Pre-Trial Proceedings

Budget Cuts Causing Cook County State’s Attorney to Stop Prosecuting Some Traffic Offenses

June 26, 2017 | by James G. Dimeas, Esq.

Retail-Theft Cook County State’s Attorney, Kim Foxx, has announced that her office will stop prosecuting cases involving people charged with driving on a suspended or revoked driver’s license based on a financial reason, such as failure to pay parking tickets. tolls or child support. The decision to do this is based on a lack of funding for the State’s Attorney’s Office which has left the office with not enough prosecutors to handle the criminal prosecutions in Cook County. This does not mean that these cases will go away in Cook County. Individual towns, cities and villages will be allowed to prosecute these cases themselves. This could mean a rise in the number of cases being charged as Municipal Violations. Each city, town, and village can set up their own administrative process which involves Hearing Officers and attorneys hired by the towns and Villages, that collect fines for violations. The standard of proof in a Municipal Ordinance Violation case is much lower than in a criminal case and the potential punishment is a monetary fine and not jail time.

Another change announced by the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office has to do with charging people involved in serious car crashes while their licenses were suspended or revoked for financial reasons. Currently, if someone is involved in a serious car accident and their license is suspended, they could be charged with a felony if they have one previous conviction for driving with a suspended license. The Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office announced that they will not charge a driver with a felony unless they have at least five previous convictions for driving with a suspended or revoked license. This only applies if the suspension or revocation is based on a financial reason.

The Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office points out that the office is operating with 30% less funding than 10 years ago. The decision to stop prosecuting suspended and revoked license cases based on financial reasons will help free up some prosecutors to help prosecute more serious criminal cases. There’s at least 2 Courtrooms at the Daley Center that handle cases like this. By declining to prosecute cases like this, the prosecutors assigned to those courtrooms will be reassigned to other courtrooms and courthouses.

New Bail Reform Law Creates Uncertainty in Kane County

June 19, 2017 | by James G. Dimeas, Esq.

Bond-Hearing-2 On June 12, we reported that Illinois Governor, Bruce Rauner, signed a Bail Reform bill into law. The new law seeks to make changes to the bail process in Illinois by trying to move away from the requirement of posting cash as a way to avoid keeping people in jail who are poor and lack the financial means to post the cash needed to be released from county jail on minor criminal offenses. The new law requires that if the Court sets a cash bond at an initial Bond Hearing, and the defendant is unable to post the cash required, a second Bond Hearing must take place within 7 days of the arrest. The purpose of this second bond hearing is to re-examine whether there are alternatives available to the requirement that cash be posted. This second Bond Hearing is a further step towards moving away from making posting cash the main way to be released from jail pending resolution of a criminal case.

About 18 months ago, the Illinois Supreme Court instituted a pilot program, which had many of the changes contained in this new law, to see how they would impact the court system. Kane County was one of the counties that participated in this pilot program. Kane County has seen some of the impacts of this new law and county and court officials are expressing some concerns which we will discuss.

The first impact is a loss of revenue. The Clerk of the Circuit Court of each county is allowed to keep 10% of any bond money posted. So if a defendant posts $10,000 in bond money, when the case is finished. the Clerk of the Circuit Court will refund $9,000 to the person who posted the bond and will keep $1,000 for the Clerk of the Circuit Court. If fewer people are required to post a cash bond, this means that there’s less money for the Clerk of the Circuit Court. Kane County officials estimate that this could cause a $200,000 loss in revenue this year. Kane County is already facing a budget deficit. You would think that this loss in revenue could be absorbed by the savings from the lower number of inmates in Kane County Jail. However, a recent increase in the number of violent crimes in Kane County has led to an increase in the jail population in Kane County Jail. Kane County officials blame the increase in the violent crime rate in Kane County to the fact that gang members can get to Kane County from Chicago via I-88 and I-90. Chicago gangs are able to extend their drug trade from Chicago to Kane County, causing an increase in violent crimes and a further strain on Kane County’s limited resources.

New Illinois Bail Reform Bill Signed Into Law on Friday

June 12, 2017 | by James G. Dimeas, Esq.

Bond-Hearing-1 On Friday, Illinois Governor, Bruce Rauner, signed a new bill into law which takes affirmative steps to try to solve the bail problem in Illinois. The bill, called the Bail Reform Act, makes some significant changes to the bail process in Illinois and seeks to deal with the problems faced by people who are charged with minor crimes who are stuck in jail because they are unable to come up with the low amount of cash to post bail so they can be released.

I recently posted an article about a 60 Minutes episode which points out the numerous problems with Cook County Jail. In that article, I pointed out that last year, over a thousand people spent more time in Cook County Jail than what they were eventually sentenced to by the court. What was most disturbing is that just as many people spent over 222 years more than what they were eventually sentenced to. The main reason behind this was that non-violent offenders, who were charged with minor crimes, were not able to come up with the low amounts of cash needed to post the bail needed to get out of jail. As a result, they were stuck in Cook County Jail until their case was finished.

Tom Dart, the Cook County Sheriff, the man who is in charge of running the day-to-day operations of Cook County Jail, has long been an advocate for reforming the Bail process. He has been pushing the Illinois Legislature for a number of years, to address the Bail process so that this injustice of forcing people who are poor to sit in jail for many months just because they are poor. I pointed out in this article that the Illinois Legislature is working on steps to try to deal with this problem.

Cook County Jail – A Symbol of What’s Wrong With Our Criminal Justice System

June 5, 2017 | by James G. Dimeas, Esq.

Bond-Hearing-200x300 Over the weekend I read an article about a 60 minutes episode about Cook County Jail and Sheriff Tom Dart. Cook County Sheriff Tom Dart is in charge of running Cook County Jail, the largest single-site jail in the United States. After I finished reading the article, I was struck by some of the information contained in the article and wanted to pass along some of the things that I learned. We are used to seeing news stories about inmates who are released from prison after spending years behind bars for a crime they did not commit. We become conditioned to believe that this is all that is wrong with our criminal justice system. But this article about Cook County jail is much more disturbing because it represents a systematic injustice, legal and moral, with our criminal justice system.

The current jail population at Cook County Jail is approximately 7,500 prisoners a day. Roughly 70,000 inmates a year pass through Cook County Jail. A very large portion of the inmates who enter Cook County Jail stay there because they are unable to come up with the bond money needed to be released from jail. Many times, the amount of money needed for them to get out of jail is very small. It could be as little as $100, but because they don’t have the money to post the bond, they cannot get out of jail. The overwhelming majority of the inmates who have a low bond pose little or no danger to society. They are there because they were caught with a small amount of drugs or because they tried to steal something from a store. Meanwhile the people that pose a danger to society, like gang members who are caught with illegal guns, are able to post bond because their gang puts up the money and they are out on the street.

A troubling statistic from this article is that last year, 1,024 inmates spent their entire prison term in Cook County Jail. While that is troubling, in and of itself, the following statistic is shocking. An equal number of inmates spent an extra 222 years in custody in Cook County Jail. It would be understandable if this was because the inmates were violent or posed a danger to society. But keep in mind that a large percentage of the inmates in Cook County Jail are there because they cannot afford to post low bonds. If somebody has a low bond it is probably because what they are being charged with is a minor offense and they have little or no criminal background. This is a very troubling statistic.

What Happens at a Preliminary Hearing in Illinois?

May 23, 2017 | by James G. Dimeas, Esq.

Preliminary-Hearing Many of the people that I have represented in my 27 years of being a criminal defense lawyer have no criminal record and have little, or no experience, with the criminal justice system. For many people, the thought of facing criminal charges can be a daunting and scary experience. In addition to providing legal services in court, one of my main responsibilities as a criminal defense lawyer is to explain the legal process to my clients and to make sure they fully understand what is happening, and what will be happening in the future.

If you are being charged with a misdemeanor offense, a bond will be set at the police station by the police department. Depending on what you are being charged with, and your criminal record, the Bond could be anywhere from an I-Bond, or a minor cash Bond. An I-Bond is commonly known as a Signature Bond. With an I-Bond, no money needs to be posted. You just sign the Bond paper promising to appear in court and to not commit any criminal offenses. An exception to this is if you are charged with a Domestic Battery. You may be taken to court for a bond hearing if you are charged with a Domestic Battery, especially if the State will be seeking an Order of Protection or wants the Court to set special conditions of Bond which forbids you from making contact with the Complaining Witness. But if you are charged with a felony, you will be brought to court as soon as possible for a Bond Hearing and the judge will set a Bond. The first court date after your Bond Hearing will be a Preliminary Hearing date. I want to take this opportunity to explain what a Preliminary Hearing is and what will happen at the Preliminary Hearing.

Basically, a Preliminary Hearing is a short hearing before trial, before a judge, to determine whether probable cause exists to believe that a crime was committed and that you are the one that committed that crime. Probable cause, for Preliminary Hearing purposes, is different than what people commonly consider probable cause to be. For Preliminary Hearing purposes, probable cause simply means that the judge is convinced by a preponderance of the evidence, more probably true than not true, that there’s enough evidence to charge you with a crime and eventually put you on trial for that crime.

Chicago Tribune Article Suggest Chicago May Be Losing Fight Against Gun Violence

May 5, 2017 | by James G. Dimeas, Esq.

UUW

Today, the Chicago Tribune re-published a story that indicates that law enforcement authorities in Chicago may be losing the fight against gun crimes. Everyone is aware of the ridiculous number of gun related crimes in the city of Chicago. It is the subject of national news stories and was the subject of a recent movie by Spike Lee which places the spotlight on the out of control gun violence in the City of Chicago. The gun violence in Chicago entered the discussion in last year’s Presidential campaign. Recently, President Trump has threatened to send in the National Guard to deal with the gun violence in Chicago. Law enforcement authorities and the politicians in Chicago have made fighting the out-of-control gun violence the focus of their collective efforts. However, the Chicago Tribune today re-published a story which should cause the citizens of Chicago to be seriously concerned about whether the authorities are fighting an effective fight against gun violence.

The Tribune reports that since 2012 the average bond set for a felony gun crime has doubled. In 2012, the average bond for a felony gun case was $25,000. In 2016 the average bond for a felony gun case was $50,000. The Tribune reports that this has done nothing to keep gang members off the streets. The number of defendants posting bond has more than doubled from four years ago. Therefore, in spite of the bonds for felony gun crimes doubling, four times as many defendants are getting out of jail on bond than they did four years ago. In 2012, the average number of days that a defendant charged with a felony gun crime spent in jail before posting bond was 42 days. In 2016 that number had dropped to 18 days. Fewer and fewer guns are being recovered by the Chicago Police. From 2012 until the end of last year, 9% fewer guns have been recovered.

Recently, Cook County authorities have been looking closely at reforming the Bond system in the Circuit Court of Cook County. Too many Defendants charged with minor non-violent crimes our spending too much time in Cook County Jail simply because they are unable to afford to post the bond. This is adding strain to the Cook County budget which is already in facing increasing economic pressure. Cook County authorities are trying to come up with a way to reserve precious jail resources for criminal defendants who are identified as posing a danger to the community.

Flynn and Immunity – More Than Meets the Eye

March 31, 2017 | by James G. Dimeas, Esq.

Michael-Flynn I woke up to multiple news reports this morning that former National Security advisor, Michael Flynn, has offered to cooperate with Federal Investigators in return for a grant of immunity. I was watching news coverage and notice that the media is not reporting all of the various factors and steps that have to be taken in order for this to happen. The reporting is very simple. However, the topic is certainly more complex than what is being reported. I want to focus on a couple of things that the media is not talking about.

Before I begin I want you to know that I have been a criminal defense lawyer for almost 25 years. I have represented numerous individuals who have either been facing criminal prosecution in the Federal courts, or were under criminal investigation by the federal government for various crimes. Some of my clients cooperated with Investigators and Prosecutors and were able to avoid criminal prosecution. Other clients agreed to cooperate with Federal Prosecutors and Federal Investigators in return for a reduced sentence in a Federal Criminal prosecution. So I approach this issue as someone who has experience representing people who were granted immunity in return for cooperating with government Investigators and Federal Prosecutors.

The first issue that I wanted to discuss is whether Flynn’s request for immunity means that he has something to hide. While his request for immunity may mean that he has reason to fear criminal prosecution, the mere request by him and his lawyers for immunity in return for talking to Investigators does not necessarily mean that he has anything to hide. It may simply mean that he has a good lawyer. Any lawyer representing anyone who wants to talk to Federal Investigators, or Federal Prosecutors would be committing malpractice if they did not try to get an agreement from the Prosecutors and Investigators that anything their client says to them cannot be used against their client in a criminal prosecution. Even if the lawyer believes their client when they say that they did nothing wrong, they would be crazy to put their entire faith in their client being 100% truthful with them. Plus, the lawyer does not know what evidence the feds have against their client. The job of a criminal defense attorney is to protect their client from the known and the unknown. As a lawyer, you cannot read your client’s mind. Therefore, the best way to protect your client when they are voluntarily talking to Federal Investigators and Federal Prosecutors is with a grant of immunity.