Criminal Law

Defendant was convicted of kidnapping, armed robbery, and murder more than four decades ago and had his conviction overturned after it came to light through a federal investigation known as Operation Greylord that the trial court judge overseeing his trial had taken bribes to fix cases. The State re-filed the charges and filed a petition for pretrial detention, which was granted by the trial court and defendant appealed. The appellate court reversed and remanded with directions, finding that given the defendant’s advanced age and poor health the trial court erred when it concluded that he presented a real and present threat to the community or to any particular individual. (COBBS and HOWSE, concurring)

Defendant appealed from a trial court order continuing her pretrial detention, arguing that the State failed to demonstrate through clear and convincing evidence that no condition or combination of conditions could protect the community from any threat posed by her release or that would reasonably ensure her appearance. The appellate court reversed and remanded for new proceedings so that the trial court could determine whether the defendant should remain detained based on the specific, articulable facts of the case. (ODEN JOHNSON and HYMAN, concurring)

Defendant, who was charged with one count of unlawful possession of a weapon by a felon, appealed from a trial court order denying him pretrial release. The appellate court dismissed the appeal, explaining that where appellate counsel elected not to file a supporting memorandum the court could not speculate as to the potential arguments of the parties. (BOIE and McHANEY, concurring)

Defendant in consolidated cases, appealed from circuit court orders denying her motion for release from detention under section 110-6.2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure pending her sentencing for unlawful possession of methamphetamine and unlawful possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver. The appellate court dismissed the appeals, explaining that SCR 604(h) did not authorize the appellate court to review an order denying release under section 110-6.2 and, as a result, it did not have jurisdiction to consider the appeal. (HARRIS and DeARMOND, concurring)

In a case of first impression, the Illinois Supreme Court examined what constitutes a claim of torture under the Illinois Torture Inquiry and Relief Commission Act and what standards apply when a trial court reviews a claim referred by the commission. The supreme court held that a court analyzing a claim of torture under the Act must consider the totality of the circumstances, including any allegations of constitutional violations that would not, by themselves, support a freestanding claim of torture. The court, however, found the lower court's finding that petitioner failed to prove his claim of torture was not manifestly erroneous and affirmed. (THEIS, OVERSTREET, CUNNINGHAM, and ROCHFORD, concurring and NEVILLE and O’BRIEN, dissenting)

Defendant appealed from an order of the circuit court revoking his pretrial release. The appellate court affirmed, finding that the trial court did not err in the revocation of defendant’s pretrial release where he was charged with an additional violent offense less than two weeks after the initial charges and that it was not against the manifest weight of the evidence for the trial court to conclude that no combination of conditions would prevent defendant from being charged with additional offense is released. (SCHOSTOK and MULLEN, concurring)