Criminal Law

This case presents question as to whether defendant’s counsel was ineffective for failing to advocate for defendant’s stance that she was fit to stand trial on charges of resisting police officer and disorderly conduct, where govt. had previously advised trial court of its belief that defendant was unfit to stand trial, and where during fitness hearing, govt. presented testimony from psychologist that defendant was not fit to stand trial. Appellate Court, in affirming trial court order, found that defendant’s counsel was not ineffective since: (1) counsel need not defer to defendant who takes position that he or she is fit for trial; and (2) defendant’s counsel must be allowed to exercise professional judgment in order to ensure that defendant, if unfit, is not tried in violation of his or her right to due process of law.

This case presents question as to whether defendant may be convicted of two counts for unlawful possession of weapon by felon, where both counts stem from defendant’s possession of one loaded firearm. Appellate Court found that possession of loaded firearm constituted only single offense, and thus it vacated defendant’s conviction for unlawful use of weapon by felon based on defendant’s possession of ammunition inside said firearm. (Dissent filed.)

This case presents question as to whether, in instant aggravated criminal sexual assault trial, trial court properly admitted testimony of forensic scientists, who did not personally perform laboratory analysis of sperm found on victim’s underwear, to establish that defendant’s DNA profile matched DNA profile of sperm found on underwear, where said testimony was based on analysis of other experts who did not testify at trial. Appellate Court found that said testimony was properly admitted where instant experts stated that laboratory that conducted analysis was accredited, and that scientifically accepted protocols were followed by each analyst, who worked on sperm sample. Ct. further found no Confrontational Clause violation since results of work by non-testifying experts were not testimonial and were not created for primary purpose of incriminating defendant. (Dissent filed.)