Charles E. Freeman

The case involved Walter Edwards, who was convicted by a jury of first-degree murder under a theory of accountability for the 1998 shooting death of Jacqueline Bernaugh and sentenced to 28 years in prison. Edwards filed multiple successive petitions for post-conviction relief under the Post-Conviction Hearing Act, claiming actual innocence based on newly discovered evidence in the form of affidavits from codefendants stating he was not involved in the crime. The circuit court denied him leave to file his third and fourth petitions, and the appellate court affirmed. The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed those decisions, holding that even assuming the affidavits constituted new evidence, they failed to raise the probability that no reasonable juror would have convicted him in light of the new evidence, particularly given his conviction under accountability and his own prior statement placing him at the scene.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned whether Whitney Wisnasky-Bettorf could appear on the November 2010 general election ballot as the Republican nominee for St. Clair County board of review after the party committee appointed her to fill a vacancy created when no candidates were listed on the primary ballot and none were nominated as write-ins. The county electoral board and lower courts sustained an objection and removed her name, ruling that the committee had not timely filed a resolution under section 7-61 of the Election Code. The Illinois Supreme Court reversed, holding that paragraph 9 of the statute sets forth a distinct procedure for such vacancies that requires only a notice of appointment and nominating petitions rather than the resolution referenced in paragraph 3, and that the candidate had complied with those requirements.

electionsprocedure

The case concerned whether Illinois School Code sections 34-18(31) and 34-84 grant laid-off tenured Chicago public school teachers a right to be rehired after economic layoffs or specific procedures in the rehiring process. The Supreme Court of Illinois, answering certified questions from the Seventh Circuit, held that the statutes confer no such rights. The court reasoned that the provisions give the Board sole authority over teacher employment, layoffs, and discharges without any language creating recall entitlements, preferences for tenured teachers, or mandated rehiring processes, distinguishing this from other statutory schemes that do provide such rights.

labor & employmentcivil rightsprocedure

In this case, defendant Marina Kladis was charged with DUI after a traffic stop and requested production of the arresting officer's squad-car video recording through a Rule 237 notice and a Schmidt discovery motion filed before the first court date. The State failed to obtain or preserve the recording, which was automatically purged by police policy hours before the initial hearing, prompting the trial court to impose a discovery sanction barring the State from introducing any testimony about the video's contents. The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the State had clear notice of the request yet took no steps to prevent destruction, and that the tailored sanction was a proper exercise of discretion that did not prevent the State from presenting other evidence at trial. The matter was remanded for further proceedings on the DUI charge.

criminal lawprocedure

In People v. Johnson, the Illinois Supreme Court considered whether defendant Amos Johnson, convicted of possession of a controlled substance after 344 days of presentence incarceration, could apply his statutory $5-per-day credit under section 110-14 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to offset a $200 DNA analysis charge imposed under section 5-4-3(j) of the Unified Code of Corrections. The court affirmed the appellate court's ruling that the charge was not subject to offset. The core reasoning was that the DNA charge functions as a compensatory fee to cover the costs of sample analysis, genetic database maintenance, and related laboratory operations rather than a punitive fine, as shown by the statute's text directing the funds to a special State Offender DNA Identification System Fund for non-punitive purposes and by comparison to similar statutes in other states.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Reliable Fire Equipment Company suing former employees Arnold Arredondo and Rene Garcia, along with their new company High Rise Security Systems, for allegedly breaching noncompetition restrictive covenants in their employment agreements by starting a competing business and soliciting customers and employees. The circuit court and appellate court ruled the covenants unenforceable, finding that Reliable failed to establish a legitimate business interest justifying enforcement under the prevailing test. The Illinois Supreme Court reversed these decisions, holding that the validity of such covenants must be assessed based on the totality of the circumstances rather than a rigid legitimate business interest requirement, and remanded the case for further proceedings applying the correct standard.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

The case involved a 1999 divorce judgment that reserved the issue of allocating college expenses for the couple's three children under section 513 of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act. In 2007, the former wife petitioned the circuit court to order the former husband to contribute to past and future college costs, and the court allocated 75% of all expenses to him. The Illinois Supreme Court held that such a post-decree petition to allocate reserved educational expenses constitutes a modification proceeding governed by section 510 of the Act rather than an original support determination. As a result, the circuit court lacked authority to impose liability for expenses incurred before the petition was filed, and the matter was remanded for recalculation of the husband's share based only on post-petition expenses and the statutory factors.

family law

This case involved a divorce proceeding between John and Lisa O'Brien, where John sought substitution of the presiding judge for cause under section 2-1001(a)(3), alleging bias due to the judge's prior involvement in a related domestic battery case and incidental encounters with Lisa at a fitness club. The circuit court denied the substitution, the appellate court affirmed, and the Illinois Supreme Court affirmed after granting a certificate of importance. The core reasoning examined whether the facts satisfied objective standards for bias or prejudice under the Code of Judicial Conduct and due process requirements, finding that the limited contacts and prior rulings did not demonstrate actual bias or an appearance of impropriety warranting recusal.

family lawprocedure

The case involved a defendant who, as part of a negotiated guilty plea resulting in probation for retail theft, agreed to a condition allowing suspicionless searches of his residence by probation officers. During one such search, officers found cocaine and marijuana, leading to his conviction for unauthorized possession of a controlled substance after the trial court denied his motion to suppress. The appellate court reversed the conviction, relying on precedent requiring reasonable suspicion for probationer searches. The Illinois Supreme Court reversed the appellate court and affirmed the conviction, reasoning that the defendant's knowing and voluntary agreement to the search condition in his probation order constituted prospective consent that waived his Fourth Amendment rights.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved defendant Ira Mullins, who was convicted after a jury trial of possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver based on police surveillance of alleged drug transactions. Prior to trial, the defense moved to bar the State from using Mullins's prior felony narcotics convictions for impeachment if he testified, but the trial court reserved ruling on the motion until after he took the stand, at which point the convictions were admitted. The appellate court reversed the conviction and remanded for a new trial, finding reversible error in the delayed ruling. The Illinois Supreme Court reversed the appellate court, holding that any error in delaying the ruling was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because the evidence of guilt was overwhelming and the defendant's testimony would not have altered the outcome even if the prior convictions had been excluded.

criminal lawprocedure

In Barber v. American Airlines, plaintiff Andrea Barber filed a class action breach of contract suit after the airline canceled her flight and initially refused to refund a $40 checked baggage fee she had paid. The circuit court dismissed the complaint as moot once the airline refunded the fee, and the Illinois Supreme Court reversed the appellate court's decision to reinstate the case. The court held that under its precedent in Wheatley v. Board of Education, a defendant's tender of full relief to the named plaintiff before any motion for class certification has been filed renders the individual claim moot and requires dismissal, as no class certification motion was ever filed here. The decision reaffirms that the timing of the tender relative to a certification motion determines whether the case can proceed as a class action.

procedure

William R. Hill, an inmate serving concurrent 30-90 year sentences for two murders committed in 1974-1975, filed suit against the Director of Corrections and the Illinois Prisoner Review Board seeking declaratory and mandamus relief. Hill claimed the Board's parole process violated procedural due process by referencing his overturned death sentence and certain 2000 disciplinary infractions, and violated the ex post facto clauses by applying a 1988 statutory amendment permitting hearings up to three years apart instead of annually. The circuit court dismissed the complaint under section 2-615, the appellate court affirmed, and the Illinois Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal. The court held that Illinois law creates no protected liberty interest in parole, so due process protections do not apply, and the amended statute on its face and in operation does not create a significant risk of increased punishment for Hill.

criminal lawprocedure

This case arose from post-dissolution custody disputes involving two children from different marriages, where a court-appointed psychiatrist conducted a section 604(b) evaluation that included interviews with the mother, her parents, and others, then submitted a report to the court. The plaintiffs sued various parties from both proceedings, claiming the report and underlying communications were privileged and confidential under the Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities Confidentiality Act. The circuit court certified the question of whether such 604(b) materials from a mental health professional remain confidential under the Confidentiality Act. The Illinois Supreme Court answered the question in the negative, holding that the materials are not confidential because section 604(b) of the Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act requires the evaluation to assist the court in determining the child's best interests and mandates disclosure to the court and parties, with participants informed in advance that the information would not remain private. The court remanded for further proceedings.

family lawprocedure

In this case, the State’s Attorney of Cook County petitioned the Illinois Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus or prohibition against a circuit court judge who had granted a defendant’s motion to withdraw a guilty plea and vacate a 1998 misdemeanor cannabis possession conviction nearly 12 years later. The defendant argued that the original plea hearing failed to provide required admonishments under Supreme Court Rule 605(c) regarding appeal rights, which he claimed preserved jurisdiction despite the delay. The court held that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction because Supreme Court Rule 604(d) requires such motions to be filed within 30 days of the plea, and prior precedent allowing an exception for unadmonished defendants did not apply where no timely notice of appeal had been filed. The court awarded the writ, directing the judge to rescind the order granting relief and to dismiss the motion for lack of jurisdiction.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved the conviction of defendant Richard Kitch following a jury trial on nine counts of predatory criminal sexual assault of a child and one count of aggravated criminal sexual abuse against his two stepchildren. The circuit court sentenced him to nine consecutive natural life prison terms plus a concurrent extended term, but the appellate court modified the life terms to run concurrently while affirming the convictions and other aspects of the judgment. The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court's decision in full after reviewing challenges to the admissibility of the children's hearsay statements, the sufficiency of the evidence, the trial conducted in absentia, and the assessment of a $50 appellate fee under the Counties Code.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved defendant Robert G. McDonough, who was charged with driving under the influence after an Illinois State Trooper approached his parked car on the highway shoulder, activated emergency lights for safety, detected alcohol on his breath, and administered field sobriety tests leading to his arrest. The circuit court granted the defendant's motion to suppress evidence and quash the arrest, finding no valid community caretaking encounter due to the lights, and rescinded his statutory summary license suspension. A divided appellate court reversed the suppression order, reasoning that any seizure did not involve police misconduct warranting application of the exclusionary rule. The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court's judgment, albeit on different grounds, and remanded the case to the circuit court for further proceedings, while noting forfeiture of a related claim about the license suspension.

criminal lawprocedure

In People v. Clendenin, the defendant was convicted after a bench trial of unlawful possession of child pornography based on a video clip found on a computer disc. The defendant moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that his girlfriend violated his Fourth Amendment rights by entering his home, taking the disc and cameras, and turning them over to police without a warrant. The trial court denied the motion, finding no state action because the girlfriend acted privately and that the disc's contents provided probable cause for arrest. The appellate court reversed the conviction, but the Illinois Supreme Court reversed the appellate court, holding that the girlfriend was not a police agent so the Fourth Amendment did not apply, and remanded for consideration of the defendant's remaining claims.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

In this personal injury case, plaintiff Brian Hubble sued Bi-State Development Agency after a Metro bus it operated collided with his car, alleging negligence and vicarious liability. Bi-State moved to dismiss on the ground that the complaint was filed more than one year after the accident, asserting it was a local public entity subject to the one-year statute of limitations under the Tort Immunity Act rather than the general two-year limit. The circuit court denied the motion and the appellate court agreed that Bi-State was not a local public entity, but the Illinois Supreme Court reversed. The court held that Bi-State, created by an interstate compact between Illinois and Missouri to provide public transportation, qualifies as a local public entity under the Act's definition of entities formed by intergovernmental agreement or compact, making the one-year limitations period applicable and barring the claim.

torts & liabilityprocedure

In this dissolution of marriage case, Susan and Craig Baumgartner had agreed in their marital settlement to contribute to their son Max's postsecondary education expenses, subject to conditions including his desire and ability to pursue further education. After Max's conviction for criminal sexual abuse and indecent solicitation of a child led to his imprisonment starting in 2007, Craig moved to terminate the obligation, citing changed circumstances and arguing that incarceration constituted emancipation. The circuit court ruled sua sponte that the incarceration fully emancipated Max and abated Craig's duty to pay, but the appellate court reversed. The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court's judgment, reasoning that a finding of emancipation or modification requires factual analysis of the specific circumstances rather than relying solely on the fact of incarceration, and remanded the case to the circuit court for further proceedings consistent with that standard.

family law

In People v. Taylor, defendant Thomas Taylor was convicted following a bench trial of possession of less than one gram of heroin with intent to deliver, a Class 2 felony, and was sentenced to seven years' imprisonment as a Class X offender due to his prior felony convictions. The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence, addressing the defendant's post-trial claim of ineffective assistance by his privately retained counsel. The court held that a Krankel inquiry into potential ineffective assistance must be conducted regardless of whether counsel was retained or appointed. The core reasoning was that the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel draws no distinction between retained and appointed counsel, as the state's conduct of the trial implicates equal justice for defendants who choose their own lawyers.

criminal lawprocedure