Judicial Rulings Illinois Supreme Court Judicial board at odds with court The Illinois Judicial Inquiry Board has taken the amazing step of criticizing the Illinois Supreme Court for a November 30, 1977 decision that effectively limited the scope of authority of the state's Court Commission. The court had ruled in Harrod v. Illinois Courts Commission that the commission overstepped its authority when it suspended a judge — Circuit Court Judge Samuel C. G. Harrod III — for giving unusual sentences, such as ordering haircuts. The court decided that it was not within the commission's power to decide what punishments a judge may hand down. While admitting that Harrod's ordering of haircuts for 26 defendants was unlawful, the court declared that Harrod could not be punished, but, rather, any bad decisions should be corrected by the appellate courts. "Inasmuch as the commission is not part of the tripartite court system in this state, it possesses no power to interpret statutory ambiguities or to compel judges to conform their conduct to any such interpretation," the Supreme Court ruled. "This case does not deal with a question of a judge's integrity or his honesty, or even an alleged impropriety in his personal life," the Illinois Judges Association had argued in a brief filed with the high court. (Most state legal associations were opposed to the commission's action in disciplining Harrod.) The Judicial Inquiry Board disagreed with the court's reversal of the commission's suspension of Harrod. They disagreed so violently that they asked for a rehearing and when turned down, they sent copies of the court's decision and their own rehearing petition to the media. The board is the prosecuting agency and the Courts Commission is the decision-making body set up by the 1970 Illinois Constitution for judicial discipline. Under the pre-1970 constitution the Supreme Court had control of judicial discipline, and the Courts Commission had so little power that it played no part in the 1969 conflict of interest scandal that led to the resignations of two Supreme Court justices. Board members say they fear the Harrod decision could lead to an undermining of the 1970 Constitution, with the Supreme Court once again usurping the judicial disciplining power. "Unless the Courts Commission-Judicial Inquiry Board structure can discipline such a gross display of personal prejudice . . . that structure will not fulfill one of the purposes for which it was plainly intended," the board declared in its 27-page rehearing petition. At the bottom of the controversy is a monumental constitutional power struggle that dwarfs the Harrod case which sparked the struggle. Perjury conviction overturned The state Supreme Court ruled March 23 that Robert Wills did not commit perjury before a grand jury during an investigation into charges that Wills had tampered with an insurance exam of William Michael Daley. Wills was an employee of the Illinois Department of Insurance in 1973 when Daley — the son of the late Chicago mayor Richard J. Daley — took a department test for an insurance broker's license. The court said that shortly after Wills left the department in 1973, he filled in some answers on Daley's insurance broker's exam. Wills was subsequently asked by a grand jury whether he had tampered with the exam while he was an employee of the department. He said he had not and was later convicted of perjury and sentenced to four years of probation, with the first six months to be served in a work-release program. But Wills' conviction was overturned by the Illinois Appellate Court in November 1976. It said perjury had not been committed since Wills had, indeed, not tampered with Daley's exam while he was an employee of the insurance department. The Supreme Court agreed saying, "an examination of the immedicate context in which the questions were asked reveals that the defendant could have reasonably interpreted the time frame of the question to be circumscribed by his employment with the Department." The court also noted that "during the entire grand jury session, no question was directed to a time frame after the defendant's employment with the Department." Home rule taxes upheld Cities classified as "home rule units" by the 1970 state Constitution may tax exclusively certain areas within their jurisdiction for "special services," the Illinois Supreme Court ruled March 23. The case of Coryn v. Moline questioned whether certain residents of home rule units could be taxed more than other residents for services of special benefit to their area. Under the state Constitution of 1970 (Article VII, sec. 6(1)(2)), home rule units are empowered to "levy or impose additional taxes upon areas within their boundaries in the manner provided by law for the provision of special services to those areas..." The justices upheld a city of Moline ordinance designating one area of the city as a special taxing area because of a shopping mall. Property owner Joseph Coryn challenged the constitutionality of the ordinance, claiming it benefited the whole city, and not just his area. But 30/June 1978/Illinois Issues the court ruled against his argument. "If the project reasonably could have been expected by the home rule unit to make the area taxed, in particular, a better place in which to reside or conduct business, it qualifies as a 'special service' even though it also may rebound to the benefit of the remainder of the home rule unit," said the unanimous opinion issued by Justice William G. Clark. U.S. Supreme Court Criminal convictions in jeopardy On March 20 the U.S. Supreme Court let stand a lower federal court ruling which state officials claim could jeopardize up to 20,000 criminal convictions obtained in Illinois. The case, Rowe v. Ferris, concerned the way Illinois judges accept guilty pleas from defendants in felony cases. Because of a five-year mandatory parole provision in the old felony law in Illinois (prior to Class X), judges here must warn defendants before they plead guilty, the 7th U.S.Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last year. That ruling expanded a 1975 state Supreme Court decision by making it retroactive — allowing defendants convicted on guilty pleas before 1975 to enter new pleas if they were not warned about the parole that goes along with their prison sentence. Atty. Gen. William J. Scott argued for an appeal of the circuit court ruling before the U.S. Supreme Court, but the court refused to review the case. Scott told the U.S. Supreme Court that the appeals court's ruling conflicts with the 1975 state high court ruling "on a constitutional point that will determine the validity, of as many as 20,000 felony convictions and sentences." He said that many of those convicted on guilty pleas before 1975 might now enter pleas of innocent, making a trial necessary. The case involved Arthur D. Ferris, who pleaded guilty to armed robbery in Rock Island County in 1974. Ferris accepted a plea-bargaining agreement under which prosecutors recommended a 5-to-10 year prison sentence. "The fact that the trial court did not apprise (Ferris) of the (parole requirement) was not sufficient to render his guilty plea invalid," Atty. Gen. Scott argued without success. Municipal licensing limited The U.S. Supreme Court also refused April 3 to review an Illinois Supreme Court decision that laid municipalities in the state have no power to license real estate brokers. In Andruss v. City of Evanston, the court turned down an appeal by the city on behalf of 25 other Illinois communities with similar ordinances that allow suspension or revocation of real estate broker licenses when fair housing laws have been violated. June 1978/Illinois Issues/31
|
|||||||||||||||
