Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

Defendant was charged with attempted murder, armed robbery, unlawful possession of a firearm, and aggravated battery with a firearm. A public defender was appointed, but defendant later successfully requested a different attorney. Defendant subsequently requested to proceed pro se. In granting this request, the trial court admonished him, and defendant waived his right to counsel. He then made motions, causing the matter to be continued. On the morning of trial, defendant stated that he no longer wanted to represent himself and requested a third appointment of counsel. The trial court, noting that defendant had refused to cooperate with two public defenders, viewed the request as a delaying tactic and denied it. The trial commenced with jury selection. Defendant refused to participate without counsel and remained in his holding cell. He later participated without counsel. He did not testify or call witnesses, but made an opening statement and closing argument and cross-examined prosecution witnesses, including four victims. Following conviction, the court imposed a 95-year term. The appellate court found plain error and ordered a new trial. The Illinois Supreme Court reversed, finding the Code of Criminal Procedure (725 ILCS 5/115-4.1(a)) ambiguous, but concluding that “trial in absentia” provisions were not relevant. The trial court in this case was not statutorily required to appoint a third public defender simply because defendant decided to waive his right to be present during voir dire. View "People v. Eppinger" on Justia Law

In 2005, defendant was convicted of aggravated battery with a firearm and sentenced to 12 years. The appellate court affirmed. In 2008, he filed, pro se, a post-conviction petition. It was dismissed; the appellate court affirmed. In 2009, again pro se, he sought leave to file a successive petition under the Post-Conviction Hearing Act. (725 ILCS 5/122-1(f)), alleging that he had just discovered that, after serving his sentence, he will be subject to an additional three-year term of mandatory supervised release (MSR). MSR was not mentioned when he was sentenced, which, he claimed, denied him due process. The trial and appellate court rejected his argument. The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed. The Criminal Code states that for this offense, the three-year MSR term shall be included in the sentence “as though written therein.” The Post-Conviction Hearing Act states that a petitioner must show “cause” for failure to raise his claim earlier. This claimed defect can never be “cause” because the petitioner is presumptively charged with knowledge of mandatory supervised release as a matter of law. The court recommended that the legislature address more specifically how one seeking leave to file a successive post-conviction petition meets the statutory requirements of showing cause and prejudice. View "People v. Evans" on Justia Law

Plaintiff (ex-wife) and her parents sought damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Defendant is a psychiatrist who was court-appointed to make recommendations in connection with plaintiff’s custody dispute with her ex-husband, following the 1998 entry of a marriage dissolution judgment. Plaintiff initially requested the evaluation, but was unhappy with the results. Defendant reported that plaintiff and her parents were delusional and that the children should be removed from their mother’s custody and have no further contact with her. A change of custody was granted. The Department of Children and Family Services later made a finding of abuse and neglect against the plaintiff. Plaintiff accused defendant of making false statements and a false evaluation. The trial court dismissed on the basis of res judicata; the appellate court affirmed. The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed, based on a separate civil rights class action that plaintiff had filed earlier in federal court against defendant and others for their role in custody proceedings. That action was dismissed for the immunity of such evaluators, and that dismissal was affirmed on appeal.View "Cooney v. Rossiter" on Justia Law

Chicago taxi drivers filed a class action in 2000 concerning how they received traffic tickets. The trial court certified the class in 2002 and, in 2005, issued partial summary judgment that a ticket should be issued to a driver at the scene or placed on the vehicle and that to substitute mailed notice (a fly-by ticket) would be illegal. The city argued that such occurrences were rare or had happened only if the driver was confrontational or fled. In 2008 a new judge granted a motion to decertify, concluding that commonality no longer existed. Questions concerning whether there had been a “decision on the merits” were certified. The Illinois Supreme Court held that decertification was not precluded. A decision on the merits requires a complete determination of liability on a claim based on the facts disclosed by evidence, which establishes a right to recover in at least one class member, but which is short of final judgment. Liability which would establish a right to recovery had not yet been determined; the original trial judge did not decide whether the city violated the law by issuing a fly-by citation to any driver. View "Mashal v. City of Chicago" on Justia Law

Tate was convicted for a 2001 fatal shooting. Four eyewitnesses identified him. The appellate court affirmed. Tate retained counsel and filed a post-conviction petition, attaching affidavits of alibi witnesses and of occurrence witnesses. Tate alleged ineffective assistance of counsel in failing to call these witnesses. Although this issue had not been raised by post-trial motion, the supreme court found that there was no forfeiture. The circuit court nonetheless summarily dismissed the petition. The appellate court affirmed. The supreme court reversed. Under the Post-Conviction Hearing Act, a petition may be dismissed, initially, if it is “frivolous or patently without merit.” If this does not occur, the court determines whether there is a substantial showing of a constitutional violation meriting an evidentiary hearing. Most petitions are filed pro se. The state argued that Tate should be held to the higher standard of making a substantial showing of a constitutional violation, because he had counsel. The court rejected the argument. Tate’s petition could survive the first stage if it was arguable that counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and if it was arguable that he was prejudiced.View "People v. Tate" on Justia Law

Murdock, then 16, was convicted in 2001 of first degree murder and aggravated battery with a firearm. The conviction was affirmed. Defendant filed a post-conviction petition alleging trial counsel was ineffective for failing to move to suppress statements made to police. Defendant, a juvenile, alleged his statements were the product of police coercion that rendered them involuntary. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied defendant’s petition. The appellate court reversed and remanded for a suppression hearing. The trial court denied the motion on remand. The appellate court affirmed. The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed, rejecting an argument based on the absence of a concerned adult during defendant's police detention. Defendant was able to clearly communicate and understand the questions posed to him. He was able to understand and give assent to a waiver of his Miranda rights. On tape defendant appeared mostly calm and collected. He did not appear frightened or under any intense coercion. Defendant was never threatened physically or mentally and there were no promises or assurances to defendant to contribute to a coercive atmosphere. Defendant was allowed access to food, drink, and restroom; his statements were the result of his own decisions. View "People v. Murdock" on Justia Law

A woman standing at a window inside a building was fatally shot. Gang members intended to shoot the first rival gang member to come out. Defendant, then age 15, told police that fellow gang members, closer to the building, fired first, while he, across the street, only shot into the air. He was convicted of murder and sentenced to 28 years. No evidence other than his statement linked him to the crime. In pro se attempts to file successive post-conviction petitions, defendant claimed actual innocence. He submitted affidavits from two women who claimed to have been with defendant at the time of the shooting but had refused to come forward, and from a codefendant that defendant "had nothing to do with this shooting." The attempts were rejected by the circuit and appellate courts. The appellate court considered an Illinois Supreme Court holding that the requirement of showing cause and prejudice before being allowed leave to file a successive petition may be excused where actual innocence is alleged, but found that defendant did not assert a colorable claim of actual innocence. The supreme court affirmed. The women were known and not subpoenaed for trial. Because defendant was convicted on an accountability theory, the codefendant's claims did not exonerate him.

While defendant was in custody on another matter, he became a suspect in a fatal shooting. Another inmate told police that he thought he could get the defendant to make incriminating statements concerning that homicide. Police set up the inmate-informer to wear a wire. A judicially authorized overhear was arranged, with the inmate as the consenting party. Defendant was told that he was being taken to a lineup. He called the attorney who had been appointed to represent him in the other matter. That attorney spent about 45 minutes waiting for access to defendant while the inmate-informer was conversing with defendant in an otherwise empty room and listening to his allegedly incriminating statements. The trial court suppressed the statements. The appellate court affirmed. The supreme court reversed and specifically overruled an earlier appellate court decision, holding that defendant was not subjected to police custodial interrogation when he conversed with the inmate-informer. The police were not required to give Miranda warnings, and defendant had no right to counsel. Neither were police required to tell the defendant that the attorney in the other matter was seeking access to him.

At trial for a 2004 shooting, defendant testified to self-defense, but was impeached by introduction of earlier convictions for aggravated battery with a firearm and possession of a controlled substance. Defendant was convicted of aggravated battery with a firearm and received a 40-year sentence, but was acquitted of attempted first degree murder. The appellate court affirmed. Defendant filed a pro se petition, alleging, ineffective assistance of counsel in not challenging the judge’s refusal to rule before trial on the use of convictions to impeach. The petition was dismissed and the appellate court affirmed. The petition was filed before the Illinois Supreme Court decided People v. Patrick, which held that there is no justification for a blanket policy of refusing to rule on use of convictions to impeach until after a defendant testifies; the appellate court decision was released after that decision. The supreme court remanded, stating that it was clear from the record that defense counsel was aware of potential problems raised by the refusal to make a ruling, and that it was at least arguable, even pre- Patrick, that counsel’s performance was deficient and that defendant was prejudiced.

In 1991, at age 16 years, defendant pled guilty to first degree murder in exchange for a recommendation of a 50-year sentence. He knew that the maximum was 60 years. He had previously been adjudicated delinquent and sentenced as a juvenile. The court imposed a 50-year term, without any admonition that the term would be followed by a mandatory three-year period of supervised release (MSR). Defendant's first attempt at postconviction relief was unsuccessful. Several years later, he filed another petition, claiming that his plea had not been knowing and voluntary because he was not informed of MSR. The appellate court reversed the circuit court's rejection of the petition and reduced the sentence to 47 years with three years of MSR. The Illinois Supreme Court reversed, holding that defendant had not been "impeded" from raising a claim about failure to advise on MSR. Lack of precedent for a position differs from "cause" for failure to raise an issue, which is a statutory prerequisite to a successive post-conviction petition. In general, a defendant must raise an issue, even when the law is against him, in order to preserve it for review.