People v. Kladis and the Illinois Supreme Court’s treatment of evidence spoliation by law enforcementBy Mark T. VazquezCriminal Justice, August 2012Evidence spoliation stands as a significant obstacle to the truth-seeking function of the courts. The Kladis opinion addressed these concerns and recognizes that trial judges should have significant freedom to impose sanctions to deter such spoliation when it occurs.
A quick guide to the DNA database law in Illinois and the 2012 updatesBy Paul R. VellaGovernment Lawyers, June 2012Pursuant to 730 ILCS 5/5-4-3, a person convicted of, found guilty of, or who received a disposition of court supervision for, a qualifying offense or attempt of a qualifying offense shall be required to submit a specimen of blood, saliva, or tissue to the Illinois Department of State Police.
Case notesBy Andrea Mesko, Mark Kevin Wykoff, Sr., Jesus Ricardo Rivera, David B. Franks, & James SternCriminal Justice, March 2012Recent cases of interest to criminal law practitioners.
Case notesBy Hon. John A. Wasilewski, Mark Kevin Wykoff, Sr., Steve Baker, & John J. RekowskiCriminal Justice, November 2011Recent cases of interest to criminal attorneys.
A look at first offender deferred judgmentBy Joe CataldoBench and Bar, August 2011ISBA’s proposal #97-20 proposes a first offender deferred judgment sentencing option for certain felony offenses.
The New U-Visa Regulations directly undermines Congressional intent to foster a better relationship between justice system and immigrant crime victimsBy Stavri VakoInternational and Immigration Law, July 2011Each time a law enforcement agency refuses to sign a U-Visa certification, perpetrators of crimes against immigrants are not prosecuted. Immigrant victims who are willing to aid law enforcements in their investigations are blocked in their efforts by the lack of certification from obtaining relief under the Violence Against Women Act. Such result is not what Congress intended when it created the U-Visa Program.
Case notesBy Hon. Richard D. Russo, Robert B. Anderson, & Lori G. LevinCriminal Justice, June 2011A summary of recent cases of interest to criminal law practitioners.
Crimes involving moral turpitude: Do attempts count?By Mark E. WojcikInternational and Immigration Law, June 2011Section 237(a)(2)(A)(ii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act covers convictions for crimes involving moral turpitude but it does not expressly include attempt offenses.
So your client has given you physical evidence of a crime…By J. Randall CoxTraffic Laws and Courts, May 2011On the one hand, the delivery to the attorney is a communication which the attorney is required to protect. (Rule 1.6) However, an attorney is not to unlawfully obstruct another party’s access to evidence. (Rule 3.4) How is this conflict resolved? The courts of Illinois do not appear to have directly addressed this.
Case notesBy Hon. Kimberly L. Dahlen, Debra A. Seaton, Hon. Michael Kiley, Ava George Stewart, & Randall RosenbaumCriminal Justice, April 2011Recent decisions affecting criminal law in Illinois.
Case noteBy Kevin P. NolanCriminal Justice, December 2010A look at the recent Illinois Supreme Court case of People v. Phipps.
Victim-offender mediation: An alternativeBy Don C. HammerChild Law, September 2010During Victim-offender mediation, the victim has an opportunity to confront the offender and explain to the offender the effect of the crime on the victim’s life. The offender gets to see first-hand the effect of his actions on another person and to take responsibility for what he has done.
Case noteBy David B. FranksCriminal Justice, August 2010A look at the case of People v. Bridgewater, 235 Ill.2d 85 (2009).
The fine vs. fee conundrumBy Stephanie Anders & Rob ShumakerCriminal Justice, August 2010What are the differences between a fine and a fee, and why do those differences matter?
Case notesBy Hon. James A. Shapiro, Greg Funfsinn, James Stern, & Lori G. LevinCriminal Justice, June 2010Recently decided criminal cases.
Expungement reconsideredBy Joshua D. CarterHuman and Civil Rights, May 2010What is expungement good for? Such records are not available to employers through the official channels and, perhaps more importantly, it is illegal under the Illinois Human Rights Act for an employer to consider any criminal history information which has been ordered expunged or sealed.