An underdiscussed but vitally important aspect of today’s criminal justice system is the ever-expanding role of assessments charged to convicted defendants in criminal cases. These fines and fees charged by states and municipalities aim to minimize the cost of criminal prosecutions on the taxpayers and deter future criminal activity. Nationally, convicted persons are charged an average of $13,607 for conviction-related costs, including restitution and attorney fees. As Benjamin Sardinas notes in his May Illinois Bar Journal artilcle, “The Ball Is in Your Court,” nearly half of convicted persons’ families who helped cover those costs say they could not afford such fees and 38 percent of those families found court fees and fines the most difficult among the costs of conviction. Since the passage of Illinois Supreme Court Rule 472, correcting errors in the calculation and imposition of court assessments have become part of the responsibilities of trial prosecutors and defense attorneys. Sardinas reviews the history of correcting errors in sentencing, the changing legal landscape in the wake of Rule 472, and suggests how criminal trial attorneys may challenge assessments and sentencing errors to prevent their incidence and prevalence.

Chief Justice Anne M. Burke and the Illinois Supreme Court announced today the repeal of Supreme Court Rule 185, creation of new Rule 45, and amendments to Rule 46 and Rule 241. These rules all relate to the use of remote hearings via telephone or video conferencing in the courts and the official recording of these court proceedings. The rule changes are effective immediately.

The Illinois Supreme Court handed down three opinions on Thursday, May 21. In People v. Green, the court weighed in on conflict-of-interest issues when an attorney has represented an intended victim of a crime where another person turns out to be the actual victim.  In Levin v. Retirement Board of the County Employees’ & Officers’ Annuity & Benefit Fund, the court upheld an appellate court decision that a county board exceeded its authority in denying an employee health insurance because she was previously a state employee. In Lewis v. Lead Industries Association, the court held that plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit to recover the costs of lead screening undergone by their children had no claim.     

In this Quick Takes for Your Practice video, attorney Jeffrey Dovitz discusses loan payment forbearance under the CARES Act.