In his May Illinois Bar Journal Article, “FOID Where Prohibited,” Jake Crabbs addresses the intersection of two trends of 2020: 1) a tremendous jump in gun ownership; and 2) the anecdotal rise of domestic violence during shelter-in-place conditions. These two trends intersect in the provisions of the Illinois Domestic Violence Act of 1986 and the Firearm Owners Identification (FOID) Card Act. Prosecutors, criminal defense attorneys, family law practitioners, and gun owners should all be aware of the ways these statutes interrelate and the constitutional issues that may arise whenever an order of protection is entered against a FOID cardholder. These concurrent trends may eventually lead to an increase in the total number of petitions for orders of protection against respondents who have FOID cards, Crabb writes, especially when circuit courts finally return to full capacity. This is not to suggest that FOID cardholders are more likely to commit domestic violence, per se; it is simply a plausible result of the two unrelated trends. And when it comes to orders of protection against FOID cardholders, Crabb argues, there is a significant—and constitutionally infirm—gap in the governing statutes.

This May’s Illinois Bar Journal cover story examines the state’s sweeping criminal justice reforms signed into law earlier this year by Gov. Pritzker. The IBJ interviewed defense attorneys, prosecutors, and others who reflected on the legislation. “Some people view it as, ‘They threw every reform into this sausage maker, and this is what came out,’” Stephen Baker, a retired Cook County public defender and member of the Illinois State Bar Association’s Criminal Justice Section Council, told the IBJ. “Some people take the position that, if you wanted a massive change, the time to do it is now. People are just fed up with the conduct of the police. And the train is leaving the station; if you don’t want to get on, get out of the way.” Others spoke optimistically about the reforms: “The breadth of the bill is one of its strong points,” says Jerrod Williams, a judicial clerk and member of the ISBA Steering Committee on Racial Inequality. “Solving the problems of crime and law enforcement requires a multi-front approach. I don’t believe law enforcement alone—that is, prosecuting offenders—is in and of itself a solution to crime. It’s a piece of the solution.”

While cash bail may be going away in Illinois, other pretrial release requirements remain. In his April Illinois Bar Journal article, “What Is So Special About a Bond Review?,” Jarrad Woodson reinforces why a bond review may set the tone and control pressure points of your client’s case from the very beginning. If your clients cannot afford their bail, or if bail is denied, the burden of getting them out of custody will always be present. Even if your client is waiting the case out from home, the conditions of bond could be so oppressive they make your client a prisoner there as well. Therefore, arguing effectively at the bond review stage is crucial. Your client already went through bond court, so why ask for a bond review? Ideally, Woodson notes, officials at the bond-court level do their best to work together for a fair initial bond, but sometimes this does not happen. The bond court churns and turns cases quickly. Important information about a defendant can get misplaced. This is where the beauty of bond reviews come in: You get another chance.

Traditionally a safeguard exclusively available to journalists, shield laws in many jurisdictions have gradually broadened in scope and now protect material generated and relied upon by many professionals when conducting research for publication. But according to Daniel Schwartz in his April Illinois Bar Journal article, “Discovery Orders and the Peer-Review Privilege,” few cases in Illinois discuss the applicability of shield laws to medical research. Whether—and to what extent—medical research is discoverable therefore remains an unsettled issue, Schwartz argues. To bring coherency to Illinois law governing discovery requests for medical research, Schwartz examines discovery requests litigated under the Illinois Medical Studies Act and several state and federal discovery provisions. He also highlights the factual and doctrinal significance of the cases discussed and notes important considerations for legal practitioners seeking to issue or bar a request to produce medical research.