Every once in a while someone will ask me if I prosecute criminal cases in addition to defending them. This question comes up enough (albeit infrequently) that I thought I would address it on this blog. The people asking this usually think that a private-practice lawyer can be hired to either prosecute or defend criminal cases. This is not true in Illinois. The government, primarily via the state’s attorney’s office in each county, prosecutes cases; victims cannot hire lawyers to press charges. Now, the government may employ private-sector lawyers (e.g., part-time prosecutors), however, it is still the government prosecuting the cases and not hired guns.
Field Sobriety: No Expert Testimony Needed
Published December 21, 2009 Driving Under the Influence Leave a CommentCase Name: People v. Hires (.pdf)
Court: Appellate Court of Illinois, Fourth District
Date Decision Filed: 12/08/09
In this case, the State charged the defendant with Aggravated DUI because the defendant had eight prior DUI convictions. The defendant did not submit to chemical testing, so the evidence consisted of the arresting officer’s observations of the defendant prior to and after the officer stopped the defendant’s vehicle. The defendant challenged his conviction based on the sufficiency of the evidence and based on the unreliability of the field-sobriety tests administered to him. The Court rejected both arguments. The Court rejected the defendant’s sufficiency of the evidence challenge because “a rational jury could reasonably have inferred that [the] defendant’s erratic driving, slurred speech, and poor coordination stemmed from intoxication.” The Court rejected the defendant’s field-sobriety argument because the jury, on its own, was able to evaluate the field-sobriety evidence without the assistance of an expert. It also should be noted that the defendant received a 24-year sentence in prison for this DUI conviction (again, this was his ninth DUI conviction).
Edgar County Courthouse -- photo taken 12/14/2009
Address
The address of the Edgar County Courthouse is 115 W. Court St., Paris, IL 61944. There are not any security checkpoints to pass through when entering the courthouse.
Courtroom Locations
Courtroom “2″ is located on the first floor of the courthouse. Courtroom “1″ is located on the second floor of the courthouse.
Hours
The courthouse is open Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
Joe Arpaio: America’s No. 1 Domestic Enemy?
Published December 10, 2009 Uncategorized Leave a CommentThere isn’t much that I can say about the sheriff for Maricopa County, Arizona that hasn’t been said elsewhere. Sunlight is the best disinfectant and I am more than happy to shine my little light on the darkness in Maricopa County. If you have no idea of what Sheriff Joe Arpaio has been up to in Maricopa County, here is a good place to start getting up to speed.
I was arrested for DUI and I received two tickets. Is that bad?
It is bad that you were arrested for DUI, however, you should not be concerned about receiving two citations. Whenever a person is arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol and blows .08 or over, the police issue two citations. One citation will allege a violation of the .08 law (625 ILCS 5/11‑501(a)(1)) and the other will allege a DUI violation without regard to the BAC of the driver (625 ILCS 5/11‑501(a)(2)). The circuit clerk will file both of these citations under a single DUI case number and each citation will be a separate count of DUI under that DUI case number. So, if you blew .08 or over and received two citations, the police officer wasn’t punishing you by writing two citations; the officer was simply proceeding in the manner that officers usually proceed in this type of case.
Meth Warning Not Needed in Alcohol DUI Case
Published November 21, 2009 Driving Under the Influence 1 CommentCase Name: People v. Tomczak (.pdf)
Court: Appellate Court of Illinois, Second District
Date Decision Filed: 11/19/09
In this rescission case, a police officer arrested the defendant for driving under the influence of alcohol. The defendant argued that the government should rescind the statutory summary suspension of his driver’s license because he was not warned by the police about the suspension consequences that would occur if chemical testing revealed methamphetamine in his blood or urine. He did receive the alcohol-related warning. The Illinois Compiled Statutes require that a motorist be warned about the suspension consequences of a positive chemical test for methamphetamine (among other warnings). Here, there wasn’t any evidence to suggest the involvement of methamphetamine; the evidence only suggested that this was a DUI case involving alcohol. The appellate court acknowledged that the defendant received a defective warning, however, since the defendant was not a member of the class that would be affected by the defective warning, rescission was not available to him (“there was no evidence that [the] defendant’s suspension was based on the presence of methamphetamine or that a test would have revealed that [the] defendant had methamphetamine in his system”).
I practice law in a college town. Each school year, there are students who discover that their actions have consequences. For example, some find out that drug use leads to drug arrests; others discover that excessive alcohol consumption and driving don’t mix. College students are not invincible and they are certainly not invisible to police and prosecutors. Criminal consequences have teeth — especially when received at a young age. It is difficult to get a job when a person is on felony probation. What will a prospective employer think of an applicant the employer watches blow into a device before the applicant starts his car? Of course, there are some consequences unique to college students: university sanctions. These sanctions can include things like academic probation and even expulsion from the school.
Each school year, the school of hard knocks opens its doors for business; wise students will learn from past graduates of this school.
There are times, usually in the domestic-battery context, when a victim does not want the government to prosecute a defendant. The victim can ask the government to not prosecute the defendant, however, the government is not required to honor the victim’s request. The decision whether to press charges belongs solely to the prosecutor’s office. The prosecutor can either ignore or honor a victim’s wishes. Charges are dismissed by prosecutors and not victims.
Effingham County Government Center -- photo taken 11/3/09
Entrance
Visitors must enter through the doors pictured above (the set on the left) and then pass through security. The address of the Effingham County Government Center is 120 W. Jefferson Ave., Effingham, IL 62401.
Courtroom Locations
There are four courtrooms in Effingham County — courtrooms “A” through “D.” Courtrooms “A” and “B” are located on the second floor and courtrooms “C” and “D” are located on the third floor. Most criminal cases are held in courtroom “B.”
Hours
The courthouse is open Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
Exclusionary Rule Requires Police Misconduct
Published October 26, 2009 Driving Under the Influence , Fourth Amendment ClosedCase Name: People v. McDonough (.pdf)
Court: Appellate Court of Illinois, Fourth District
Date Decision Filed: 10/20/09
In this case, the defendant’s car was parked on the slim shoulder of a dark and busy road. A state trooper saw the car and approached it in order to see if the defendant needed help. The trooper turned on his overhead emergency lights when he pulled up behind the car. Ultimately, at the end of the encounter between the trooper and the defendant, the defendant was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol. The defendant filed a motion to suppress and the trial court granted it because the trooper detained the defendant without any legitimate basis — this happened when the trooper turned on his emergency lights. Two out of three appellate-court justices overruled the trial court because there was no police misconduct, and where there is no police misconduct, the exclusionary rule does not apply. According to these justices, the trooper’s use of his emergency lights “was entirely prudent and appropriate … [and] his failure to do so could very well be viewed as dangerous.” The third justice agreed in the result of the first two, however, this justice wrote a special concurrence in order to emphasize that no fourth-amendment violation occurred at all because the trooper’s seizure of the defendant “was proper under the community-caretaking doctrine.”
UPDATE (11/3/09): John Wesley Hall, Jr. comments on this case here.
