This is the January 2017 Illinois criminal case law audio summary. Episode 302 (Duration 16:53)
Why read about what the Illinois criminal law courts have been up to when you can just listen?
The best way to ensure you consistently outmatch and outgun the competition is by doing the work they don’t do. That means staying on top of the important opinions.
The January 2017 round-up is 16:53 minutes long.
The Top 10 Illinois Criminal Cases For January 2017
Here’s a quick snapshot of what’s included in your MP3 Download, this is what you missed:
1. People v. Day
You know how I always say DUI litigants win a case at the trial level and the appellate court comes along and snatches away the victory? Well it happened again. WRONG! Defendant actually wins at the trial level AND the appellate level by demonstrating the SFST’s were unreliable. Get this one in your DUI binder right away.
2. People v. Soto
When exactly does the the taint of a Mirandaless confession wear off? Does it take hours? or days? This defendant is reinterviewed in the same interrogation room with the same officer’s present. The opinion discusses curative measures like a substantial break in time and changing circumstances. Interestingly, defendant was homeless and was allowed to sleep at the police station during the investigation!
3. People v. Edwards
Here, a 17 year old with documented mental illness who was off his meds, nonetheless gives a 100% voluntary confession. He read at a fifth grade level, was hospitalized previously for mood disorder, bipolar disorder, and depression.
4. People v. Anderson
If you really want to use an eyewitness identification expert in your case then you better see how trial courts are distinguishing People v. Lerma.
5. People v. Biagi
That didn’t last long. This DUI litigant won at the trial level then lost at the appellate level. The trial judge was wrong to interpret flashing overhead lights as a show of force. Hmmm?
6. People v. Viramontes
Defendant’s codefendant had documented mental health issues. The state had her records. Defendant wanted them. State said “no”. Defendant used this often overlooked rule to easily get the records.
7. People v. Jones
Speaking of mental health records, this time defendant wanted to get his hands on the victim’s mental health records. However, defendant did not completely follow through with the rule.
8. People v. Heller
Are you remember to give a modified 3.14 when they bring in other crimes in a domestic battery? The IPI is wrong.
9. People v. Hernandez
How a “heat run” meant this defendant was accountable for a 7 kilo deal even though he was not the buyer or the seller of the smack.
10. People v. Brown
Counting days ain’t the most exciting thing we do, but if you can help your client get out 41 days sooner you can’t pass that up. Use this case to make sure you get every day he’s entitled to.