Judicial Rulings

The Illinois Supreme Court cited a chain of cases going back 100 years in a decision preventing the legislature from overturning the statute of limitations. A man convicted of a 1979 murder received $15,000 from the Department of Corrections in 1990 because he was beaten by other prisoners. His victim's heirs tried to claim the money as damages but were prevented by the two-year limitation. While the matter was in the courts the legislature passed a statute that exempted such claims from the statute of limitations.

The majority opinion by Justice John L. Nickels said that the legislature could not thus "reach back" to abrogate a vested right. The case is Sepmeyer v Holman (Docket No. 75904).

The Illinois Supreme Court has warned law enforcement agencies to keep their records and their procedures clean. Otherwise, the court ruled, they risk having criminal evidence thrown out, even if it was collected while an officer made what he believed to be a valid arrest.

A grand jury had issued a warrant on a drug charge even though the defendant had posted bond on the same offense. Three months later a patrolling officer, knowing about the outstanding warrant, stopped the defendant's car, confirmed the warrant by radio, arrested the defendant and then discovered a weapon and more drugs in the car.

Lower courts agreed that the arrest and seizure were illegal because the warrant was defective. The state argued that the officer's actions were in "good faith" and thus permitted under U.S. Supreme Court exceptions to bans on such seizures.

The ban, usually called "the exclusionary rule," prohibits use of evidence seized in a search when the evidence does not relate to the crime being investigated. It is meant to prevent law enforcement officers from random searches without probable cause. The U.S. Supreme Court has allowed a "good faith" exception under which evidence of a different crime can be used when there is a legitimate belief that some crime has been committed.

Here the court noted that the arresting officer had no way of knowing that the warrant was defective and thus thought that he acted in good faith. It said, however, that nothing in the federal precedent allows an officer to claim a good faith search only on a radio transmission from a fellow officer. It said there must be a valid warrant at the source. Application of a good faith standard to the entire law enforcement team "will deter fishing expeditions and provide an incentive to keep accurate records." There were no written dissents to Justice John L. Nickels' October 27 opinion in People v Turnage (Docket No. 76475).

Lawyers get big bucks to decide trial strategy and tactics, but the defendant must make certain choices. The Illinois Supreme Court has clarified those choices.

The court uses standards of the American Bar Association under which four decisions belong to the defendant: what plea to enter; whether to waive trial by jury; whether to testify; whether to appeal. In its opinion on the present case the court said that the defendant is responsible for pleading to a lesser charge just as he or she must initially plead guilty or not guilty.

A "lesser included offense" is an illegal act that necessarily occurs when a more serious crime is committed. Including the lesser offense in jury instructions provides an option when the jury believes that something illegal was done, but that the prosecution has not proved the greater offense. In this case, deceptive practices, a misdemeanor, might be included within theft by deception, a felony.

Here the defense attorney suggested that the jury instructions include the misdemeanor when his client had been charged with the more serious offense. The jury found the defendant guilty on the misdemeanor but not on the felony. Because the statute of limitations had run out on the misdemeanor at the time of the trial, the defendant could not be found guilty on that charge either.

Justice Benjamin K. Miller wrote for the majority in the October 20 decision People v Brocksmith (Docket No. 74833).

• The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the "Baby Richard" case, but there will have to be further activity in the Illinois courts before final disposition is reached and the child turned over to his birth parents. A disappointed Gov. Jim Edgar found some satisfaction in a new law he said will prevent such situations in the future.

• Several pilot programs using mediation to settle certain civil cases have proved so successful that a committee of the Illinois Judicial Conference has recommended legislation installing court-ordered mediation throughout the state. Mediation is one of several methods under study to reduce clogged court dockets and speed court processes. Programs have been tried in Winnebago, Boone and Cook counties. Under the program, parties to a suit and their attorneys have a one-hour session with a trained mediator in an attempt to settle out of court, thus reducing their own costs in addition to clearing dockets.

Voters apparently approve two amendments, regarding court procedures and legislative 'cutoff date'

It appears Illinois voters November 8 approved two state constitutional amendments that could change procedures in the courts and the political dynamics of the General Assembly.

• Criminal defendants would no longer have the right to meet witnesses face to face. Instead, witnesses could testify on closed-circuit television. Proponents wanted to shield children from having to testify in front of those they accuse of sexual assault.

The Illinois Supreme Court had overturned a state law that allowed closed-circuit testimony. A new measure will have to be approved to implement the change.

• The second amendment is aimed at speeding up legislative business and smoothing the end of the spring session. Legislation approved after May 31 would need a three-fifths vote to take effect immediately. June 30 has been the cut-off date. Proponents wanted to untangle last-minute partisan wrangling from deliberations over the state budget. The fiscal year begins July 1.