In
this e-Newsletter:
The Council recommends changes in
the way bond hearings are conducted in Cook County
A policy statement from the Chicago
Council of Lawyers
The Chicago Council of
Lawyers believes that the way in which closed circuit television is used
presently to conduct bond hearings in Central Bond Court results in an
unnecessary violation of bond applicants’ right to a full and fair
determination of the appropriate level of bond in their cases. We urge
Chief Judge Evans to take immediate steps to revise General Order 99-6
of the
Circuit
Court
of
Cook
County to resume
in- person bond hearings, rather than permitting the use of closed
circuit television, in bond hearings for persons charged with
probationable felony offenses. The Council also believes that bond
hearings need to be changed to allow the court to make informed
decisions about bond, and we believe that there needs to be serious
consideration about whether bond court should be centralized.
Locke Bowman, on behalf of the
MacArthur
Justice
Center recently
filed a lawsuit in federal court challenging the use of televised
hearings. While this suit is currently pending, the Council believes
that the Court should take action now to remedy a serious due process
problem in the
Circuit
Court
of
Cook
County.
The quality of bond hearings was the topic of a May 24, 2006 forum
co-sponsored by the Council and the Cook County Bar Association on the
use of videoconferencing in bail hearings held at the Criminal Courts
Building. In addition, the Council’s beliefs are supported by the
Trotter Commission report submitted by Professor Trotter of
American
University as part
of a federally funded effort to improve the administration of justice in
the criminal justice system.
Results of the Trotter Commission
Report
The Trotter Commission Report submitted in September of 2005 was clearly
critical of
Central Bond Court:
As noted above, the initial stages
of the judicial process in criminal cases bound for the Criminal
Division of the Circuit Court do not now permit fully informed bond and
release decisions to be made by the judges assigned to these hearings
for a number of reasons.
First, these decisions are made at the
Criminal
Courts
Building by judges
assigned from the First Municipal District of the Circuit Court, not the
Criminal Division judges who will be responsible for cases that proceed
past the initial bond-release hearing.
Second, these judges receive no information from a disinterested
interviewer as to the relevant facts about the defendant (e.g.,
verification of residence, length of time at the address, family and
other ties to the community, etc.) that would support either release or
suggest that strict conditions should be set for release. This is
precisely the information that an effective Pretrial Services Agency
provides to the judiciary. Instead, the
Assistant
State's Attorney
present normally provides a criminal history (rap) sheet and a record of
any failures to appear by defendants.
Third, the hearings are a mass production operation. Large numbers of
defendants are "brought before the court" through video link-up with the
cell block in the basement of the courthouse. The defendants may not
have had the opportunity to meet with a public defender prior to the
hearing, or had time to communicate more than the most limited
information about their eligibility for release, and the public defender
assigned to the courtroom therefore may attempt through communication
with a defendant in the cell block to make any possible arguments for
the defendant's release (p. 21).
The Trotter Commission goes on to point out that the termination of the
Pre-trial Services Agency by the Adult Probation Department has severely
restricted the ability of judges to make appropriate decisions regarding
pre-trial release. Moreover, inadequate bond hearings result in few
defendants being released on bond, thereby adding to jail overcrowding
and the resulting additional costs of operating the jail.
The current structure of
Central Bond Court
does not allow for family members to have input as to any of the areas
set forth by statute and enumerated by the Trotter Commission report.
Indeed, the video- conference aspect of the process prohibits the
accused from having any communication whatsoever with his/her attorney
during the bond hearing.
Additionally, there is no effort made on behalf of the accused to verify
any of the positive aspects that should be put forth before the court or
to mitigate the negative factors argued by the State. This factor alone
serves to define the current
Central Bond Court as
fundamentally unfair and inherently unjust.
The Trotter Commission also addressed the fact that following the
abbreviated
Central Bond Court
hearings, it is often not possible to have an effective review of the
initial bond decision:
Another shortcoming of this process,
in addition to the rendering of the release ¬bond decision without
adequate information about the defendant, is the lack of effective
review of the release-bond decision. At the bond hearing, cases are
scheduled for their preliminary hearings, also before the First
Municipal District judges. Both the judges at the preliminary hearings
and the judges of the Criminal Division who will assume responsibility
for the cases when they are arraigned, normally three weeks after the
preliminary hearing, have made it clear to defense counsel that bond
review applications are not favored and will rarely be granted. This
situation is also complicated by the varying way in which different
trial judges interpret the meaning of new information, which is what is
required for a new bond motion to be heard. The Criminal Division judges
also appear to hold the view that these decisions are best made by the
judges at the initial hearing and should not be reconsidered.
Consequently, public defenders are discouraged by these conditions from
making applications for bond review and, reportedly, relatively few are
filed, as compared with prevailing practice in other large urban
jurisdictions (p. 22).
The sum total of these deficiencies is devastating to an accused: the
defendant is saddled with a de facto unreviewable result of a thirty
second hearing wherein no effort was made to put forth evidence on his
behalf or defend against evidence introduced by the prosecution. The
Council submits that this result, and the system that allows this
result, is fundamentally flawed.
Recommendations
The Council is recommending that the Office of The Chief Judge of
Cook
County reassess the
policy creating
Central Bond Court and
institute the following changes:
1. Do away with the video-conferencing aspects of
Central Bond Court and
return to an in-person hearing pending further review of the
Central Bond Court
concept.
2. Take steps to reinstitute the Pre-trial Services Office and an
independent branch of the Office of the Chief Judge.
3. Enter an administrative order directing that the representative of
the accused be tendered a copy of the arrest report and the criminal
history sheet of the accused before the bond hearing so as to allow
sufficient time for investigation of the circumstances of the arrest, a
review of the criminal history sheet with the accused, and contact with
family members, employers and other individuals familiar with the
accused.
4. Enter an administrative order directing that any accused whose bond
was set in
Central Bond Court
shall be entitled to a de novo bond hearing once assigned to a trial
courtroom.
5. Convene a working group to investigate the possibility of returning
bond hearings to the neighborhood branch courts. The Council strongly
urges the Office of the Chief Judge to consider this change for several
reasons: family members may be present at a bond hearing to act as
resources for an accused and his advocate; the ability to investigate
the background of an accused will be more easily facilitated; the
resources expended in transporting hundreds of prisoners to a central
locations would be saved; a more meaningful and just bond hearing would
be conducted allowing the judge to make reasonable release
determinations.
Chicago Appleseed: A Decade of
Growth" Gala Event on March 7!
Honorees include Gloria
Santona, Michael Freed and Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw LLP
Appleseed and Chicago Appleseed Fund for Justice
are pleased to announce Attorney General Lisa Madigan as the keynote
speaker for their upcoming gala “A Decade of Growth.” The 2007 honorees,
noted for their exceptional pro bono efforts, are Gloria Santona,
Executive Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary, McDonalds
Corporation; Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw LLP; and Michael Freed, Founding
Partner, Freed Kanner London & Millen LLC. The “Decade of Growth” event
celebrates the anniversary of Chicago Appleseed’s ten-year affiliation
with Appleseed, making Chicago Appleseed part of a nationwide network of
law and justice centers dedicated to systemic reform of local and
national social justice issues.
Event co-chairs are Andrew Brownstein, Wachtell Lipton Rosen & Katz;
Alan Silberman, Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal LLP; Janet Fisher, Cleary
Gottlieb; James H. Wooten, Illinois Tool Works, Inc.; Mark Shapiro,
Holland + Knight LLP; Michael Kelber, Neal Gerber & Eisenberg LLP;
Cameron Findlay, AON Corporation; and Richard Godfrey, Kirkland & Ellis
LLP.
The reception and dinner will take place on Wednesday, March 7, 2007 at
the InterContinental Hotel in Chicago, Illinois. Tickets for this event
are now on sale. For more information, contact Amanda Grant at
312-988-6599, or download the pledge form at www.chicagoappleseed.org.
The
2007 Membership Drive
is Underway!
Invite a coworker to join the Council
For 38 years, the
Chicago Council of Lawyers has been the voice for local attorneys who
want to promote positive change within our justice system. Invite a
friend to join now--we are offering a 2007 rate of $50.00 for a one-year
trial membership. Simply forward
this information to a coworker, and encourage them to join today!
See what the Council has to offer:
• Join a group of like-minded
Chicago lawyers who believe that the
legal profession is among the most noble of professions, and have
dedicated themselves to improving the justice system in
Chicago.
• Volunteer opportunities provide a great way to get involved, network
with others in the legal community, and promote change in a variety of
social justice issues.
• The Council’s state and federal judicial evaluations provide a
valuable resource for lawyers and judges alike! Check out our latest
judicial evaluations on our website,
www.chicagocouncil.org.
• Make your voice heard! Join the Council and speak out on issues that
affect you as a legal professional and as a resident of
Illinois.
• Invitations to events designed for
Chicago attorneys who want
to make a difference. At the 2006 Annual Luncheon, over 30 law firms
gathered to hear keynote speaker Lynn Sweet, D.C. Bureau Chief for the
Chicago Sun-Times, and present the Commitment to Justice Award to the
Honorable Paul Biebel, Presiding Judge of the Criminal Division.
• Attend forums focusing on pertinent justice issues that matter to you.
Recently, the Council and the
Chicago chapter of the American
Constitution Society sponsored a forum on judicial selection in
Illinois that featured
Rachel Caufield, Deborah Goldberg, Shira Goodman, Hon. Benjamin Miller,
Larry Suffredin and more.
• Participate in Council committees that call for fair and just
legislative action, and collaborate with other organizations in
Chicago to achieve systemic
change. The Children and Family Law Committee, Civil Liberties Committee
and Judicial Evaluation Committee meet regularly, and new members are
always welcome!
• Become part of the nationwide Appleseed Network of public interest law
centers. The Council partners with the
Chicago Appleseed Fund for Justice, a research and advocacy
organization focusing on government effectiveness and social justice
issues.
• Be informed. E-newsletters help you stay on top of our latest work and
inform our members about volunteer opportunities. Publications and
reports serve as valuable reference materials in your daily practice.
For more information on this special membership rate, contact Executive
Director Malcolm Rich at 312-988- 6552 or visit
www.chicagocouncil.org.