A call for written admonishments in criminal casesBy Evan BrunoBench and Bar, February 2018The typical practice of orally delivering admonishments to a lay defendant ignores the glaring reality that virtually no human being—whether lay person or lawyer—is capable of retaining and recalling detailed information after hearing it only once. So why do the criminal courts indulge in this fantasy when such important rights are at stake?
The thousand-foot ruleBy E. Kenneth Wright, Jr.Bench and Bar, February 2018The Illinois Supreme Court recently issued a seminal ruling examining the constitutionality of the Illinois statute addressing the crime of unlawful use of weapons within 1,000 feet of a public park.
Illinois Supreme Court confirms Peterson convictionBy Mark Kevin WykoffCriminal Justice, December 2017The Supreme Court considered whether under separation of powers principles, the common-law doctrine of forfeiture by wrongdoing governed the admission of the hearsay statements.
New laws from the HouseBy Steve BakerCriminal Justice, December 2017Recent legislation of interest to criminal law practitioners.
Sentence reduction legislation leaves defendants in limbo: What’s a defendant to do?By Steve BakerCriminal Justice, September 2017Practitioners must carefully determine if their client’s offense is affected by the changes in the legislation and if so, opt under the Statute on Statutes for their client to be sentenced to the reduced sentence.
Text messages + suicide = involuntary manslaughter? Maybe.By Linda J. WatsonCriminal Justice, September 2017This summer, the world has watched with perplexity the trial of Massachussetts’ Michelle Carter (now 20), who was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter on June 16, 2017 for encouraging a suicide. The verdict has brought forth many questions of just how far technology is pushing the edge of criminal culpability.
People v. Castleberry: The death of the void-sentence ruleBy Mark Kevin Wykoff & Julia Kaye WykoffCriminal Justice, April 2017People v. Castleberry has changed the landscape for purposes of raising and preserving issues in higher courts—all members of the criminal bar must be mindful of this new precedent and govern their advocacy accordingly.
A call for caution when limiting the public’s access to criminal courtroomsBy Evan BrunoBench and Bar, February 2017This article examines the delicate—and often blurry—line between a judge’s permissible exclusion of persons from the courtroom and the unconstitutional denial of the defendant’s right to a public trial.
People v. Jones: Prejudicial remarks in a criminal trialBy Edward Casmere & Eliberty LopezBench and Bar, December 2016In People v. Jones, the First District reversed the convictions and ordered a new trial in front of a new judge based on prejudicial comments made by the State and the trial court.
Criminal trials in BritainBy Hon. Alfred M. Swanson, Jr.(Ret.)Bench and Bar, September 2016Retired Judge Alfred Swanson recently observed a courtroom in Oxford, England and reports on how the proceedings differ from our own in Illinois.
Our evolving notion of what is an ‘impartial jury’By Linda J. WatsonCriminal Justice, September 2016In a world where the populace is becoming increasingly skeptical of governance, more-diverse juries are perceived as being more fair and impartial than those that are not.
Case notesBy Hon. Geraldine D’Souza, Claudia E. Castro, & Ronald L. LewisCriminal Justice, August 2016Three recent cases of interest to criminal law practitioners.
So you’ve been asked to take a prisoner litigation caseBy Stanley N. WasserFederal Civil Practice, June 2016Yes, as a member of the federal bar, you may be called upon to take on a prisoner litigation case. Here's what you need to know.
Case notesBy Kim D. Chanbonpin, Mary Cole, & Harry E. ClemCriminal Justice, February 2016Summaries of three recent cases: People v. Stapinski, In re H.L., and People v. Forrest.
A cautionary tale in criminal casesBy Hon. Celia G. GamrathBench and Bar, October 2015The rulings in Seal and Ames demonstrate the Appellate Court is willing to reverse a conviction where the defendant is not given Rule 401(a) admonishments at the time he waives counsel.