Criminal Law

U.S. v. Volpendesto

Federal 7th Circuit Court
U.S. v. Volpendesto
Civil Court
RICO
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 11-3022 et al. Cons.
Decision Date: 
March 24, 2014
Federal District: 
N.D. Ill., E. Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed
Record contained sufficient evidence to support defendants’ RICO conspiracy convictions stemming from scheme to carryout illegal gambling activities, as well as to commit various robberies/ burglaries. While defendants conceded that there was enough evidence to show that they conspired to commit at least two predicate crimes, they also contended that there was no proof that they agreed to do so as part of ongoing criminal enterprise. However, record contained sufficient to establish ongoing criminal enterprise, where two of three defendants directed and participated in about 12 robberies, and all three defendants helped operate ongoing illegal gambling business. Fact that one defendant was not physically present for majority of predicate crimes did not require different result. Moreover, Dist. Ct. did not err in admitting recorded statement from third-party that implicated one defendant in charged offense, where recorded statement was not testimonial in nature, and where said statement qualified as admission against penal interest exception to hearsay rule under Rule 804(b)(3) since: (1) third-party, who had taken Fifth Amendment privilege, was “unavailable” to testify; (2) statement sufficiently inculpated third-party in criminal matter; and (3) details of statement were corroborated by other testimony.

People v. Tuduj

People v. Tuduj
Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
Fitness
Citation
Case Number: 
2014 IL App (1st) 092536
Decision Date: 
Friday, March 21, 2014
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co., 5th Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
PALMER
Defendant was convicted, after bench trial, of first degree murder and sentenced to 40 years, and sentenced to consecutive term of five years for conviction for disarming a peace officer. Defendant actively participated in his own defense during all stages of trial proceedings; thus, Defendant failed to show that at time of trial a real, substantial and legitimate doubt existed as to his mental capacity, or that he was prejudiced by counsel's failure to request another fitness hearing. Defendant failed to show that he was prejudiced by denial of request for a continuance, or that he was deprived of fair sentencing hearing or effective assistance of counsel. (GORDON and McBRIDE, concurring.)

People v. Lee

People v. Lee
Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
Search & Seizure
Citation
Case Number: 
2014 IL App (1st) 130507
Decision Date: 
Friday, March 14, 2014
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co., 5th Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
McBRIDE
Court properly granted Defendant’s motion to suppress evidence obtained in warrantless search of Defendant’s pain management offices, in investigation into Defendant’s Medicare billing. From inception of auditor’s involvement, presence and influence of law enforcement controlled the investigation. Defendant’s privacy interests were violated where audit was used as a tool to further a criminal investigation. Court properly found that audit was a pretext for law enforcement to obtain documents to further its criminal investigation, and search warrant should have been obtained. Defendant did not consent to audit when he entered into provider contract with Medicare. (PALMER and TAYLOR, concurring.)

People v. Douglas

People v. Douglas
Illinois Appellate Court
Criminal Court
Driving While Revoked
Citation
Case Number: 
2014 IL App (5th) 120155
Decision Date: 
Tuesday, March 18, 2014
District: 
5th Dist.
Division/County: 
Fayette Co.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
GOLDENHERSH
Defendant was convicted, after jury trial, of driving while license revoked, stalking, and aggravated assault. Circumstantial evidence, with officer’s testimony that van he located was the one Defendant’s wife reported missing from her home, although no one actually saw Defendant driving it, was sufficient to find Defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of driving while license revoked. Although wife recanted one statement as to stalking, her other statements were not impeached, and evidence was sufficient to find Defendant guilty of stalking. Current version of stalking statute is constitutional and does not violate due process. (WELCH and CATES, concurring.)

People v. Davis

People v. Davis
Illinois Supreme Court
Criminal Court
Sentencing
Citation
Case Number: 
2014 IL 115595
Decision Date: 
Thursday, March 20, 2014
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co.
Holding: 
Appellate court affirmed.
Justice: 
FREEMAN
Defendant was arrested at age 14 for his role in fatal shootings of two people, and was convicted of both murders. Defendant was sentenced to natural life imprisonment, for which parole is not available, required under Section 5-8-1(a)(1)(c) of Unified Code of Corrections because of convictions of murdering more than one person. This sentence can be validly applied to adults, and is thus not facially unconstitutional. Because, under Miller, a mandatory life sentence for a juvenile violates the eighth amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, Defendant’s sentence is invalid. Miller invalidates the mandatory imposition on juveniles of the penalty of natural life without parole, though it can still be imposed at court’s discretion. (GARMAN, THOMAS, KILBRIDE, KARMEIER, BURKE, and THEIS, concurring.)

People v. Fernandez

People v. Fernandez
Illinois Supreme Court
Criminal Court
Accountability Theory
Citation
Case Number: 
2014 IL 115527
Decision Date: 
Thursday, March 20, 2014
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co.
Holding: 
Appellate court affirmed.
Justice: 
THOMAS
Defendant was found guilty by accountability of burglary and aggravated discharge of a firearm in the direction of a peace officer. Evidence supports Defendant’s conviction of aggravated discharge of a firearm. Underlying intent of accountability statute is to incorporate principle of common-design rule. Where one aids another in the planning or commission of an offense, that person is legally accountable for the conduct of the person aided, with “conduct” meaning any criminal act done in furtherance; of the planned and intended act. As Defendant conceded that he aided another in planning and commission of burglary, he is legally accountable for any criminal act of that person in furtherance of burglary, which was aggravated discharge of firearm in direction of peace officer. (GARMAN, FREEMAN, KILBRIDE, KARMEIER, BURKE, and THEIS, concurring.)

People v. Easley

People v. Easley
Illinois Supreme Court
Criminal Court
Eavesdropping
Citation
Case Number: 
2014 IL 115581
Decision Date: 
Thursday, March 20, 2014
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co.
Holding: 
Circuit court affirmed.
Justice: 
KILBRIDE
Defendant surreptitiously recorded three phone conversations with administrator in county court reporter’s office about her efforts to get a court transcript changed to reflect that she was not present in court and that arraignment did not take place, in unrelated case where Defendant was charged with computer tampering. Eavesdropping statute is too broad, as it criminalizes the recording of conversations that cannot be deemed private, and does not distinguish between open and surreptitious recording. The recording provision of the eavesdropping statute burdens substantially more speech than is necessary to serve a legitimate state interest in protecting conversational privacy, and thus a substantial number of its provisions violate the first amendment. (GARMAN, FREEMAN, THOMAS, KARMEIER, BURKE, and THEIS, concurring.)

People v. Cummings

People v. Cummings
Illinois Supreme Court
Criminal Court
Driving While Suspended
Citation
Case Number: 
2014 IL 115769
Decision Date: 
Thursday, March 20, 2014
District: 
3d Dist.
Division/County: 
Whiteside Co.
Holding: 
Appellate court affirmed.
Justice: 
THEIS
Police officer violated fourth amendment when, after stopping a van solely because it was registered to a woman with outstanding arrest warrant, he asked male driver for driver’s license. Unless an officer’s request for identification is related to the reason for the traffic stop, it impermissibly extends the stop and violates the fourth amendment. Officer lacked reasonable suspicion after he learned the defendant could not be the subject of the outstanding arrest warrant, his request for the Defendant’s license impermissibly prolonged the stop and violated the fourth amendment. (FREEMAN, KILBRIDE, KARMEIER, and BURKE, concurring.)

People v. Clark

People v. Clark
Illinois Supreme Court
Criminal Court
Eavesdropping
Citation
Case Number: 
2014 IL 115776
Decision Date: 
Thursday, March 20, 2014
District: 
2d Dist.
Division/County: 
Kane Co.
Holding: 
Circuit court affirmed.
Justice: 
GARMAN
Pro se defendant in child support proceedings was indicted for using eavesdropping device to record conversation with his wife’s attorney, without her consent, in courthouse hallway, and also conversation in courtroom with wife’s attorney and judge, without their knowledge or consent. Eavesdropping statute is unconstitutional, as its blanket ban on audio recordings is overly broad as it criminalizes much wholly innocent conduct, in relation to purpose and legitimate scope of statute, as it prohibits recording in absence of consent of all parties. (FREEMAN, THOMAS, KILBRIDE, KARMEIER, BURKE, and THEIS, concurring.)

U.S. v. Houston

Federal 7th Circuit Court
U.S. v. Houston
Criminal Court
Sentencing
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 13-2713
Decision Date: 
March 20, 2014
Federal District: 
N.D. Ill., E. Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed
Dist. Ct. did not err in sentencing defendant to 216-month term of incarceration on possession and transportation of child pornography charges, based in part on existence of enhancement arising out of finding that defendant had sexually abused minor. While defendant argued that Dist. Ct. should not have relied on certain statements made by child victim to support enhancement, where there was inconsistency in date when child informed her parents of defendant’s actions, Dist. Ct. did not clearly err in crediting child’s statements where instant discrepancy was minor, and where details of child’s testimony was supported by defendant’s statements regarding his sexual fantasy, as well as two other accusations of sexual misconduct.