Criminal Law

Trial court within its discretion to not consider Defendant's daily alcohol use since age 12, and long-time drug use, as mitigating factors in sentencing Defendant to two concurrent nine-year prison terms for residential burglary, given Defendant's failure to avail himself of numerous opportunities for treatment.

No unreasonable search and seizure occurred, as Mendenhall factors were not present; only one officer was present when questioning of consent to search vehicle occurred; officer did not display his weapon in threatening way; officer did not touch Defendant; and officer did not use forceful language or intimidating tone when talking with Defendant and asking permission to search. Officer did not unduly prolong encounter, as he posed three short yes or no questions immediately after issuing speeding citation. Trial court properly denied motion to suppress cocaine found in hidden compartment of vehicle after 20-minute search using fiberoptic scope.

Defendant, a police officer, was convicted of first degree murder and of having hired another to commit murder for money. Co-defendant was tried in simultaneous but separate jury trials, before two separate juries. Harmless error in allowing testimony of another alleged coconspirator as to statements made by co-Defendant per coconspirator exception to hearsay, as statements were made in furtherance of conspiracy. Statements were not just narratives of past crime, but explained how co-Defendant recruited another to kill victim, and were as to attempts at concealment and how to escape. No grounds for mistrial based on ASA's testimony that Defendant invoked his right to counsel during postarrest interview, as court immediately ordered comment stricken, and no further testimony on subject occurred.

Plaintiff Association made FOIA requests for data used in study of eyewitness ID procedures used by certain police departments. Chicago and Joliet Police Departments declined to produce most information. Report of study concluded that sequential, double-blind lineup procedures resulted in overall higher rate of unknown false IDs than simultaneous lineups. Release of lineup photos, with identifying data redacted, is not unwarranted invasion of personal privacy; and production of documents from closed and open investigative files not unduly burdensome, as parties can confer to narrow request. Vital public interest in progress in problem of mistaken eyewitness identification outweighs burden of document production.

Speedy trial statute's 2000 amendment requires that Defendant on bond waives his speedy trial demand if he fails to appear for a court date, and thus distinguishes failure to appear in court from other types of delay. Failure to appear is thus waiver of speedy trial demand, rather than only temporary suspension of it.

Change in law permitting parole hearings to be scheduled less frequently than once a year is not ex post facto law, as law provides that Parole Board can consider inmate's petition for more frequent parole hearings, and can conduct hearings less frequently that annually only upon express finding that it would not reasonably expect parole to be granted any earlier. Change in the way Illinois Prisoner Review Board has interpreted statutory criteria for parole, "seriousness of offense", does not violate ex post facto principles or separation of powers principles, because Board is granted very broad discretion and how it is exercised may change over time; and no claim that new rule or new statute has been implemented, or that Board is without discretion.