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 Leave a CommentCase 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.
Answer: Contrary to the popular belief of many minors, there is no such thing. There is a zero tolerance driver’s license suspension (an action taken by the Illinois Secretary of State) and then there is the criminal offense of driving under the influence. These are separate and distinct things.
I have been driven many times to my knees by the overwhelming conviction that I had nowhere else to go. My own wisdom and that of all about me seemed insufficient for the day. – Abraham Lincoln
Do you want to be a criminal-defense lawyer? If so, you better be ready for tears.
Recently, while sitting in the back of a courtroom waiting for my client’s case to be called, I noticed a woman sobbing in front of me. A man stood in shackles before the judge; she looked on through watery eyes. The man, likely her child, found himself in the grasp of our justice system.
I have been in private practice for nearly a year and a half now. During that time, many tears have been shed in my office. They have been shed by women — wives, mothers, and the criminally accused. They have been shed by men — tough men, weak men, fathers, and sons. And they tell me that they are putting their trust in me. They are counting on me. Their liberty, or the liberty of loved ones, is in my hands. That responsibility hits me hard. Like Lincoln, I often find myself on my knees.
Close your eyes. Imagine that you just went in a gas station and used an ATM. When you get back to your vehicle, a black Cadillac Escalade pulls up. Strange men with guns approach you. What do you do? You react, period. You might surrender. You might fight. You might take flight.
Via Greenfield, we learn about police in Georgia executing (Greenfield’s word) a pastor who found himself in the middle of our drug war. Tragically, overzealous undercover police officers shot and killed the preacher after the preacher tried to flee what he likely perceived to be thugs coming after him.
The officers were part of a drug task force from Stephens, Habersham and Rabun counties in Georgia. It may be time for these counties to shut down their drug task force. If this is how we fight the war on drugs, it is time to abandon the war.
Click here to view video surveillance of the incident.
Houston criminal defense lawyer Mark Bennett has started a series on jury selection on his Defending People weblog. Mark is sharing good stuff; anyone who fancies himself or herself to be a trial lawyer should take the time to read Mark’s series on jury selection. The following is a list of Mark’s posts to date:
Successful Due Process Challenge to SSS
Published August 15, 2009 Driving Under the Influence ClosedCase Name: People v. Miklos (.pdf)
Court: Appellate Court of Illinois, Third District
Date Decision Filed: 7/17/09
In this case, the defendant successfully challenged his statutory summary suspension on due process grounds. Ordinarily, once a defendant files a petition challenging his summary suspension, the hearing must be held within thirty days or on the defendant’s first court appearance on his citation. Here, the trial court held the defendant’s hearing on his first court appearance, however, the appellate court ruled that this was a due process violation under the circumstances of this case:
In this case, defendant filed a petition to rescind his summary suspension [. . .] 18 days after he was arrested for driving under the influence and 28 days before his summary suspension was to become effective. The State scheduled defendant’s summary suspension hearing for 22 days after defendant filed his petition to rescind. On the date of the scheduled hearing, the prosecutor announced that she was ready to proceed but then changed her mind because the officer was not present. The State then chose to reschedule the hearing for 15 days later, a date that was 36 days after defendant filed his petition and 8 days after the effective date of his summary suspension.
Based on these facts, we find that the State violated defendant’s due process rights. The State required defendant to appear in court for a hearing on a date that the State chose and then informed defendant that the hearing would not proceed because the officer was not available. However, the officer’s presence at the hearing was not required because the State could have presented its case through the officer’s official reports. [ . . .] The State then chose not to hold a hearing prior to defendant’s summary suspension but, rather, received the court’s permission to reschedule defendant’s hearing for over two weeks later and eight days after defendant’s summary suspension began. By refusing to proceed with the summary suspension hearing on the date it was originally scheduled and rescheduling defendant’s hearing for a date well over 30 days after defendant filed his petition and over a week after the effective date of his summary suspension without any justification, the State denied defendant of his “protectible property interest” in his driver’s license and deprived him of his right to a prompt hearing.
Gerry Spence is a famous and successful trial lawyer. Many criminal-defense lawyers, myself included, admire his courtroom skills and accomplishments. It is precisely because he is a success that his blog post yesterday on his own rejection is so powerful:
I never was elected to any student body office. I was rejected by the Wyoming Bar because initially I failed the bar exam – the first honor student to do so. I was rejected by the people of Riverton for a judgeship and by the University of Wyoming as a law professor. The voters of Wyoming rejected me when I ran for the United States Congress. Publishers have rejected some of my books, which made me a better writer.
Was Gerry Spence’s legal career a failure? Absolutely not — few lawyers will achieve the level of success that he has achieved. We should never be too hard on ourselves for our failures and rejections … they are great gifts.
More About DUI Expungement
Published August 2, 2009 Driving Under the Influence , Expungement ClosedIn a previous post, I discussed how DUI cases cannot be expunged in Illinois. That post assumed that the inquiring person either plead guilty to a DUI charge or was found guilty of a DUI charge. A DUI case and arrest may be expunged if a person is found not guilty after a trial or if the DUI charge is dismissed. But, if a person pleads guilty to a DUI charge or is found guilty of a DUI charge, then the person cannot expunge his DUI case. This is true even if the person receives a sentence of judicial supervision.
