Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: This story triggered me
Next Post: More Chicago drama as mayor reportedly tries to force out CPS CEO (Updated x2)
Posted in:
* Unanimous decision with Justice Mary K. O’Brien authoring the opinion…
In this case, the State filed a criminal complaint against defendant, Carlos Clark, on August 23, 2023. In an ex parte hearing, the State appeared before a judge and obtained a warrant for defendant’s arrest. Defendant was taken into custody on September 16, 2023, and brought before a judge two days later (on September 18, 2023, the date enforcement of the Act began). At that hearing, the State filed a petition to detain defendant. Over defendant’s objection, the Cook County circuit court held a hearing, granted the State’s petition, and ordered defendant’s pretrial detention.
A divided panel of the appellate court reversed the circuit court’s order. The majority found section 110-6.1(c)(1) of the Code required the State to file its petition when it made its ex parte appearance before a judge. See 2023 IL App (1st) 231770. Therefore, the court held that the State’s petition was untimely because it filed the petition after it made its first appearance. For the reasons that follow, we reverse and remand the judgment of the appellate court. […]
In the [appellate court] majority’s view, “the legislature envisioned a process where the State and trial court need not wait for a defendant’s appearance before considering whether to detain that person without setting bail.” … It concluded that under subsection (c)(1) the term “first appearance before a judge” included “an ex parte appearance by the State to begin the prosecution by filing a felony complaint and then seek an order setting bail.” […]
The [appellate court] dissent believed the “most reasonable construction of the ‘first appearance before a judge’ language in subsection (c)(1) is that it means the first appearance before a judge at which the defendant is present.” […]
By contrast, the appellate court’s interpretation requires the State to file a petition to deny pretrial release when it files a criminal complaint and seeks an arrest warrant. This would lead to the absurd result of allowing ex parte detention hearings. To illustrate, if the State filed a petition at an ex parte proceeding, then the court would be required to hold the detention hearing “immediately” as required by section 110-6.1(c)(2). The legislature could not have intended this absurd approach because the Code prohibits the court from holding any hearing to deny pretrial release in defendant’s absence. […]
In either case, the plain language of the current version of the Code is clear that the filing of a petition to deny pretrial release and a hearing on the petition occur simultaneously at defendant’s first appearance before the court. […]
For the above reasons, we reverse the judgment of the appellate court. The matter is remanded to the appellate court to consider the alternative issues raised by defendant.
posted by Rich Miller
Friday, Sep 20, 24 @ 12:33 pm
Previous Post: This story triggered me
Next Post: More Chicago drama as mayor reportedly tries to force out CPS CEO (Updated x2)
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
The headline says it all perfectly. Nice to see a unanimous ruling by a Supreme Court. The appellate court majority gets their dunce cap for their ruling.
Comment by Norseman Friday, Sep 20, 24 @ 12:51 pm
Agreed with the SC on this one. The idea of ex parte detention hearings is nuts.
Comment by Homebody Friday, Sep 20, 24 @ 1:47 pm
will be interested to hear take on the appellate ct. justices involved. Hyman and Walker overturned. Tailor with the original correct take.
Comment by Amalia Friday, Sep 20, 24 @ 2:28 pm
This is interesting on the timing of it alone.
His arrest warrant was signed on Aug 23rd 2023.
He was then arrested about three weeks later, on September 16th.
The pre-trial detention act would not go into effect for another 2 days.
On September 18th, the very same day the law went into effect the state presented the petition to detain as required by the new law.
The appellate court seems to have completely skipped over their reasoning for creating an ex post facto requirement that the state should have been expected to have filed the petition to detain 3 weeks before there was even a law in effect for it.
Comment by TheInvisibleMan Friday, Sep 20, 24 @ 2:56 pm