dice with other gang members. Court erred in second stage dismissal of his postconviction petition. Defendant made a substantial showing of actual innocence where eyewitness to shooting recanted his identification of Defendant. Witness' recantation was newly discovered evidence, as Defendant could not have discovered this recantation prior to trial. This witness was the only eyewitness to identify Defendant as shooter at trial; the other two eyewitnesses both recanted their prior identifications in their trial testimony, and State produced no physical evidence linking Defendant to the crime.(FITZGERALD SMITH and PUCINSKI, concurring.)

People v. Peterson

People v. Peterson
Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
Murder
Citation
Case Number: 
2015 IL App (3d) 130157
Decision Date: 
Thursday, November 12, 2015
District: 
3d Dist.
Division/County: 
Will Co.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
CARTER
Defendant was convicted, after jury trial, of first degree murder of his 3rd ex-wife and sentenced to 38 years in prison. Evidence was sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant committed first-degree murder. Court did not err in finding that clergy privilege was inapplicable to pastor's testimony about what Defendant's 4th wife, who disappeared 3 years after 3rd ex-wife's death, had told him at her counseling session 2 months before her disappearance. Court properly found conversation was not confidential, as it was in public with at least one other person present. Court's prior ruling admitting certain statements of 2 victims under common law doctrine of FBWD (forfeiture by wrongdoing) stands as the law of the case. Use of statements was not so extremely unfair to Defendant that their admission violated Defendant's due process right to a fair trial.Court's ruling admitting testimony of a person who testified that Defendant had tried to hire him to kill 3rd ex-wife was within its discretion. Defense attorney did not have a per se conflict of interest in representing Defendant as a result of media rights contract which Defendant and defense attorney jointly co-signed and which began and ended before Defendant was indicted. Decision to call 4th ex-wife's divorce attorney was a matter of trial strategy as Defendant was seeking to discredit impression of her that pastor's testimony had given to jury, and was largely cumulative to pastor's testimony.(O'BRIEN and SCHMIDT, concurring.)

People v. Diggins

People v. Diggins
Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
Postconviction Petitions
Citation
Case Number: 
2015 IL App (3d) 130315
Decision Date: 
Thursday, November 12, 2015
District: 
3d Dist.
Division/County: 
Peoria Co.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
O'BRIEN
Petitioner was convicted, after jury trial, of 2 counts of aggravated battery with a firearm and 1 count of armed robbery for his involvement in a robbery in 1995. Postconviction petitions claim that his trial counsel was ineffective during plea negotiations, but this issue was not raised in initial postconviction pleading.Petitioner could have raised the issue in his initial pro se postconviction petition, and he failed to demonstrate cause for not doing so. Thus, court properly denied leave to file successive postconviction petition. (CARTER and LYTTON, concurring.)

People v. Moravec

People v. Moravec
Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
Sanctions
Citation
Case Number: 
2015 IL App (1st) 133869
Decision Date: 
Tuesday, November 3, 2015
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co., 2d Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
SIMON
Defendant was charged with one count of aggravated DUI. Court properly granted Defendant's motion in limine and for sanctions to limit State's proof at trial (barring testimony of officers about facts and circumstances of stop, investigation, and arrest) because State failed to produce POD (police observational device) camera video of those events, despite Defendant's timely request for videos. Sanction imposed was within bounds of court's discretion for this discovery violation. (PIERCE and HYMAN, concurring.)

U.S. v. Martin

Federal 7th Circuit Court
U.S. v. Martin
Criminal Court
Search and Seizure
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 14-3187
Decision Date: 
November 10, 2015
Federal District: 
C.D. Ill.
Holding: 
Affirmed
In prosecution on drug trafficking charge, Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s motion to suppress evidence, even though police obtained said evidence following their warrantless placement of GPS tracking device on defendant’s car, which, at time of trial, was deemed “search” for purposes of 4th Amendment under Jones, 132 S.Ct. 945. At time of placement of GPS device, Garcia (474 F.3d 994) was controlling precedent, which allowed instant officers to use GPS device to track defendant’s movements without necessity of obtaining warrant to do so. Ct. rejected defendant’s claim that officers could not use Garcia to support their actions, even though officers made no prior attempt to determine legality of placing GPS device on defendant’s car. Ct. also found that officers’ lack of subjective awareness of Garcia was irrelevant, since applicable law regarding GPS placement had been settled at time of said placement.

U.S. v. Chatman

Federal 7th Circuit Court
U.S. v. Chatman
Criminal Court
Sentencing
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 14-2519
Decision Date: 
November 9, 2015
Federal District: 
N.D. Ill., E. Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed as modified
Dist. Ct. did not err in sentencing defendant to 160-month term of incarceration on heroin distribution charge, where said sentence was based on determination that defendant had acquired 27 criminal history points, and where prosecutor claimed that defendant's criminal history contained “several” possession of controlled substance and DUI convictions. While defendant argued that he was entitled to new sentencing hearing, because prosecutor misstated extent of his criminal history since he had only two convictions each for DUI and possession of controlled substance, defendant was not entitled to new sentencing hearing, since defendant’s criminal history supported instant Category VI sentencing classification, and defendant failed to show that Dist. Ct. actually relied on govt.’s characterization of defendant’s drug possession and DUI convictions when imposing instant sentence.

In re H.L.

In re H.L.
Illinois Supreme Court
Civil Court
Guilty Pleas
Citation
Case Number: 
2015 IL 118529
Decision Date: 
Wednesday, November 4, 2015
District: 
2d Dist.
Division/County: 
DeKalb Co.
Holding: 
Appellate court reversed; remanded.
Justice: 
GARMAN
Strict compliance of Rule 604(d) does not require counsel to file his or her certificate of compliance prior to or at hearing on Defendant's postplea motion. Strict compliance requires counsel to prepare a certificate that meets the content requirements of Rule 604(d) and to file the certificate with the trial court, prior to filing of any notice of appeal. (THOMAS, KARMEIER, and THEIS, concurring; FREEMAN, KILBRIDE, and BURKE, dissenting.)

U.S. v. Harper

Federal 7th Circuit Court
U.S. v. Harper
Criminal Court
Sentencing
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 14-2701
Decision Date: 
November 6, 2015
Federal District: 
N.D. Ill., E. Div.
Holding: 
Reversed and remanded
Defendant was entitled to new sentencing hearing on her fraud conviction that stemmed from accusations that she accepted kickbacks of more than $500,000 from bus companies to which she steered transportation contracts worth $21 million. While Dist. Ct. imposed below-guidelines, 120-month term of incarceration and had articulated proper reasons for concluding that defendant’s fraud was serious crime, Dist. Ct. erred in failing to provide rationale for imposing instant sentence consecutive to unrelated sentence defendant had received from Louisiana Ct. Dist. Ct. also erred in failing to provide reasons for imposition of discretionary conditions of defendant’s supervised release and for imposing certain conditions that were not mentioned at sentencing hearing.