EconomicJudicialReportCriminalLaw FullReport

THE ECONOMIC JUDICIAL REPORT®
! CRIMINAL LAW EDITION !
2010
ILLINOIS
THE SUPREME COURT
The Economic Judicial Report!
Prepared by:
Sequoyah Information Systems!
Criminal Law Edition
Research and Case Selection

The Criminal Law Edition of The Economic Judicial Report focuses on appeals of criminal
convictions to the state’s Supreme Court. Cases spanning a period of ten years were
researched and considered. Cases were selected for inclusion in this study if there was a
difference of opinion on the Supreme Court regarding the conviction, sentencing, or some
other point of law affecting law enforcement and public safety. Cases were divided into
seven categories: (1) crimes against minors, (2) juvenile crimes, (3) intoxication crimes, (4)
drug crimes, (5) violent crimes, (6) property crimes, and (7) “assorted” crimes.
Public Safety Ratings

Each case has been reviewed and rated by a panel of attorneys with a view toward
understanding each justice’s role in the criminal justice system. Issues upon which the
justices disagree have been isolated in an attempt to differentiate between the underlying
philosophies of the justices. When the justices disagree, it is obvious that the law as
applied to the case in question is not interpreted the same by all justices on the Court.
While a few cases may be merely anecdotal evidence of a justice’s tendencies, it is our
contention that an accumulation of opinions tends to provide a clearer picture, particularly
when there is room for interpretation in the cases. The Public Safety Rating, therefore, is a
measure of a justice’s tendency toward upholding a conviction or sentence, or to provide
support to law enforcement and prosecutors when measured against other justices of the
same Court.
Bar Graphs
An overall cumulative score has been computed for each justice in the study. The higher
the justice’s evaluation score, the more favorable his or her rulings have been with respect
to public safety.
A justice who has been on the Court longer will have participated in more cases. Justices
are not scored if they did not participate in a decision or were not on the Court at the time
of the decision. A justice who wrote the opinion of the case is not scored differently for
having authored the opinion. Minority opinions (dissents) are substantively reviewed to
determine each justice’s position on the important issue(s) in each case.
Copyright, Sequoyah Information Systems, Ltd., 2010

All Rights Reserved
Additional information available - Call (405) 752-1092
Illinois Court Structure
Supreme Court
7 justices
The Supreme Court is the court of last resort. It has mandatory jurisdiction in some civil,
administrative agency, juvenile, original proceeding, and interlocutory decision cases. The
Court also has mandatory jurisdiction in capital criminal and disciplinary cases.
The Supreme Court has discretionary jurisdiction in some civil, administrative agency, juvenile,
original proceeding, and interlocutory decision cases. The Court also has discretionary
jurisdiction in non-capital criminal cases and certified questions from federal courts.
Appellate Court
5 District Courts
The intermediate appellate court has mandatory

jurisdiction in some civil and interlocutory
decision cases. It also has mandatory
jurisdiction in non-capital criminal,
administrative agency, juvenile, and original
proceeding cases.
This court has discretionary jurisdiction in some

civil and interlocutory decision cases.
Circuit Court
23 Circuits
The trial court has exclusive jurisdiction in civil,

small claims, domestic relations, criminal,
juvenile, and traffic claims.
Jury trials are permissible in most cases.
Sources: The National Center for State Courts (www.ncsconline.org) Calendar Year 2006,the Illinois Constitution Article
IV, and the Illinois Courts Website (www.state.il.us/court).

All Rights Reserved
The Illinois Supreme Court

The Illinois Supreme Court is the state's highest court. The state is divided into five judicial
districts, with three justices elected from the First District (Cook County) and one justice
elected from each of the other four districts. Justices are elected in partisan elections for
ten-year terms and may be retained in office for additional ten-year terms. A chief justice
is elected by the other justices for a term of three years.
The Supreme Court may exercise original jurisdiction in cases relating to revenue,
mandamus, prohibition or habeas corpus, redistricting of the General Assembly and the
ability of the Governor to serve or resume office. The Court considers direct appeals from
the Illinois Circuit Courts in cases involving the death penalty. It hears appeals from the
Appellate Court when a question arising under either the Illinois or United States
Constitution is made an issue for the first time and as a result of the action of the Appellate
Court or if the Appellate Court certifies a case as being of such importance that it should
be decided by the Supreme Court. The Court has general administrative control over all
courts in Illinois.
The Court sits in Springfield.
Justices and Terms of Office

Name Service Began Term Ends
Anne M. Burke 2006 2018
Thomas R. Fitzgerald 2000 2010
Charles E. Freeman 1990 2010*
Rita B. Garman 2001 2012
Lloyd A. Karmeier 2004 2014
Thomas L. Kilbride 2000 2010
Robert R. Thomas 2000 2010
*Justice Freeman will reach mandatory retirement age at the end of his current term of office.
Sources: Court information was provided by the Judicial Yellow Book (Spring 2009 Edition), the Illinois Constitution Article VI, and the
Illinois Courts Website (www.state.il.us/court). The judges' terms of office were provided by the Judicial Yellow Book (Spring 2009
Edition), the Illinois Courts Website (www.state.il.us/court), and the Illinois State Board of Elections Website (www.elections.state.il.us).

All Rights Reserved
Illinois Supreme Court

Summary Graph
The higher the score, the better the justice’s public safety rating.
Justice Burke did not receive a score because she did not participate in a sufficient number of
cases during the time period evaluated in the study.

All Rights Reserved
A RECENT HISTORY OF THE SUPREME COURT

IN RELATION TO CAPITAL CASES
In March of 2001, the Illinois Supreme Court adopted new rules, clarifying the duty of
prosecutors, establishing programs for trial judges who preside over capital cases (Rule
43), extending criminal discovery rules to capital sentencing hearings (Rule 411), and
imposing a duty on the state to make a good-faith effort to find information that negates the
guilt of the defendant or reduces his punishment (Rule 412). The rules also created new
procedures limiting eligibility to serve as defense counsel, authorizing discovery
depositions, mandating case management conferences, requiring the state to give prompt
notice of its intentions regarding the seeking of the death penalty, and requiring
certification of compliance with disclosure duties.
In November of 2003, the legislature passed significant reforms and gave the Illinois
Supreme Court authority to overturn any death sentence the Court considered
“fundamentally unjust,” without requiring a finding of a specific procedural or constitutional
basis for overturning the sentence.
Beginning with their dissent in People v. Hickey, 792 N.E.2d 232 (2001) and continuing
with all capital cases following, Justices Kilbride and Harrison stated that these new rules
should be applied retroactively. The practical outcome of such a ruling would require that
all death penalty cases be re-tried from beginning to end. (A table summarizing these
cases follows.)
Cases Involving the New Court Rules for Capital Crimes

Case Name/Cite Year of Crime/Notes Justice Kilbride
Crime(s)
People v. Caballero 1979 Defendant was one of four gang members Kilbride would set aside
794 N.E.2d 251 (2002) who lured three teenage boys into an alley and the convictions and
then murdered them. On this fifth appeal to the sentences.
Murder, armed Supreme Court, Defendant argued his sentence
violence, unlawful (death) was disproportionate to the sentences
restraint imposed on the other gang members (life
imprisonment).
People v. Johnson 1983 Defendant shot a man who was sleeping in Kilbride argued
793 N.E.2d 591 (2002) his car, took the victim’s girlfriend and raped her, Defendant was entitled
then stabbed her and dumped her from his truck to immediate post-
First degree murder, on the side of the road. Defendant, representing conviction relief, the
aggravated himself, appealed his conviction, arguing convictions and
kidnapping, deviate ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal sentence should be set
sexual assault, rape and in post-conviction proceedings. The Court aside, and a new trial
attempted murder ordered an evidentiary hearing regarding that should be granted.
claim.

All Rights Reserved

Crime(s)
People v. Wiley 1985 Defendant and an accomplice shot and Kilbride would set aside
792 N.E.2d 1274 (2001) killed a woman, her daughter, and her sister the convictions and
during an armed robbery in the woman’s sentences and would
First degree murder, apartment. Defendant argued his appellate remand for a new trial.
armed robbery counsel was ineffective and the Court ordered
an evidentiary hearing on that claim.
People v. Jackson 1986 Defendant and a co-defendant stabbed to Kilbride would remand
793 N.E. 2d 1 (2001) death a woman, a child and the woman’s for a new trial.
boyfriend. The witness was another child, who
Murder, attempted was also stabbed. Defendant, representing
murder, battery of a himself, challenged the effectiveness of his trial
child, home invasion, and appellate counsel and the fairness of the
burglary penalty hearing. The Court affirmed his
sentence.
People v. Urdiales 1986 Defendant stabbed a woman seven Kilbride would remand
871 N.E.2d 669 (2007) times, shot her, bound her with duct tape and for a new sentencing
threw her body in a river. Defendant argued that hearing, allowing
First degree murder at the penalty hearing, the jury should have evidence of previous
heard evidence of abuse previously inflicted on abuse of Defendant.
Defendant. The Court disagreed and upheld the
sentence.
People v. Pitsonbarger 1987 Defendant murdered an elderly couple in Kilbride would remand
793 N.E.2d 609 (2002) their home using guns he stole from a neighbor. for a new trial.
On this appeal, Defendant argued ineffective
First degree murder assistance of counsel because his attorney did
not request a fitness hearing. The Court found
Defendant’s evidence had not demonstrated any
resulting prejudice.
People v. Peeples 1988 Defendant entered a woman’s apartment, Kilbride would remand
793 N.E.2d 641 (2002) stabbed her 23 times and then set fires in the for a new trial.
apartment building. Defendant argued
First degree murder, ineffective assistance of counsel. The Court
arson, armed violence held Defendant failed to show that there was a
reasonable probability new evidence would
change the sentence. The Court upheld the
death sentence.
People v. Gosier 1988 Defendant raped his wife and killed her Kilbride would set aside
792 N.E.2d 1266 (2001) sister and mother, shooting the mother in front the convictions and
of a three-year-old girl. He raped the sister’s remand for a new trial.
Capital murder, dead body. Eleven years after conviction,
aggravated sexual Defendant argued he had not been competent
assault to stand trial and the jury was not properly
chosen or instructed. The appeal was
dismissed as untimely.

All Rights Reserved
Crime(s)
People v. Coleman 1989 Defendant entered an apartment known Kilbride would set aside
794 N.E.2d 275 (2002) as a drug house and shot two men. Defendant the conviction and
appealed arguing ineffective assistance of sentence.
First degree murder, counsel and alleging the prosecutor had a
armed robbery, home reputation for improper jury selection. The Court
invasion held that evidence from other cases was too
remote and evidence of ineffective counsel in
other trials did not warrant impeachment in this
trial.
People v. Williams 1989 Defendant strangled a 97-year-old Kilbride would set aside
793 N.E.2d 632 (2002) woman and then stole her stereo. There was the convictions and
evidence that she had also murdered two other sentence and remand
Murder, robbery elderly victims and committed various other for a new trial.
abusive acts against the elderly. On appeal, the
Court ordered a hearing to determine
Defendant’s competency to stand trial.
People v. Johnson 1990 Defendant pleaded guilty to stabbing a Kilbride would set aside
794 N.E.2d 294 (2002) boy (11) to death, raping two girls (11 and 13), the conviction and
and sexually assaulting a girl (7) while sentence.
Murder, home invasion, babysitting them. He was caught holding a knife
aggravated sexual to one of the girls’ throats. Defendant appealed
assault arguing ineffective assistance of counsel. The
Court said representation by a single attorney
does not constitute “ineffective” and the
attorney’s failure to hire a mitigation specialist
was not ineffective. Further, the Court ruled that
the attorney’s appointment to the case by a
judge and payment by the county does not
create a conflict of interest.
People v. Munson 1991 Defendant and his friend took a man’s Kilbride would set aside
794 N.E.2d 155 (2002) coat, gold chain, watch and cash. They stole convictions and
the man’s car. When the man attempted to sentence.
First degree murder, escape, they shot him in the back and set his
aggravated kidnapping, car on fire. Defendant argued ineffective
arson, armed robbery assistance of counsel. The Court said the trial
attorney was not ineffective for failing to hire a
mitigation specialist and the post-conviction
attorney was not ineffective.
People v. Hickey 1991 Defendant entered a home, murdered the Kilbride would apply the
792 N.E.2d 232 (2001) husband and then raped and attempted to new rules for capital
murder the wife. Defendant argued certain due cases retroactively and
First degree murder, process violations and ineffective assistance of set aside the
rape, attempted murder counsel. The Court affirmed the conviction and convictions and
sentence and held that the new rules for capital sentence.
cases do not apply retroactively.

All Rights Reserved
Crime(s)
People v. Pulliam 1991 Defendant took a 6-year-old girl to his Kilbride would grant a
794 N.E.2d 214 (2002) apartment where she and her boyfriend raped new trial.
her, sexually assaulted her with a hammer and
First degree murder, shoe polish bottle, then strangled her with an
aggravated sexual electrical cord, hit her head with a hammer and
assault, aggravated dumped her body in a garbage can. The Court
kidnapping remanded the case for a new hearing regarding
whether Defendant was mentally ill.
People v. Moss 1991 While in prison on charges of sexual Kilbride would set aside
792 N.E.2d 1217 (2001) assault of a child, Defendant arranged for his the conviction and
mother, aunt and sister to murder the child and sentence and remand
First degree murder her mother to eliminate witnesses. Defendant for a new trial.
argued his death sentence was
unconstitutionally disproportionate to his
accomplices’ life sentences. He argued the
prosecutor’s remarks in closing were improperly
inflammatory. The Court upheld the conviction
and sentence.
People v. Simpson 1992 Defendant shot a customer as he robbed Kilbride would send
792 N.E.2d 265 (2001) a food store. He defended himself at trial with back for a new trial and
the aid of a public defender acting as standby would not have allowed
Murder, armed robbery counsel. Despite advice from the trial court Defendant to represent
judge, Defendant declined to present mitigating himself.
evidence at the penalty phase. On appeal, he
argued ineffective assistance of counsel and
that he was not competent to proceed. The
Court affirmed the sentence.
People v. Burt 1992 Defendant entered a home, shot and Kilbride would set aside
792 N.E.2d 1250 (2001) killed two men with a rifle, and stole wallets, the convictions and
meat, a gun, and a VCR. Defendant argued sentence.
First degree murder, ineffective assistance of counsel because the
armed robbery two court-appointed attorneys were
inexperienced in capital litigation. The Court
upheld the conviction and sentence.
People v. Harris 1993 Defendant shot an elderly man who was Kilbride would grant a
794 N.E.2d 181 (2002) sitting in his car outside a food store where he hearing on Defendant’s
went to get milk. Defendant was with friends claim of ineffective
First degree murder, and they had decided to try car jacking. assistance of counsel
attempted armed Defendant argued his counsel was ineffective but also found the
robbery for failing to request a fitness hearing. The death penalty was
Court ordered an evidentiary hearing on that inappropriate in this
claim. case and would set
aside the convictions
and sentence.

All Rights Reserved
Crime(s)
People v. Caffey 1995 Defendant and his accomplices murdered Kilbride would set aside
792 N.E.2d 1163 (2001) a woman who was nine months pregnant and the conviction and
then cut the baby from her womb. They also sentence.
First degree murder, killed her 10-year-old daughter and kidnapped
aggravated kidnapping and killed her 7-year-old son, leaving a 2-year-
old boy alone in the apartment with the bodies.
Defendant argued ineffective assistance of
counsel because his attorney did not present
certain mitigating evidence at the penalty phase.
Defendant also argued his sentence was
unreasonably disparate to the sentence of his
accomplice. The Court affirmed the sentence.
People v. Davis, 1995 Defendant killed a prostitute after Kilbride would remand
793 N.E.2d 552 (2002) assaulting her. The Court allowed testimony of for a new trial.
four former prostitutes telling of similar attacks
First degree murder, by Defendant. Defendant argued ineffective
aggravated sexual assistance of counsel at the penalty phase
assault, robbery, because the attorney did not object to the
aggravated kidnapping, testimony of the investigating officer. The Court
concealment affirmed the sentence.
People v. Woolley, 1995 Defendant shot and killed two women in Kilbride would set aside
793 N.E.2d 519 (2002) a tavern. The Court remanded the case for a conviction and
new sentencing hearing because the jury sentence and grant a
Murder, armed violence, members had been informed that a previous jury new trial.
armed robbery, had sentenced Defendant to death and the
possession of a weapon Supreme Court had vacated that sentence
by a felon because of error.
People v. Ballard 1997 Defendant lured a woman to his home Kilbride would set aside
794 N.E.2d 788 (2002) and hit her on the head 30 times with a hammer, the convictions and
then stabbed her with a knife and screwdriver. sentence.
First degree murder, Defendant argued the death penalty is
robbery, concealment, unconstitutional because the state is not
armed robbery, required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt
possession of stolen there are no mitigating factors and because it
vehicle violated the 8th Amendment. Defendant also
argued his mitigation evidence should have
precluded the death penalty. The Court affirmed
the sentence.

All Rights Reserved
Crime(s)
People v. Fuller, 1997 Defendant shot and killed a jewelry store Kilbride concurred with
793 N.E.2d 526 (2002) owner during a robbery. He confessed to the the majority vacating
crime and a jury sentenced him to death. the conviction for felony
First degree murder, Defendant appealed arguing ineffective murder. He would also
armed robbery, assistance of counsel and error in applying set aside the
attempted murder, felony murder. The Court rejected the convictions and
felony murder ineffective assistance claim but vacated the sentences for
death penalty and the felony murder conviction. attempted murder and
The case was remanded for new sentencing armed robbery.
hearings.
People v. Mertz 2001 Defendant broke into a woman’s home Kilbride would find most
842 N.E.2d 618 (2005) while she slept, stuffed a washcloth into her of the evidence
throat and strangled her. He mutilated her body inadmissible and would
Murder, aggravated with a knife and posed it in the living room. remand for a new
sexual assault, home Defendant appealed imposition of the death sentencing hearing.
invasion penalty arguing evidence during the penalty
phase of his involvement in certain activities was
irrelevant or unreliable. The Court affirmed the
sentence.

All Rights Reserved
Case Summaries
A few cases from the report have been summarized below to give the reader an insight
into the process involved in evaluating the cases. The full case list provided in the index
of the report does not contain summaries, but indicates the current judges and their
rulings in those decisions.
People v. Galan, 893 N.E.2d 597 (2008)
Defendant drove his truck onto the Chicago Skyway entering from an Illinois on-ramp.
Officers who had been monitoring his activity as a suspected drug dealer followed him.
They had just witnessed him loading boxes into his trunk. Other officers had stopped
his associate and discovered a bag of full of cash. The officers stopped Defendant and
found two boxes full of marijuana in his trunk. The stop took place 0.8 miles past the
Illinois-Indiana border. The officers arrested Defendant and took him to his mother's
house in Chicago where he lived. There they recovered cocaine, $10,000 in cash and
two pistols.
Defendant asserted that his arrest was illegal because it took place in Indiana and he
should have been taken before an Indiana judge for a bond hearing. Instead,
Defendant had been taken before an Illinois judge for the bond hearing.
The Court declined to quash Defendant's arrest or suppress the evidence against him.
Noting that the officers were in fresh pursuit of a suspected felon and did not even
realize they had entered Indiana, the Court observed that officers had the common law
authority to arrest Defendant under both Illinois and Indiana law. Failure to comply with
Indiana's post-arrest procedural requirement did not violate Defendant's due process
rights since he did, in fact, go before a neutral magistrate in Illinois. Further, the arrest
did not involve any police misconduct or willful disregard of the law.
The dissenting justices (Freeman and Kilbride) argued that failure to take Defendant
before an Indiana judge was grounds for suppressing the evidence and quashing the
arrest.
Justice Opinion Public Safety Rating

Burke Concur +
Fitzgerald Concur +
Freeman Dissent -
Garman Wrote Opinion +
Karmeier Concur +
Kilbride Dissent -
Thomas Concur +

All Rights Reserved
People v. Perry, 864 N.E.2d 196 (2007)
Defendant was convicted of the Class 2 felony of theft of property, sentenced to six
years’ imprisonment and ordered to pay restitution. He and his family had moved into
a two-room suite at a hotel and billed the room to the company he owned. The
company never responded to the bills. The family had lived in the hotel for four months
without payment when the hotel contacted the police. The police visited the room and
left a message with Defendant's wife. Later that night, Defendant and his family
vacated the hotel without checking out. The bill exceeded $15,000. The hotel
attempted to charge Defendant's credit card, but the true owner of the card disputed
the charges.
The Court of Appeals held that because a hotel room is neither tangible personal
property nor an item specifically listed in the statute, the right to use a hotel room is not
property that can be stolen by deception.
On appeal, the Court noted that the statute does not define "property," but the statute
does specifically list certain non-portable items such as real estate, electricity and
telecommunication services, and also includes "anything of value." The Court
concluded that use of a hotel room is a thing of value and Defendant had permanently
deprived the hotel owner of the benefit of each night's income from occupancy of the
room.
The dissenting justices (Kilbride and Fitzgerald) argued that Defendant merely used
labor and services and the hotel owner had not shown that the room would have been
rented to any other person. Further, the dissent argued this is a contractual issue not
subject to criminal punishment for theft.

Burke Concur +
Fitzgerald Dissent -
Freeman Concur +
Karmeier Concur +
Kilbride Dissent -
Thomas Concur +

All Rights Reserved
People v. Mertz, 842 N.E.2d 618 (2005)
Defendant had broken into his victim's home while she slept. He stuffed a washcloth
into her throat, strangled her and fought her to her death. He then mutilated her body
with a knife and posed it in the living room. While Defendant did not contest his
conviction for first degree murder, home invasion and aggravated criminal sexual
assault, he did appeal his sentence to death.
At trial and sentencing, evidence was presented that Defendant was fixated on sex,
death and violence. Evidence against Defendant included the following:
- conviction for battery of a girl on the street after he pushed her down and threatened
her with a dagger;
- choked his girlfriend, pulled her by the hair, and threatened to kill her;
- slashed tires and seats of a jeep;
- told his friends that he was responsible for burning the building across the street from
his home;
- told his friends that he was responsible for the murder of a girl who was murdered in
the same manner as the present victim;
- kept photographs and news articles about the girl who was murdered in the same
manner as the present victim;
- often entered homes using a credit card to trip the lock;
- his computer ID was "CerealKilr2000";
- had sex, bestiality and child pornography on his computer; and
- four DUI arrests.
The majority of the Court found all the evidence was either relevant and reliable
evidence of future dangerousness or that its admission was harmless error. Justice
Kilbride dissented, arguing that the new statutory rules for capital crimes should be
applied retroactively and a new sentencing hearing should be granted.

Burke NA NA
Fitzgerald Concur +
Freeman Concur +
Karmeier Concur +
Kilbride Dissent -
Thomas Concur +

All Rights Reserved
People v. Caballes, 802 N.E.2d 202 (2003) and 851 N.E.2d 26 (2006)
In 1998, Defendant was stopped for speeding. The officer observed that Defendant had an
atlas, and open ashtray, two suits in the back seat, no visible luggage, and the car smelled like
air freshener. The officer had Defendant come to his patrol car because it was raining, and he
told Defendant he was writing a warning. Defendant told the officer he was moving from
Chicago to Las Vegas. Defendant appeared nervous. While waiting for the dispatcher to
check for warrants and the validity of Defendant's license, the officer asked Defendant if he had
ever been arrested, and Defendant said he had not. The officer asked permission to search
Defendant's car and Defendant said no. While writing the warning ticket, another officer arrived
with a drug-detection dog and approached Defendant's car. The dog alerted and the officer
searched Defendant's truck, finding marijuana. Defendant was convicted of drug trafficking,
sentenced to twelve years in prison and ordered to pay $256,000, the street value of the drugs.
Defendant appealed, arguing the evidence was improperly obtained and should not have been
allowed at trial. The Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction finding the officer did not need a
reasonable articulable suspicion to justify the canine sniff. On appeal, the Supreme Court, in
an opinion written by Justice Kilbride, said the officer's stated reasons for suspicion constituted
"nothing more than a vague hunch Defendant may have been involved in possible
wrongdoing." The Court held that probable cause is needed to allow a canine sniff of a vehicle
that has already been detained. The majority in the 4-3 decision reversed the conviction. The
dissent, written by Justice Thomas, argued that canine sniffs of detained cars are not searches
entitled to constitutional protection
The case was appealed to the United States Supreme Court, which reversed the Illinois
Supreme Court, agreed with Justice Thomas, and held that "official conduct that merely reveals
the possession of contraband does not compromise a legitimate privacy interest." The case
was remanded back to the Illinois Supreme Court which, following the reasoning of the United
States Supreme Court, held that "a dog sniff of a vehicle during a routine traffic stop does not
implicate the privacy clause of the Illinois Constitution." Therefore, the evidence was properly
admitted. The three dissenting justices (which included Justice Kilbride) complained that the
Illinois Constitution is not always in step with the Federal Constitution and that this is a case
that "necessitates our divergence from federal precedent."
802 N.E.2d 202 (2003) 851 N.E.2d 26 (2006)

Justice Opinion Public Safety Rating Justice Opinion Public Safety Rating
Burke NA NA Burke NA NA
Fitzgerald Dissent + Fitzgerald Concur +
Freeman Concur - Freeman Dissent -
Garman Dissent + Garman Wrote Opinion +
Karmeier NA NA Karmeier Concur +
Kilbride Wrote Opinion - Kilbride Dissent -
Thomas Dissent + Thomas Concur +

All Rights Reserved
People v. Runge, 917 N.E.2d 940 (2009)
Defendant entered the home of a woman and her 10-year-old daughter. He restrained
them, sexually assaulted them, cut their throats and then used an accelerant to set their
apartment on fire. Defendant admitted his guilt but argued he was mentally unable to
control his sexually-sadist impulses, which might be biologically linked to the death of
his mother when he was a 17-year-old. The jury rejected verdicts based on
psychological impairment and found Defendant guilty of first degree murder.
During the sentencing phase the jury heard evidence that Defendant had brutally raped
eight other girls and had killed seven of them. He had dismembered or burned all of his
murder victims. Defendant had also escaped from custody and suggested during his
admission tape that he had evidence regarding murders that took place during periods
when he was on parole. The jury sentenced Defendant to the death penalty.
Defendant appealed, arguing among other things, that one of the jurors had not been
impartial. The Court's majority found that the juror had been candid with the trial judge
when questioned and had been appropriately dismissed during the sentencing phase
when he revealed he had prematurely decided the death penalty was appropriate. The
Court deferred to the trial judge, who had the opportunity to observe the juror's
demeanor first hand. The dissenting justices (Justices Burke, Freeman and Kilbride)
would have granted a new trial.

Burke Dissent -
Fitzgerald Concur +
Freeman Dissent -
Garman Concur +
Karmeier Wrote Opinion +
Kilbride Dissent -
Thomas Concur +

All Rights Reserved
Case
Index

All Rights Reserved
Crimes Against Minors
People v. Lindsey Justice's Public
Justice Ruling Safety Rating
771 N.E.2d 399 (Ill. 2002) 5/23/2002
Burke NA NA
Disposition: Affirmed Fitzgerald Wrote Opinion +
Public Safety Rating: + Freeman Concur +
Garman Concur +
Karmeier NA NA
Kilbride Dissent -
Thomas Concur +
People v. Pollock Justice's Public

780 N.E.2d 669 (Ill. 2002) 10/18/2002
Burke NA NA
Disposition: Reversed Fitzgerald Concur -
Public Safety Rating: - Freeman Concur -
Garman Concur/Dissent +
Karmeier NA NA
Kilbride Concur -
Thomas Concur/Dissent +
People v. Pulliam Justice's Public

794 N.E.2d 214 (Ill. 2002) 10/18/2002
Burke NA NA
Disposition: Affirmed in part, reversed in part, remanded Fitzgerald Concur +
Garman Concur +
Karmeier NA NA
Kilbride Concur/Dissent -
Thomas Wrote Opinion +
People v. Johnson Justice's Public

794 N.E.2d 294 (Ill. 2002) 12/19/2002
Burke NA NA
Disposition: Affirmed Fitzgerald Concur +
Karmeier NA NA
Kilbride Dissent -
Thomas Concur +
People v. Thurow Justice's Public

786 N.E.2d 1019 (Ill. 2003) (1st Imp.) 2/6/2003
Burke NA NA
Disposition: Affirmed in part, reversed in part Fitzgerald Concur +
Garman Concur +
Karmeier NA NA
Kilbride Dissent -
Thomas Concur +
Copyright, Sequoyah Information Systems, Ltd., 2010 1

All Rights Reserved
People v. Pelt Justice's Public
800 N.E.2d 1193 (Ill. 2003) 10/17/2003
Burke NA NA
Disposition: Affirmed in part, reversed in part, remanded Fitzgerald Wrote Opinion -
Karmeier NA NA
Kilbride Concur -
Thomas Concur -
People v. Ehlert Justice's Public

811 N.E.2d 620 (Ill. 2004) 5/20/2004
Burke NA NA
Disposition: Affirmed Fitzgerald Concur -
Public Safety Rating: - Freeman Wrote Opinion -
Garman Dissent +
Karmeier NA NA
Kilbride Dissent +
Thomas Dissent +
People v. Lawton Justice's Public

818 N.E.2d 326 (Ill. 2004) 10/7/2004
Burke NA NA
Disposition: Affirmed Fitzgerald Dissent +
Garman NP NP
Karmeier NA NA
Kilbride Concur -
Thomas Dissent +
People v. Wilson Justice's Public

824 N.E.2d 191 (Ill. 2005) 1/21/2005
Burke NA NA
Public Safety Rating: + Freeman Dissent -
Garman Concur +
Karmeier NP NP
Kilbride Dissent -
People v. Ward Justice's Public

830 N.E.2d 556 (Ill. 2005) (1st Imp.) 5/19/2005
Burke NA NA
Garman Concur +
Karmeier Concur +
Kilbride Concur +
Thomas Concur +
2 Copyright, Sequoyah Information Systems, Ltd., 2010

All Rights Reserved
People v. Hall Justice's Public
841 N.E.2d 913 (Ill. 2005) 12/15/2005
Burke NA NA
Disposition: Reversed and remanded Fitzgerald Dissent +
Garman Dissent +
Karmeier Concur -
Kilbride Wrote Opinion -
Thomas Dissent +
People v. Stechly Justice's Public

870 N.E.2d 333 (Ill. 2007) 4/19/2007
Burke Concur -
Disposition: Reversed and remanded Fitzgerald Concur -
Garman Dissent +
Karmeier Dissent +
Thomas Dissent +
People v. Heider Justice's Public

896 N.E.2d 239 (Ill. 2008) 5/22/2008
Burke Concur -
Disposition: Reversed and remanded, sentence vacated Fitzgerald Concur -
Garman Dissent +
Karmeier Dissent +
Kilbride Concur -
Thomas Dissent +

All Rights Reserved
Juvenile Crimes
In re J.W. Justice's Public
787 N.E.2d 747 (Ill. 2003) 2/21/2003
Burke NA NA
Disposition: Affirmed in part, vacated in part, remanded Fitzgerald Concur +
Garman Concur +
Karmeier NA NA
In re J.T. Justice's Public

851 N.E.2d 1 (Ill. 2006) 4/20/2006
Burke NA NA
Disposition: Vacated Fitzgerald Concur +
Garman Concur +
Thomas Concur +

All Rights Reserved
Intoxication Crimes
People v. Lidster Justice's Public
779 N.E.2d 855 (Ill. 2002) 10/18/2002
Burke NA NA
Garman Dissent +
Karmeier NA NA
Kilbride Concur -
Thomas Dissent +
People v. Jones Justice's Public

824 N.E.2d 239 (Ill. 2005) 2/3/2005
Burke NA NA
Disposition: Reversed and remanded Fitzgerald Concur +
Karmeier NP NP
Kilbride Dissent -
Thomas Concur +

842 N.E.2d 714 (Ill. 2005) 12/15/2005
Burke NA NA
Garman Concur +
Karmeier Concur +
Kilbride Dissent -
Thomas Concur +
People v. Van Schoyck Justice's Public

904 N.E.2d 29 (Ill. 2009) 2/20/2009
Burke Concur -
Garman Dissent +
Karmeier Dissent +
Kilbride Concur -
Thomas Dissent +

All Rights Reserved
Drug Crimes
People v. Lindsey Justice's Public
772 N.E.2d 1268 (Ill. 2002) (1st Imp.) 6/20/2002
Burke NA NA
Garman Concur +
Karmeier NA NA
Kilbride Dissent -
Thomas Concur +
People v. Carrera Justice's Public

783 N.E.2d 15 (Ill. 2002) 12/19/2002
Burke NA NA
Garman Dissent +
Karmeier NA NA
Kilbride Concur -
Thomas Dissent +
People v. Bunch Justice's Public

796 N.E.2d 1024 (Ill. 2003) 8/21/2003
Burke NA NA
Disposition: Affirmed Fitzgerald Wrote Opinion -
Karmeier NA NA
Kilbride Concur -
Thomas Dissent +
People v. Caballes Justice's Public

802 N.E.2d 202 (Ill. 2003) 11/20/2003
Burke NA NA
Disposition: Reversed Fitzgerald Dissent +
Garman Dissent +
Karmeier NA NA
Thomas Dissent +
People v. Harris Justice's Public

802 N.E.2d 219 (Ill. 2003) 11/20/2003
Burke NA NA
Garman Dissent +
Karmeier NA NA
Kilbride Concur -
Thomas Dissent +

All Rights Reserved
Drug Crimes
People v. Pinkonsly Justice's Public
802 N.E.2d 236 (Ill. 2003) 11/20/2003
Burke NA NA
Disposition: Reversed Fitzgerald Wrote Opinion +
Public Safety Rating: + Freeman Concur/Dissent -
Garman Concur +
Karmeier NA NA
Kilbride Concur +
Thomas Concur +
People v. Pitman Justice's Public

813 N.E.2d 93 (Ill. 2004) 6/17/2004
Burke NA NA
Garman Concur -
Karmeier NA NA
Kilbride Concur -
Thomas Dissent +
People v. White Justice's Public

849 N.E.2d 406 (Ill. 2006) 4/20/2006
Burke NA NA
Disposition: Affirmed Fitzgerald Dissent -
Karmeier Concur +
Kilbride Dissent -
Thomas Concur +
People v. Caballes Justice's Public

851 N.E.2d 26 (Ill. 2006) 5/18/2006
Burke NA NA
Karmeier Concur +
Kilbride Dissent -
Thomas Concur +
People v. Caballero Justice's Public

885 N.E.2d 1044 (Ill. 2008) 2/7/2008
Burke Dissent +
Public Safety Rating: - Freeman Dissent +
Garman Concur -
Karmeier Wrote Opinion -
Kilbride Concur -
Thomas Dissent +

All Rights Reserved
Drug Crimes
People v. Galan Justice's Public
893 N.E.2d 597 (Il. 2008) 7/24/2008
Burke Concur +
Karmeier Concur +
Kilbride Dissent -
Thomas Concur +
People v. Naylor Justice's Public

893 N.E.2d 653 (Ill. 2008) 7/24/2008
Burke Concur -
Garman Dissent +
Karmeier Dissent +
Kilbride Concur -
Thomas Dissent +
People v. Cosby Justice's Public

898 N.E.2d 603 (Ill. 2008) 9/18/2008
Burke Concur/Dissent -
Public Safety Rating: + Freeman Concur/Dissent -
Karmeier Concur +
Thomas Concur +
People v. Averett Justice's Public

2010 WL 1493623 (Ill. 2010) 4/15/2010
Burke Dissent -
Garman Concur +
Karmeier Concur +
Kilbride Wrote Opinion +
Thomas Concur +

All Rights Reserved
Violent Crimes
People v. Crespo Justice's Public
788 N.E.2d 1117 (Ill. 2001) 2/16/2001
Burke NA NA
Disposition: Affirmed in part, reversed in part, rehearing denied Fitzgerald Concur +
Public Safety Rating: + Freeman Wrote Opinion +
Garman NP NP
Karmeier NA NA
Kilbride Dissent -
Thomas Concur +
People v. Kuntu Justice's Public

752 N.E.2d 380 (Ill. 2001) 5/24/2001
Burke NA NA
Disposition: Affirmed in part, vacated in part, reversed, remanded Fitzgerald Dissent +
Public Safety Rating: + Freeman Wrote Opinion -
Garman Dissent +
Karmeier NA NA
Kilbride Concur -
Thomas Dissent +
People v. Blue Justice's Public

792 N.E.2d 1149 (Ill. 2001) 9/27/2001
Burke NA NA
Disposition: Reversed and remanded Fitzgerald Wrote Opinion -
Garman Dissent +
Karmeier NA NA
Kilbride Concur -
Thomas Dissent +
People v. Hickey Justice's Public

792 N.E.2d 232 (Ill. 2001) 9/27/2001
Burke NA NA
Garman Concur +
Karmeier NA NA
Kilbride Dissent -
People v. Simpson Justice's Public

792 N.E.2d 265 (Ill. 2001) 9/27/2001
Burke NA NA
Garman Concur +
Karmeier NA NA
Kilbride Dissent -
Thomas Concur +

All Rights Reserved
Violent Crimes
People v. Caffey Justice's Public
792 N.E.2d 1163 (Ill. 2001) 10/18/2001
Burke NA NA
Garman Concur +
Karmeier NA NA
Kilbride Dissent -
Thomas Concur +
People v. Moss Justice's Public

792 N.E.2d 1217 (Ill. 2001) 10/18/2001
Burke NA NA
Public Safety Rating: + Freeman Concur/Dissent +
Karmeier NA NA
Kilbride Dissent -
Thomas Concur +
People v. Burt Justice's Public

792 N.E.2d 1250 (Ill. 2001) 10/18/2001
Burke NA NA
Garman Concur +
Karmeier NA NA
Kilbride Dissent -
Thomas Concur +
People v. Gosier Justice's Public

792 N.E.2d 1266 (Ill. 2001) 10/18/2001
Burke NA NA
Garman Concur +
Karmeier NA NA
Kilbride Dissent -
Thomas Concur +
People v. Wiley Justice's Public

792 N.E.2d 1274 (Ill. 2001) 10/25/2001
Burke NA NA
Disposition: Affirmed in part, reversed in part, remanded Fitzgerald Concur -
Garman Concur -
Karmeier NA NA
Thomas Dissent +

All Rights Reserved
Violent Crimes
People v. Jackson Justice's Public
793 N.E.2d 1 (Ill. 2001) 12/20/2001
Burke NA NA
Garman Concur +
Karmeier NA NA
Kilbride Dissent -
Thomas Concur +
People v. Woolley Justice's Public

793 N.E.2d 519 (Ill. 2002) 2/22/2002
Burke NA NA
Disposition: Reversed and remanded Fitzgerald Wrote Opinion +
Garman Concur +
Karmeier NA NA
Thomas Concur +
People v. Fuller Justice's Public

793 N.E.2d 526 (Ill. 2002) 2/22/2002
Burke NA NA
Garman Concur +
Karmeier NA NA
People v. Davis Justice's Public

793 N.E.2d 552 (Ill. 2002) 2/22/2002
Burke NA NA
Karmeier NA NA
Kilbride Dissent -
Thomas Concur +
People v. Tisdel Justice's Public

775 N.E.2d 921 (Ill. 2002) 3/15/2002
Burke NA NA
Disposition: Reversed Fitzgerald Concur +
Garman Concur +
Karmeier NA NA
Kilbride Dissent -

All Rights Reserved
Violent Crimes
769 N.E.2d 21 (Ill. 2002) 4/18/2002
Burke NA NA
Garman Concur +
Karmeier NA NA
Kilbride Dissent -
Thomas Concur +
*People v. Garcia Justice's Public

770 N.E.2d 208 (Ill. 2002) 4/18/2002
Burke NA NA
*Although all the judges agreed the sentence enhancement provision of the
Fitzgerald Concur +
statute was unconstitutional and Defendant's sentence should not be
enhanced, Justice Kilbride would dismiss the charges completely. Freeman Concur +
Garman Concur +
Disposition: Affirmed and remanded
Karmeier NA NA
Public Safety Rating: +
Kilbride Concur* -
People v. Pitsonbarger Justice's Public

793 N.E.2d 609 (Ill. 2002) 5/23/2002
Burke NA NA
Karmeier NA NA
Kilbride Dissent -
Thomas Concur +

793 N.E.2d 591 (Ill. 2002) 5/29/2002
Burke NA NA
Disposition: Affirmed in part, reversed in part, remanded Fitzgerald Wrote Opinion +
Garman Concur +
Karmeier NA NA
Thomas Concur +
People v. Williams Justice's Public

793 N.E.2d 632 (Ill. 2002) 6/20/2002
Burke NA NA
Garman Concur +
Karmeier NA NA
Thomas Concur +

All Rights Reserved
Violent Crimes
People v. Peeples Justice's Public
793 N.E.2d 641 (Ill. 2002) 6/20/2002
Burke NA NA
Garman Concur +
Karmeier NA NA
Kilbride Dissent -
Thomas Concur +
People v. Munson Justice's Public

794 N.E.2d 155 (Ill. 2002) 6/20/2002
Burke NA NA
Karmeier NA NA
Kilbride Dissent -
Thomas Concur +

794 N.E.2d 181 (Ill. 2002) 6/20/2002
Burke NA NA
Garman Concur +
Karmeier NA NA
Thomas Concur +
People v. Caballero Justice's Public

794 N.E.2d 251 (Ill. 2002) 10/18/2002
Burke NA NA
Karmeier NA NA
Kilbride Dissent -
Thomas Concur +
People v. Coleman Justice's Public

794 N.E.2d 275 (Ill. 2002) 10/18/2002
Burke NA NA
Karmeier NA NA
Kilbride Dissent -
Thomas Concur +

All Rights Reserved
Violent Crimes
781 N.E.2d 278 (Ill. 2002) 11/21/2002
Burke NA NA
Garman Dissent +
Karmeier NA NA
Thomas Dissent +
Hill v. Cowan Justice's Public

781 N.E.2d 1065 (Ill. 2002) 12/2/2002
Burke NA NA
Garman Concur +
Karmeier NA NA
Kilbride Dissent -
Thomas Concur +
People v. Ballard Justice's Public

794 N.E.2d 788 (Ill. 2002) 12/2/2002
Burke NA NA
Disposition: Affirmed; rehearing denied Fitzgerald Concur +
Garman Concur +
Karmeier NA NA
Kilbride Dissent -
Thomas Concur +

749 N.E.2d 314 (Ill. 2002) 12/19/2002
Burke NA NA
Garman Concur +
Karmeier NA NA
Thomas Concur +
People v. Morgan Justice's Public

786 N.E.2d 994 (Ill. 2003) 1/24/2003
Burke NA NA
Garman Concur -
Karmeier NA NA
Kilbride Dissent +
Thomas Dissent +

All Rights Reserved
Violent Crimes
People v. Williams Justice's Public
788 N.E.2d 1126 (Ill. 2003) 4/3/2003
Burke NA NA
Garman Concur/Dissent -
Karmeier NA NA
Kilbride Concur -
Thomas Dissent +
People v. De La Paz Justice's Public

791 N.E.2d 489 (Ill. 2003) 5/8/2003
Burke NA NA
Garman Concur +
Karmeier NA NA
Kilbride Dissent -
Thomas Concur +

797 N.E.2d 640 (Ill. 2003) 5/22/2003
Burke NA NA
Garman Concur +
Karmeier NA NA
Kilbride Dissent -
People v. Morris Justice's Public

807 N.E.2d 377 (Ill. 2004) 3/18/2004
Burke NA NA
Garman Concur -
Karmeier NA NA
Kilbride Concur -
People v. Townsell Justice's Public

809 N.E.2d 103 (Ill. 2004) 4/15/2004
Burke NA NA
Garman Concur +
Karmeier NA NA
Kilbride Dissent -

All Rights Reserved
Violent Crimes
People v. Santos Justice's Public
813 N.E.2d 159 (Ill. 2004) 6/24/2004
Burke NA NA
Garman Concur +
Karmeier NA NA
Kilbride Concur +
Thomas Concur +
Lucien v. Briley Justice's Public

821 N.E.2d 1148 (Ill. 2004) 12/2/2004
Burke NA NA
Karmeier NA NA
Kilbride Dissent -
Thomas Concur +
People v. Lee Justice's Public

821 N.E.2d 307 (Ill. 2004) 12/2/2004
Burke NA NA
Disposition: Affirmed in part, reversed in part, remanded Fitzgerald Concur -
Garman NP NP
Karmeier NA NA
People v. Blair Justice's Public

831 N.E.2d 604 (Ill. 2005) 6/3/2005
Burke NA NA
Garman Concur +
Karmeier Concur +
Kilbride Dissent -
Thomas Concur +
People v. Henderson Justice's Public

841 N.E.2d 872 (Ill. 2005) 8/18/2005
Burke NA NA
Garman Concur +
Karmeier Concur +
Kilbride Dissent -
Thomas Concur +

All Rights Reserved
Violent Crimes
People v. Robinson Justice's Public
838 N.E.2d 930 (Ill. 2005) 10/20/2005
Burke NA NA
Karmeier Concur +
Thomas Concur +
People v. Mertz Justice's Public

842 N.E.2d 618 (Ill. 2005) 11/17/2005
Burke NA NA
Garman Concur +
Kilbride Dissent -
Thomas Concur +
People v. Mata Justice's Public

842 N.E.2d 686 (Ill. 2005) (1st Imp.) 12/15/2005
Burke NA NA
Garman Dissent +
Karmeier Concur -
Thomas Concur -

845 N.E.2d 598 (Ill. 2006) 1/20/2006
Burke NA NA
Garman NP NP
Karmeier NP NP
Thomas Concur +
People v. Klebanowski Justice's Public

852 N.E.2d 813 (Ill. 2006) 6/22/2006
Burke NA NA
Garman Concur +
Karmeier Concur +
Kilbride Concur +
Thomas Concur +

All Rights Reserved
Violent Crimes
People v. Hudson Justice's Public
856 N.E.2d 1078 (Ill. 2006) 7/5/2006
Burke NA NA
Garman Concur +
Karmeier Concur +
Kilbride Concur +
Thomas Concur +
People v. Urdiales Justice's Public

871 N.E.2d 669 (Ill. 2007) 2/16/2007
Burke Concur +
Garman Concur +
Thomas Concur +

870 N.E.2d 415 (Ill. 2007) 5/24/2007
Burke Dissent -
Garman Concur +
Karmeier Concur +
Kilbride Dissent -
Thomas Concur +
People v. Vincent Justice's Public

871 N.E.2d 17 (Ill. 2007) 6/7/2007
Burke Concur +
Garman Concur +
Karmeier Concur +
Kilbride Dissent -
Thomas Concur +
People v. Mohr Justice's Public

885 N.E.2d 1019 (Ill. 2008) 1/25/2008
Burke Concur -
Disposition: Affirmed Fitzgerald Wrote Opinion -
Garman Concur -
Karmeier Concur -
Kilbride Concur -
Thomas Dissent +

All Rights Reserved
Violent Crimes
People v. Bannister Justice's Public
902 N.E.2d 571 (Ill. 2008) 10/17/2008
Burke Concur +
Garman Concur +
Karmeier Concur +
Kilbride Dissent -
Thomas Concur +
People v. Howard Justice's Public

909 N.E.2d 724 (Ill. 2009) 3/19/2009
Burke Concur +
Garman Concur +
Karmeier Concur +
Kilbride Dissent -
Thomas Dissent -
People v. Glasper Justice's Public

917 N.E.2d 401 (Ill. 2009) 6/18/2009
Burke Dissent -
Garman Concur +
Karmeier Concur +
Kilbride Concur +
Thomas Concur +
People v. Runge Justice's Public

917 N.E.2d 940 (Ill. 2009) 9/28/2009
Burke Dissent -
Garman Concur +
Kilbride Dissent -
Thomas Concur +
People v. Bannister Justice's Public

923 N.E.2d 244 (Ill. 2009) (1st Imp.) 10/29/2009
Burke Dissent -
Garman Concur +
Karmeier Concur +
Kilbride Dissent -
Thomas Concur +

All Rights Reserved
Violent Crimes
People v. Brown Justice's Public
923 N.E.2d 748 (Ill. 2010) 2/4/2010
Burke Concur -
Disposition: Affirmed in part, reversed in part Fitzgerald Concur -
Garman Dissent +
Karmeier Dissent +
Thomas Dissent +

All Rights Reserved
Property Crimes
People v. Cox Justice's Public
748 N.E.2d 166 (Ill. 2001) 4/19/2001
Burke NA NA
Garman Concur -
Karmeier NA NA
Kilbride Concur -
Thomas Concur -
People v. Campbell Justice's Public

802 N.E.2d 1205 (Ill. 2003) 12/18/2003
Burke NA NA
Garman Concur +
Karmeier NA NA
People v. Allen Justice's Public

856 N.E.2d 349 (Ill. 2006) 6/2/2006
Burke NA NA
Garman Concur +
Kilbride Dissent -
Thomas Concur +
People v. Perry Justice's Public

864 N.E.2d 196 (Ill. 2007) (1st Imp.) 2/16/2007
Burke Concur +
Disposition: Reversed Fitzgerald Dissent -
Karmeier Concur +
Kilbride Dissent -
Thomas Concur +

All Rights Reserved
“Assorted” Crimes
People v. Davis Justice's Public
807 N.E.2d 371 (Ill. 2004) 1/28/2004
Burke NA NA
Disposition: Vacated Fitzgerald NP NP
Garman Dissent +
Karmeier NA NA
Kilbride Concur -
Thomas Dissent +
City of Champaign v. Torres Justice's Public

824 N.E.2d 624 (Ill. 2005) 2/17/2005
Burke NA NA
Garman Concur +
Kilbride Dissent -
Thomas Concur +

All Rights Reserved

EconomicJudicialReportCriminalLaw FullReport

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

EconomicJudicialReportCriminalLaw FullReport

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

THE ECONOMIC JUDICIAL REPORT®

! CRIMINAL LAW EDITION !

THE SUPREME COURT

The Economic Judicial Report!

Research and Case Selection

Public Safety Ratings

Copyright, Sequoyah Information Systems, Ltd., 2010

Illinois Court Structure

The intermediate appellate court has mandatory

This court has discretionary jurisdiction in some

The trial court has exclusive jurisdiction in civil,

Jury trials are permissible in most cases.

Copyright, Sequoyah Information Systems, Ltd., 2010

The Illinois Supreme Court

The Court sits in Springfield.

Justices and Terms of Office

Copyright, Sequoyah Information Systems, Ltd., 2010

Illinois Supreme Court

Copyright, Sequoyah Information Systems, Ltd., 2010

A RECENT HISTORY OF THE SUPREME COURT

Cases Involving the New Court Rules for Capital Crimes

Copyright, Sequoyah Information Systems, Ltd., 2010

Case Name/Cite Year of Crime/Notes Justice Kilbride

Copyright, Sequoyah Information Systems, Ltd., 2010

Copyright, Sequoyah Information Systems, Ltd., 2010

Copyright, Sequoyah Information Systems, Ltd., 2010

Copyright, Sequoyah Information Systems, Ltd., 2010

Copyright, Sequoyah Information Systems, Ltd., 2010

People v. Galan, 893 N.E.2d 597 (2008)

Justice Opinion Public Safety Rating

Copyright, Sequoyah Information Systems, Ltd., 2010

People v. Perry, 864 N.E.2d 196 (2007)

Justice Opinion Public Safety Rating

Copyright, Sequoyah Information Systems, Ltd., 2010

People v. Mertz, 842 N.E.2d 618 (2005)

Justice Opinion Public Safety Rating

Copyright, Sequoyah Information Systems, Ltd., 2010

802 N.E.2d 202 (2003) 851 N.E.2d 26 (2006)

Copyright, Sequoyah Information Systems, Ltd., 2010

People v. Runge, 917 N.E.2d 940 (2009)

Justice Opinion Public Safety Rating

Copyright, Sequoyah Information Systems, Ltd., 2010

Copyright, Sequoyah Information Systems, Ltd., 2010

People v. Pollock Justice's Public

People v. Pulliam Justice's Public

People v. Johnson Justice's Public

People v. Thurow Justice's Public

Copyright, Sequoyah Information Systems, Ltd., 2010 1

People v. Ehlert Justice's Public

People v. Lawton Justice's Public

People v. Wilson Justice's Public

People v. Ward Justice's Public

2 Copyright, Sequoyah Information Systems, Ltd., 2010

People v. Stechly Justice's Public

People v. Heider Justice's Public

Copyright, Sequoyah Information Systems, Ltd., 2010 3

In re J.T. Justice's Public

4 Copyright, Sequoyah Information Systems, Ltd., 2010

People v. Jones Justice's Public

People v. Johnson Justice's Public

People v. Van Schoyck Justice's Public

Copyright, Sequoyah Information Systems, Ltd., 2010 5