Yes, FWIW has previously announced this event.
But there a couple of newsworthy updates. First, tickets are now available on the Events Page of the CCBA website. (That's new since my initial post.)
Also... did you notice the bit about masks? That's new, too.
Weren't we just talking about masks coming back? Masks are going to be a big fashion accessory this Fall. And, perhaps, on the Fremont Rooftop this coming Wednesday as well.
The Chicago Bar Association is accepting nominations for its annual Justice John Paul Stevens Award. Established in 2000, the award is presented annually to Illinois lawyers and judges whose careers best emulate Justice Stevens’ integrity, legacy of service to the bench and the bar, and commitment to public and community service. This year's award presentation will be made in the Fall.
Nominations with supporting materials or information should be sent to the Justice John Paul Stevens Award Committee by August 13, c/o Beth McMeen, Executive Director at bmcmeen@chicagobar.org.
Prior John Paul Stevens Award honorees include:
- 2020 - Marisel Hernandez, Jennifer Nijman, Terrence Murphy, Zaldwaynaka (Z) Scott and Judge E. Kenneth Wright Jr.;
- 2019 - Hon. Sharon Johnson Coleman, Hon. Lori E. Lightfoot, Hon. William D. Maddux (ret.), Hon. Sheila M. Murphy (ret.), Joseph A. Power, Jr. and Mark L. Rotert;
- 2018 - Laurel G. Bellows, Carol A. Brook, Kevin P. Durkin, John N. Gallo, Terri L. Mascherin, Hon. P. Scott Neville, Jr., Hon. Jesse G. Reyes, Hon. Mary K. Rochford, and Tina Tchen;
- 2017 - Hon. Ruben Castillo, Robert A. Clifford, Hon. Nathaniel R. Howse, Jr., Hon. Joan Humphrey Lefkow, Richard J. Prendergast, Larry R. Rogers, Sr., Ronald S. Safer, Hon. Mary Jane Theis, and Dan K. Webb;
- 2016 - George B. Collins, Brian L. Crowe, Thomas A. Demetrio, Thomas Anthony Durkin, J. Timothy Eaton, Josie M. Gough, Joan M. Hall, Eileen M. Letts, and Joseph L. Stone;
- 2015 - Peter J. Birnbaum, James R. Figliulo, Edward I. Grossman, Hon. Shelvin Louise Marie Hall, Paula H. Holderman, Mary Meg McCarthy, Daniel E. Reidy and William A. Von Hoene, Jr.;
- 2014 - Kimball R. Anderson, Hon. Joy V. Cunningham, Kevin M. Forde, Hon. Michael B. Hyman, Hon. Thomas L. Kilbride, Jean Powers Kamp, Gordon B. Nash Jr., and Kerry R. Peck;
- 2013 - William F. Conlon, Hon. William H. Hooks, Hon. Warren D. Wolfson, and Hon. Diane P. Wood;
- 2012 - Anita Alvarez, Jeffrey D. Colman, Honorable Joan B. Gottschall, Thomas Z. Hayward, Jr., Hon. James F. Holderman and Willie J. Miller, Jr.;
- 2011 - Ellen E. Douglass, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, and David C. Hilliard;
- 2010 - Hon. Wayne R. Andersen and Hon. Sophia H. Hall;
- 2009 - Hon. Marvin E. Aspen, Lawrence E. Kennon, Terence F. MacCarthy and Howard J. Trienens;
- 2008 - Hon. Thomas R. Fitzgerald, John B. Simon and Hon. Ann C. Williams;
- 2007 - Leon M. Despres, James D. Montgomery, Sheldon H. Roodman and Sister Catherine M. Ryan;
- 2006 - Hon. Anne M. Burke, Donald Hubert, Hon. Charles P. Kocoras and Thomas H. Morsch;
- 2005 - George M. Burditt, Hon. Timothy C. Evans, Hon. Abner J. Mikva and Hon. Ilana Diamond Rovner;
- 2004 - Martha A. Mills, George W. Overton and Hon. Seymour F. Simon;
- 2003 - Hon. Joel M. Flaum, Hon. Earl E. Strayhorn and Hon. James R. Thompson;
- 2002 - George J. Cotsirilos, Hon. Mary Ann G. McMorrow and Newton N. Minow;
- 2001 - Hon. Richard J. Fitzgerald, Dolores K. Hanna, Robert A. Helman, Hon. Prentice H. Marshall, Earl L. Neal and Alexander Polikoff;
- 2000 - Jean Allard, Hon. William J. Bauer, Philip H. Corboy, Milton H. Gray, Hon. George N. Leighton, Dawn Clark Netsch, Jerold S. Solovy and Thomas P. Sullivan.
Ed. Note -- While I've reformatted it, the contents of the above list has been reproduced exactly as it was received from the CBA. Persons who were serving as judges at the time of their selection, or who had served as judges but retired prior to their selection, were generally accorded the "Hon." designation before their names. Scanning the list you'll see a number of persons who later attained judicial office but who were not yet designated as "Hon." when they received their awards. On the other hand, the late Brian L. Crowe was both a Cook County Circuit Court judge and, later, Chicago Corproation Counsel, before his award was conferred and he didn't get his "Hon."
Honorifics are kind of a minefield because there are no hard and fast rules about where to draw the line between "Hon." and the rest of us. Present and former elected officials and persons who have served in high appointed offices are often also designated as "Hon." The late Gov. James Thompson and current Chicago Mayor Lightfoot are so designated on the above list. But not Dawn Clark Netsch... Newton N. Minow... Leon M. Despres... James D. Montgomery... Anita Alvarez... Thomas P. Sullivan... Dan K. Webb.... There were a number of omissions that I caught and I'm sure I missed some. But I am certain no disrespect was intended -- I'm sure I missed a few myself -- and I thought the list might be of interest.
Most people can be divided into two groups, those who see the glass as half-full and those who see the glass as half-empty.
If you are in the former group, you may be cheered by the knowledge that Chicago, which lags behind the rest of the State of Illinois in terms of COVID-19 vaccine compliance, is at least ahead of the national averages for vaccination according to the most recent data posted by the Mayo Clinic:
As of yesterday, July 30, according to the Mayo Clinic, 49.7% of the U.S. population is fully vaccinated, while 57.6% of the nation's population has received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine.
The question always arises, when looking at data like this, whether we are talking about the vaccine-eligible population, namely, those aged 12 and up, or the entire population, from diapers to Depends. This graphic, from the same Mayo Clinic page linked above, suggests they may be talking about the population as a whole, not just those who are old enough to receive the vaccines:
So I think, but do not warrant, that the Mayo Clinic vaccination figures are directly comparable to the City of Chicago numbers, inasmuch as the City's COVID-19 Dashboard Information Page says "Citywide values are for the total population of Chicago." Here is the City of Chicago COVID-19 Dashboard for July 31:
See? The City's latest fully vaccinated rate (52.2%) compares favorably with the national rate of 49.7%. And Chicago's partially vaccinated rate (58.5%) bests the national single dose rate of 57.6%.
And did you notice the positivity rate of 3.1% on the City site? This compares quite favorably indeed with the national positive rate as reported by the Mayo Clinic:
According to the Mayo Clinic, the average positive test rate is 12.01% as of July 29.
So there is some happy talk for the glass-half-full folks to share.
But statewide compliance is still ahead of Chicago. The Illinois Department of Public Health, in a July 30 release, advises that more than 58% of Illinois residents have been fully vaccinated, while over 74% have received at least one dose.
Chicago's hesitancy is dragging the Illinois vaccination numbers down.
On the other hand, the "preliminary seven-day statewide positivity for cases as a percent of total test from July 23-29, 2021 is 4.0%. The preliminary seven-day statewide test positivity from July 23-29, 2021 is 4.7%." For now, at least, the bug appears to be spreading faster outside Chicago than in. But in a couple of weeks we ought to be able catch up: Thanks, Lollapalooza.
But if the current Chicago numbers seem to provide thin gruel for the glass-half-empty folks, they can surely take encouragement from comparisons between this week's numbers and the numbers earlier this month.
To wit, the July 24 Chicago COVID-19 Dashboard:
And the July 17 Dashboard:
And, finally, the July 10 Dashboard:
Daily average cases keep creeping up... 41... 70... 130... 206. At the current rate of increase, these numbers can get scary big really fast.
What we're not tracking, apparently, are breakthrough infections -- vaccinated persons coming down with one of the new, more virulent, or at least more contagious, strain of the COVID-19 virus. We are told at the highest levels that we now have "a pandemic of the unvaccinated." But it may not be only the unvaccinated who are at risk of contracting or spreading the disease.
In a July 31 interview with Alexander Nazaryan of Yahoo!News, Dr. Leana Wen, author of Lifelines: A Doctor's Journey in the Fight for Public Health, noted that the United States has failed to track most 'breakthrough' infections -- vaccinated people who come down with COVID-19 anyway:
We have a serious data problem in the U.S. for unclear reasons. The CDC, back in May, stopped collecting data on mild breakthrough infections. They announced that they were only going to be collecting data on severe breakthroughs, meaning severe enough to cause hospitalizations or deaths. Now I really do not think that this was the right decision at all. We need to understand, what is the likelihood — period — of breakthrough infections?
Are we talking a one-in-a-hundred chance or one-in-two chance? We literally do not know.
I hate to quite put it in this way, but in a way, this is not dissimilar to what happened under the Trump administration, when the mantra seemed to be, ‘If you don't test, it's not there.’ Well, if you don't test, if you don’t track, the infections are still there. We just don’t know about it.
Anecdotal evidence is starting to accumulate that breakthrough infections are increasing. A fully-vaccinated Miami businesswoman's breakthrough infection made the Miami Herald recently. And the deaths of a "dozen high-risk Missouri residents who were vaccinated against COVID-19" was just reported in the Kansas City Star.
Missouri and Florida are at the crest of the wave of this latest resurgance. We here in Illinois are supposed to look down our blue noses at them in smug superiority. But, even so, you can see where this is going: This disease has been spread, right from the outset, by asymptomatic carriers. A lot of unvaccinated persons---back when there were no vaccines---spread the virus never knowing they'd been afflicted. Now, it turns out, according to this July 30 AP article by Lindsey Tanner, Mike Stobbe, and Philip Marceloi, the CDC has determined that vaccinated people can unwittingly spread the new Delta COVID-19 variant. We may not know we have the Delta variant -- it may not make us sick (because the vaccine works, darn it!) -- but we may be part of the ever-growing problem, making unvaccinated people (and perhaps even some of our vaccinated brothers and sisters) sick.
It doesn't have to be this way. If more people would just get vaccinated... but, in the meantime, mask mandates are coming back. For all of us.
Yes... there are plenty of facts available for the glass-half-empty folks, too.
Of course, most of the people coming here to FWIW are lawyers. Lawyers may belong to neither the glass-half-full nor the glass-half-empty camp.
A lot of lawyers, by habit and instinct and training, are typically much more concerned with whether the glass is sufficiently shatterproof, or safely situated on an adequate support. And, wait, when was that glass last washed? Has the liquid within been tested for purity or potabiility? We lawyers may never quite get to formulating an opinion about the actual level of liquid contained in the cylinder....
The 4th Annual Installation of the President, Officers, and Board Members of the Illinois Latino Judges Association will take place this Thursday, July 29, from 6:00 to 7:30 p.m., in the 18th floor Courtroom of the Michael A. Bilandic Building, 160 N. LaSalle Street.
Because of seating capacity limitations, in-person attendance is by invitation only. But the ceremony will be available via Zoom. Advance registration is required; email sortiz@kentlaw.edu for details.
Cook County Circuit Court Judge Sandra G. Ramos will be installed as ILJA President at Thursday's event. Officers include Judges Rossana Fernandez, 1st Vice President; David Navarro, 2nd Vice President; Alfredo Maldonado, Secretary; and Edward Arce, Treasurer. Board members to be installed include Cook County Judges Eulalia (Evie) De La Rosa and Laura Ayala Gonzalez, and U.S. Dist. Ct. Judge Franklin Valderrama.
Illinois Supreme Court Justice Mary Jane Theis and Cook County Chief Judge Timothy C. Evans will be the installing officers.
At Thursday's event, the ILJA will also honor four "Latinx History Makers," Cong. Jesus "Chuy" Garcia, Clerk of the Circuit Court Iris Y. Martinez, Duke University Professor Eduardo Bonilla-Silva, and Attorney Arturo Jáuregui.
A "casual mingle" at Moe's Cantina will follow the ceremony. In-person and Zoom attendees will be welcome at this cash bar event, according to event organizers.
A screenshot of today's City of Chicago COVID Dashboard:
This information does not mean much in a vacuum. Compare the City COVID-19 Dashboard as of July 17:
And compare also with this snapshot of the COVID-19 Dashboard from July 10, just two weeks ago:
The "daily average" of COVID-19 cases today -- 130 -- may not look so bad. Things were much worse last October or November. But today's daily average compares rather unfavorably with last week's daily average (70) or the average from two weeks ago (41). A positivity rate of 2.2% seems unthreatening enough. But... two weeks ago it was .9%... last week it was 1.2%.
But hey! Lollapalooza starts Thursday. Yippee!
Deaths are down this week -- .57 a day -- down from one a day a week ago -- but daily average hospitalizations are up (7.33 as of July 24, compared to 5.33 as of July 17 and 4.50 as of July 10) -- and, throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, death rates tend to lag a bit behind increasing hospitalization rates.
But here is the figure that is perhaps most frightening: As of July 24 only 51.7% of Chicagoans are fully vaccinated against COVID-19. Only 57.7% have taken a single dose. Last week those numbers were 51.1% and 57.1%. Two weeks ago they were 50.5% and 56.5%. Why aren't these numbers growing faster?
Vaccines are plentiful -- it's not March anymore -- and they're free. Every public official at every level, high and low, is urging anyone and everyone to get their shots ASAP. And has been now for weeks and weeks. So... why isn't everyone around here vaccinated?
We are told, repeatedly, that Democratic voters are vaccinated and only knuckle-dragging Republican Neanderthals are not.
And, certainly, there is at least some anecdotal evidence to support the notion that recalcitrant Republicans are lagging behind their more-enlightened Democratic fellow citizens. So it seems safe to conclude that this must be part of the explanation.
But---c'mon people---does anyone really think that 49% of the population of the City of Chicago are Fox-News-viewing, Trump-supporting yahoos?
Vaccine hesitancy can not be explained away by Red vs. Blue alone. Not in Chicago. Not in Cook County. Harping on this one explanation is preventing us from getting at the real root causes. We have to put aside this eternal partisan posturing and start asking why vaccine hesitancy is so widespread here. Unless, of course, you like the idea of returning to lockdown.
(I found out about this story from Rich Miller's CapitolFax. Credit where credit is due.)
The Center for Illinois Politics published this article, by Eric Krol, on July 18. An excerpt:
The [2nd District] seat is one of two spots up for grabs on a court where Democrats hold a 4-3 edge, and the campaigns will unfold after both sides shattered Illinois spending records on a judicial contest in fall 2020. Illinois Republicans and their business allies scored a big win when voters rejected retention for then-Justice Tom Kilbride of Rock Island in the 3rd District, who was backed by trial lawyers and labor unions. The district has been tweaked to make it more Democrat-friendly, but for Republicans, the 2022 contests may represent the party’s best shot at regaining a toehold in state government.
The two Supreme Court vacancies to be filled in 2022 are Kilbride's and the vacancy of former Justice Robert R. Thomas. Justice Michael Burke, like Thomas a former DuPage County judge and Second District Appellate Court Justice, was appointed to the Thomas vacancy last year but must run for and win a seat in 2022 to remain on the court. (Kilbride was replaced by Third District Appellate Court Justice Robert L. Carter -- and Carter has indicated he will not run for Kilbride's seat next year.) Burke was expected to seek election from the 2nd District -- but DuPage County was moved to the 3rd District by the Democratic Party's cartographers in this year's remap. So the new 2nd District seat would appear to be wide open.
While judicial elections outside Cook County are ordinarily beyond the scope of this site, I expect that many readers will have at least a passing interest in these two critical races.
Lake and Kane Counties are the biggest counties in the new 2nd District and all of the potential candidates identified in the Center for Illinois Politics article hail from one or the other. The candidates (so far) are:
- Lake County Circuit Court Judge Daniel Shanes (Republican);
- Lake County Associate Judge Elizabeth Rochford (Democrat) (the daughter of former Chicago Police Superintendent James Rochford);
- Highland Park Mayor Nancy Rotering (Democrat);
- Kane County Circuit Court Judge John Noverini (Democrat); and
- Kane County Circuit Court Judge Rene Cruz (Democrat).
Just as here in County Cook, no one is really a candidate until they actually file -- and that's a long way off yet. But there's much more detail and analysis in the Center for Illinois Politics article for those who crave more information even if it is really, really early in this modified election cycle.
The Illinois Judicial Council will hold its 39th Annual Installation and Scholarship Awards Ceremony on Wednesday, August 18, from 5:00 to 8:00 p.m., at The VU, 133 East Cermak.
Tickets for the event are $150 each and may be obtained via this page of the IJC website. All tickets muct be purchased in advance; no tickets will be sold at the door.
The theme of this year's event is "Strengthening Our Foundation to Empower and Uplift Our Community."
The IJC is also offering sponsorship opportunities for this event:
- Platinum Sponsorship -- $2,500
Includes four event tickets and a mention in the event program
- Gold Sponsorship -- $1,500
Includes two event tickets and a mention in the event program
- Silver Sponsorship -- $500
Includes one event ticket and a mention in the event program
Sponsorships may be obtained via this page of the IJC website.
The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, in conjunction with the Chicago Chapter of the Federal Bar Association, is seeking nominations to be submitted to the court no later than August 1, 2021 for attorneys who have provided outstanding pro bono and public interest representation in civil and criminal matters in the Northern District. A nominee should be someone who has demonstrated excellence in commitment to pro bono or public interest work by handling a matter in the Northern District as a court-appointed attorney, pro bono attorney, or staff attorney for a not‑for‑profit agency, representing an indigent party in a civil or criminal matter.
Persons nominated may be selected for awards to be conferred at the 21st Annual Awards for Excellence in Pro Bono and Public Interest Service in 2020 and 2021 on Thursday, September 9, at 2:00 p.m.
Factors to be considered in the selection of the nominee include: dedication to pro bono or public interest work, outstanding achievement resulting from the representation of a large group of indigents, successful representation in a difficult case, outstanding negotiation and settlement skills in achieving a result without trial, extraordinary number of hours committed to pro bono work, or other distinguished performance. All pro bono and public interest work considered must be work performed in the Northern District in civil or criminal matters on cases that are now completed and no longer pending.
Nominations must be made on or before August 1, 2021 using this link, https://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/_assets/_documents/Fillable Nomination Form 2020-2021.pdf. Please include a brief summary of the reasons why you think the person you nominate has performed outstanding pro bono or public interest work.
Completed nominations should be sent via e-mail to ProBonoAwards@ilnd.uscourts.gov.
If you have any questions, please contact the Chambers of Chief Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer.
I hope everyone who sees this post has at least one Special Someone in their lives -- a parent or grandparent, perhaps, or a spouse or a child.
As you think carefully about this Special Someone, you will have to admit that he or she is not perfect -- only God is perfect, you may think, if you ever think about those things. If your Special Someone has been on this planet for any length of time, he or she may have a Past. He or she may have once said things, or done things, that you find objectionable. You may recall your disappointment, and maybe even your anger, when you first discovered that your Special Someone may have harbored attitudes or even engaged in actions some time ago that you find unacceptable today. Perhaps your Special Someone has repudiated his or her life mistakes; perhaps your Special Someone has not entirely owned up to some of the questionable, or even downright bad, things in his or her past.
But that Special Someone, for all his or her faults, is still precious to you. Why? Because the many good qualities of your Special Someone, in your view, overcome and overshadow his or her past and present missteps and failings.
Now... how would you introduce your Special Someone to strangers? How would you teach people about your Special Someone? Would you start by dwelling on all his or her faults, all his or her failings, and all the times he or she had failed to live up to your expectations? Would you focus on every bad thing he or she did, and every bad thing he or she said? Before saying one nice thing about your Special Someone, would you first insist on explaining every occasion on which your Special Someone had said one thing and done another?
Well, that might be the approach you'd take -- if you wanted those strangers to despise and maybe even hate your Special Someone. So -- obviously -- you would instead introduce your Special Someone by stressing the good qualities of that person, the things that made that person special to you in the first place. You would not hide or ignore the past failings of your Special Someone -- were you to try such a tactic, once your audience got to know your Special Someone, at least some of them would figure out your Special Someone's imperfections and your credibility would be damaged -- but you would not lead with these flaws and, when you did introduce them, you might do so in a way that would help strangers to understand how your Special Someone overcame, or is working to overcome, these past errors of omission or commission and how your Special Person grew from his or her mistakes.
So it should be with the teaching of American history to children.
The United States of America is a flawed nation, of course -- but all nations, like all human things, are flawed. However, unlike nearly every other nation in the entire world, America is a country not founded on shared blood but on a radical, world-altering principle, namely, that all persons are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, and that, among these, are rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. America has not always lived up to the ideals expressed in the Declaration of Independence. Hey, a great many of America's Founders could not accept the real-world implications of this radical notion, the principal author of the Declaration, Thomas Jefferson, most prominent among these.
There will be time, after children are exposed to the historic events surrounding the development of this principle, and its adoption by the Second Continential Congress, after they have imbibed deeply of this world-shattering concept, to reveal the many times that our nation failed to live up to the promise of the Declaration of Independence, starting with the Founders' own failures. Learning about our past mistakes will not keep us from making new ones, but it may, and should, help us not to repeat old ones.
And American history is not a story of just one Special Someone. The nation's history is the cumulative story of its leaders, and all its citizens, some heroes, some villians, some persons embodying both hero and villian at the same time. Read any of Robert Caro's books on Lyndon Johnson, for example. And the best part is that the story keeps changing, keeps getting richer and more interesting. At an April 29, 1962 White House dinner honoring Nobel Prize winners, President John F. Kennedy said, "I think this is the most extraordinary collection of talent, of human knowledge, that has ever been gathered at the White House – with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone." Of all the Founders, I can't think of any who has fallen farther or faster in public esteem in my lifetime than Thomas Jefferson. No serious politician would dare lavish such praise on Jefferson today. Bottom line: there is no 'one' American history.
A great story almost always has a flawed hero. And there are a great many flawed heroes from which to choose when telling the tale---the many tales---of America's history. But the heroes' flaws and failings should help the student to see the their triumphs and successes as that much more spectacular.
I do not advocate a Parson Weems or Disney Princess approach to teaching American history. There is good and bad in all humans and in all human things. In our eagerness to confess our faults, however, let us not lose sight of our accomplishments. As my mother used to say, tell the truth and shame the Devil. But tell the stories -- teach the stories -- in a way that helps our children and grandchildren learn to appreciate our special country, what it has been and what it can be.
First, the text of Friday's statement from the Office of Chief Judge Timothy C. Evans. The gist of this statement has been widely reported:
The Circuit Court of Cook County is making dozens of courtrooms available for jury and bench trials, which will speed up resolution of cases that have been delayed due to pandemic-related restrictions, Chief Judge Timothy C. Evans announced today. The expanded reopening of the criminal courts has been made possible by new health guidance regarding the pandemic.
Precautions taken due to the pandemic have required six feet of social distancing in court facilities, which meant that the number of trials that could be held was limited. Jury trials required the use of at least two courtrooms – one for the trial itself, one for jury deliberations, and a third space for public viewing. Beginning with the first jury trials in March, the courts had the capacity to hold eight jury trials a week.
But Dr. Rachel Rubin, Senior Medical Officer, Cook County Department of Public Health, has advised the court that the six-foot requirement can be reduced to three feet in courtrooms, so more rooms can be used for trials, Judge Evans said. Judge Evans signed an order on Friday allowing use of 86 courtrooms for bench trials, 76 of which can also be used for jury trials, as well as other changes to increase court capacity. The order will take effect on Friday, July 23.
As of this week, approximately 159 criminal cases are ready for trial, and the courts should be able to “comfortably” accommodate all these requests before October 1, Judge Evans said. On that date, speedy trial requirements under Illinois law, which the Supreme Court had temporarily suspended due to the coronavirus pandemic, will again be in effect.
“We should be able to accommodate anybody who answers ready for trial,” said Judge Evans. “We are preparing for the end of the tolling of the speedy trial statutes so that the constitutional and statutory rights of defendants can be protected. By ensuring the safe and efficient reopening of the courts, we also are protecting the rights of victims of crime.”
Under the Illinois Speedy Trial Act, a defendant who has been taken into custody must be tried within 120 days. If a defendant is released on bail, he or she must be tried within 160 days after filing a written demand for a trial.
In order to handle demands for criminal trials in the coming months, the court will both use judges ordinarily assigned to criminal matters in the city and suburbs and “emergency judges.” These are judges who used to be criminal court judges, but now serve in other divisions, such as the Law Division, Judge Evans said.
Throughout the coronavirus pandemic, the courts have not been idle, but operated using both Zoom videoconference technology and in-person proceedings that were guided by such safety precautions as social distancing, mandatory masking and temperature and wellness checks at courthouse entrances.
Between the beginning of April 2020 and the end of May 2021, about 128,000 criminal cases have been disposed in the Cook County Circuit Court, which has included nearly 13,000 guilty pleas and more than 1,000 bench trials. Juries have been seated in 39 trials, including 29 criminal trials and 10 civil trials, since jury trials resumed on March 22.
Judges, lawyers and defendants have found that videoconferencing is both effective and practical for certain proceedings, and it will continue to be used now that the pandemic is receding. Under the order, judges can continue to use videoconference technology in certain situations, including status hearings, requests for continuances, prosecution of alleged local ordinance violations, agreed orders, and initial bail hearings.
To determine best practices in expanding the capacity for bench and jury trials and accelerate the opening of criminal court in-person proceedings, Judge Evans last month formed a committee of criminal justice stakeholders and other related groups.
These criminal justice stakeholders include the Cook County State’s Attorney, the Cook County Public Defender, the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County, the Cook County Sheriff, and all the presiding judges who handle criminal matters, along with members of the private bar.
Judge Evans thanked these groups for their guidance, advice, and continuing support during this challenging time.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------That's the text. Here's some context:
COVID-19 cases are going up here and around the country.
The rise is so alarming in California that public health officials in L.A. County have reimposed an indoor mask mandate there. Persons in L.A. must wear masks in indoor public spaces, regardless of vaccination status.
According to the linked L.A. Times article by Luke Money, Rong-Gong Lin II, and Melissa Hernandez, the local mandate "puts the county further at odds with both the California Department of Public Health and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention -- both of which continue to maintain that vaccinated people need not cover their faces."
And the L.A. County Sheriff has already announced that his office will not enforce the new mask mandate because it "is not backed by science and contradicts the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guildelines," according to a statement quoted in the linked NBC News article, by Minyvonne Burke.
Backed by science or not, the L.A. County Sheriff has urged that citizens voluntarily comply.
That's really all police agencies around the country have been able to do throughout the Pandemic with all the various mandates. What was the alternative? Arrest those who don't don a mask when reminded by a police officer? What if the scofflaw resists? What if he or she runs away? Would the courts anywhere in the U.S. have sent serial refusers to jail? Even if they were in session? The word "force" is embedded in the word "enforce." And without a credible threat of force, there really can be no 'enforcement,' only requests for voluntary compliance.
Which were often ignored -- as this request is likely to be ignored. As similar requests have been ignored in many communities. In many different types of communities. And not just by Trumpsters. There are probably fewer Trumpsters in L.A. County than there are in the County of Cook. And, yet, in True Blue urban areas as well as among Red State refuseniks there are all sorts of non-vaccinated people who have not been wearing masks. (I'd be willing to wager that the majority of folks you see wearing masks on the street around you, at church this morning, or in your local shops, have been vaccinated and are just being cautious.) And the failure of unvaccinated people to abide by existing mask mandates is part of the reason why the numbers are trending up again.
And the numbers are trending up, objectively, and anywhere one looks. The Mayo Clinic reports average positive test rate of 7.63% as of July 17 -- up from 5.5%, according to the Mayo Clinic caluculations just last week.
Here's the City COVID-19 Dashboard as of July 10:
Here's the City COVID-19 Dashboard as of July 17:
Things have changed in the past week, and not for the better.
I don't want to go back into lockdown.
I can't imagine that anyone reading this wants to go back into lockdown either.
And I am sure that no elected official wants to incur the likely political cost of imposing a new lockdown.
But the numbers of new cases keep going up. And vaccinations are lagging. So we're going to have to find some happy medium between a new lockdown and blissful, deluded ignorance of reality. L.A. County health officials may be onto something with their new mask mandate.
Not that we're supposed to remember, but it took quite awhile for a scientific consensus to form around the efficacy of mask wearing last year, too. A lot of reputable scientists were against mask wearing before they were for it.
I think we must continue re-opening. But I predict mask-wearing will become part of any New Normal. Hopefully by consensus and voluntary compliance, but perhaps because some sort of enforcement scheme is imposed. At least until more people get vaccinated. Or get sick.
Gov. Pritzker today signed a package of criminal justice reform bills into law. The link is to the CapitolFax post on the subject.
Cook County Chief Judge Timothy C. Evans subsequently issued a statement concerning one of these bills in particular. That statement follows in full:
Chief Judge Timothy C. Evans today praised the signing of SB 64, a bill designed to promote restorative justice practices, which offer an alternative to incarceration and can help break the cycle of criminal behavior.
“I thank the governor and our lawmakers in Springfield for this legislation, which promotes something that we know can help break the cycle of criminal behavior and help people become productive members of their communities,” said Judge Evans, who was present for the signing.
Restorative justice aims at resolving conflict through conferences and peace circles involving defendants, victims, family members, friends, others affected by the crime, and the community. It has been employed across Illinois in communities, faith-based congregations, correctional facilities, and schools, as well as at Cook County courts, and is a growing practice across the United States, with legislation in more than 30 states.
The bill, signed by Gov. J.B. Pritzker on Thursday morning as part of a criminal justice reform package, removes barriers to restorative justice by establishing a limited legal privilege, similar to that used in mediation, to make things said in restorative justice practices inadmissible in later court proceedings.
For a restorative justice proceeding to be successful, parties must engage in open and honest discussions. Fear that sensitive information could be used against a participant could be a barrier to participation for many people. The law formalizes the legal protection that communications during restorative justice not be used against participants.
The Cook County Circuit Court has opened three Restorative Justice Community Courts in Chicago since 2017, intended to help young people between the ages of 18 and 26 get a second chance after being arrested for a non-violent crime. At the courts in Englewood, North Lawndale, and Avondale, victims have the opportunity to directly address a participant to express how they were hurt and what they need to heal from the crime.
Defendants also must repair the harm caused by their actions through community service, continued education, and other actions. Those who graduate from the year-long county program can have their records cleared.
Judge Evans noted that young adults sometimes engage in activities like breaking into cars, or indulging in substance abuse, without thinking about the consequences of their actions.
“We cannot prosecute our way out of the kinds of crimes these emerging adults commit,” Judge Evans said. The goal of the court is to get these young, non-violent offenders to acknowledge the impact of their offenses, empathize with victims, make restitution, and become constructive members of their communities.
“We are encouraging the use of restorative justice practices, moving to a system that repairs harms and addresses trauma,” said Pritzker at the signing ceremony. “This legislation makes restorative justice a more viable option for survivors, cultivating safer spaces where individuals can speak freely without fear that the words will be used against them.”
As of the end of June, Cook County had 188 participants in the Restorative Justice Community Courts and 95 graduates.
In addition to the restorative justice law, the governor signed additional legislation, including a law prohibiting law enforcement officials from using deceptive tactics with minors during interrogations.
Eviction cases will resume in August, but dispositive motions, trials, and judgments will remain stayed through September 1. Initial return dates and status hearings will proceed -- and served defendants who fail to appear can be defaulted under the terms of today's Supreme Court Order. Here is the Court's press release on the subject:
The Illinois Supreme Court announced today an amendment to Order M.R. 30370 concerning residential evictions. Timed to coincide with the resumption of eviction filings effective August 1, 2021, the amended Order provides for a one-month period in which the judiciary will focus on referring newly filed cases to State programs providing financial assistance to landlords and tenants.
In March 2020, Governor J.B. Pritzker declared a State of Emergency in response to the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) and the President of the United States declared the COVID-19 outbreak a national emergency. The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act) (P.L. 116-136) and American Rescue Plan Act (P.L. 117-2) were passed by Congress and signed into law by the President to deploy over $1 billion to Illinois renters and landlords in rental assistance, housing counseling, legal aid, and mediation services in an effort to prevent evictions.
In response, the Governor prohibited the commencement of certain residential evictions and the enforcement of certain residential eviction orders by Executive Order. The Governor announced that the eviction moratorium would permit filing of new eviction cases on August 1, 2021, though enforcement of certain eviction judgments would remain barred through August 31, 2021.
Because of a concern that the expiration of the eviction moratorium could potentially flood Illinois Courts with a large volume of cases seeking to be heard and decided in a short time frame, the Illinois Supreme Court will institute a triage period in which certain newly filed residential eviction cases cannot be acted on until the final expiration of the moratorium. Courts will use this time to guide landlords and tenants to programs designed to help them avoid eviction.
The triage period will begin on August 1, 2021, with the implementation of this amended order, and will conclude on September 1, 2021, when the order is vacated. “These cases could not be enforced until the Governor’s moratorium completely expires, so this process will not delay the ultimate resolution of cases in the court system,” said Judge Eugene Doherty, Chief Judge of the 17th Judicial Circuit and Vice-Chair of the Illinois Supreme Court’s COVID Task Force. “In planning for the winding down of the moratorium, the Task Force met regularly with representatives of the Governor’s office to ensure that the process would be as smooth as possible for landlords and tenants. This information sharing between the judicial and executive branches of government was essential in planning the implementation of the triage period.”
Amended Order M.R. 30370 is available on the Court website by clicking here.
So yesterday, Rich Miller, linking to a Sun-Times story, put up a post entitled, "Feds allege evidence of bribery ring at Cook County Board of Review." Apparently, $1,000 was the going rate for a residential property tax reduction; commercial property tax reductions required a $2,000 payment. Jon Siedel's Sun-Times article, quoting an FBI affidavit, reported that the person taking the payments called himself a middleman; he said he would be sharing the money with his fellow workers in the vineyard.
One of those commenting on the CapitolFax post noted that this has all happened before. Among the links the commenter provided was one to an article by Ed McManus in December 1980 issue of the old Illinois Issues, now archived by NIU, "Property tax assessment fraud in Cook County."
The Board of Review was called the Board of Appeals back then. See? Who says there are no reforms in Cook County government?
I know what my role is here. Just by maintaining this site lo these many years I am considered to be one of those "goo-goos." That's an old and dismissive abbreviation for someone who supports good government. And, as a goo-goo in good standing, I am expected to rage and maybe even fulminate about the rampant corruption of our body politic illustrated in this latest sordid scandal. Later, after some greedy people who were caught on camera have gone to jail and some meaningless reforms have been enacted (maybe another name change?), I, as a good little goo-goo, will be expected to cheer wildly. But, whatever happens, I am not supposed to -- and you are not supposed to -- think for even a nanosecond as to why these scandals recur.
Alas. I have once again failed to meet expectations.
Because I have thought about it -- and it occurs to me that the scandals allegedly ongoing in the Board of Review will inevitably recur, whatever "reforms" we enact, whoever we send to prison, and whatever new name we invent for the Board of Review, because the system of basing real estate property taxes on property assessments is fundamentally flawed and must be scrapped.
In Illinois, real estate property taxes are based on a property's assessed value. The assessed value is supposed to be what a willing buyer would pay a willing seller for the property to be taxed in the year the property was last assessed. (The link is to the Cook County Assessor's explanation of residential assessments; but the same basic explanation is provided for commercial properties. Becuase this is what state law commands that assessors do.)
Since property values have almost always increased over time, this system is a boon to greedy governments -- and a millstone around the necks of individual property owners.
Progressives often rail against the evils of gentrification. But as property values climb in a given area, so too do property tax bills. And property owners who can't pay those increased bills are forced to leave. It is fashionable to blame landlords in gentrifying areas: Rents go up and long-time tenants are forced out. But rents go up because property taxes go up... and even the nicest, most woke landlords have to raise rents to render unto Caesar. (And, yes, I understand that at least some greedy landlords would jack up rents in order to attract a new, wealthier class of tenant. Hope and greed both spring eternal.)
For a highly mobile population, one that packs up and moves on every few years or so, the assessment system is no real problem. But most people don't move every three years.
So here's the solution: Base real property taxes on actual purchase prices. Your neighbor who just bought her house for $500,000 will pay more in taxes than you, though your houses are similar, because you bought your house 30 years ago for half that amount. But when you sell and move to Florida, the new owner's taxes will be based on the actual sales price, not someone's guess about what the house might fetch on the market. And your neighbor, if she's still there, may wind up with a lower tax bill than the person who buys your house.
The system would be objective -- purchase prices are usually matters of public record -- and an immediate savings for the taxpayer would be realized from scrapping the assessment system and the review system.
Of course there would be a firmly entrenched lobby against any such proposal. In addition to all the public sector jobs that would vanish, the many lawyers who make money challenging assessments would also have to find other work. Many of the public employees would find other sinecures. But it would be harder on the lawyers, certainly. Especially those not in politics.
There would be a lot of details to work out: What about transfers between relatives? Or when title remains in a land trust but beneficial interests change?
And there'd be another big problem, too: Without increased assessments to hide behind, the public body that wants to get more tax money from you will have to openly raise its rate. You might notice. Other taxpayers might also notice -- and they might withhold their votes from the offending politicians. But this would be infinitely better than our system now where one's taxes can go up by an enormous amount, thanks to a new assessment, and every taxing body can claim that it had nothing to do with it because their rate did not change.
Wealth taxes are much in the news these days. The theory is that the big billionaires should pay, as a wealth tax, some small fraction of their total net wealth (net after all other taxes) each year. Sounds good when applied to Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk, right? But what about Elon Bezos who owns a bungalow in Jefferson Park? If he bought his house for $200,000, but now pays property taxes based on an assumed $400,000 valuation, isn't that a wealth tax, too?
We hear much talk these days about building generational wealth in minority communities. We even hear lip service about the private home being the only asset that most people can use to build any sort of wealth that might be handed down to one's children. But thanks to assessments, imagining what the fair market value of someone's home might be, increased taxes squeeze out more than is ever left to the next generation.
Yes, it's a terrible scandal that some mope took money to reduce assessments. But as long as there are assessments based on what someone's property value might be, there will be those who will find ways to 'adjust' these. It won't matter what 'legal' channels are in place for this purpose or what safeguards are enacted to prevent future shenanigans. Human nature, and human ingenuity, will always find ways around protective barriers. The real scandal is that we have assessments at all.
The messaging is still a bit muddled -- the post for this week's vaccination event at Wright College (click here to sign up) speaks of eligibility for all 16 and older (persons under 18 must be accompanied by a parent or guardian who can give consent) -- but the City's website says kids as young as 12 can get vaccinated.
The City says that Jewel-Osco, Walgreens, CVS, and Walmart will all vaccinate kids 12 or older.
A list of City-operated sites offering vaccines to kids 12 and older is on that same linked page. I've reproduced it here (click to enlarge or clarify):
Did you notice? Loretto Hospital is back on the list. How about that?
Committeeperson Ram Villivalam and the 39th Ward Democratic Organization invite you to our annual Ice Cream Social. A donation of $39 dollars is welcome but not expected. This event will be held outdoors in the parking lot of Alarmist Brewing at 4055 W. Peterson in Chicago, Illinois on Saturday, July 17, 2021 between 3:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m.
Please RSVP at https://tinyurl.com/4jbj4d7r.
To donate please visit https://secure.actblue.com/donate/icecream07.17.2021.
If you have questions, or want to RSVP directly, please contact Joey Slater at joeys@ramforsenate.com.
We hope to see you there,
Liam Kelly, President,
Not a member? Well, you can sign up for membership when you register for the event, which will be held on Thursday, July 29, from 5:00 to 8:00 p.m. at 134 N. LaSalle Street, Room 775. And, yes, that's a link to the sign-up form. Unvaccinated participants must wear masks, according to the sponsors.
Here is the program for the event:
- 5:00 p.m. - Kosher Box Meal
- 5:30 p.m. - Ross Secler, Odelson & Sterk: Legal requirements for petitions (1 hour MCLE credit)
- 6:30 p.m. - Aviva Patt, Questor Services: Campaign financial disclosure (½ hour MCLE credit)
- 7:00 p.m. - Justice Aurelia Pucinski: How to present yourself as a candidate, fundraising, endorsements
If more information is required, email decaloguesociety@gmail.com.
The Cook County Bar Association will hold a Judicial Reception, honoring Cook County Chief Judge Timothy C. Evans, on Wednesday, August 4, from 5:00 to 7:30 p.m. at the Fremont, 15 W. Illinois.
Tickets for this in-person event are $100 each, for non-members, and $65 for CCBA members. Sitting judges will be admitted free. Tickets will be available at this page of the CCBA website (but, as of this posting, the page has not yet been updated). Tickets can also be obtained, say the event sponsors, by scanning the QR Code on the first edition of the event invite, the relevant page of which is reproduced above.
The first edition of the invite identifies a number of event sponsors -- but the CCBA is hoping for more.
Sponsorship levels and benefits are as follows:
Supreme Sponsor - $20,000
- Reserved Table with 12 Tickets
- Dominant logo placement on media at the event, and in future event invitations
- Placement on the CCBA website, in social media, and in the Sidebar newsletter
- Choice of selected swag bag gift with logo for guests
Appellate Sponsor - $15,000
- Same as Supreme Sponsor, but with 8 Tickets
- Swag bag gift with logo for guests
Judicial Sponsor - $10,000
- Same as Appellate Sponsor, but with 6 Tickets
Magistrate Sponsor - $5,000
- Same as Judicial Sponsor, but with 4 Tickets
- Logo placement on media at the event, future event invitations, and CCBA's website and social media
ALJ Sponsor - $1,500
- Same as Magistrate Sponsor but with 2 Tickets
- Logo placement on media at the event and CCBA website
For more information about sponsorships, or to obtain a sponsorship for yourself or your organization, email Cordelia Brown at cbrown@cookcountybar.org.
If you don't get the reference, look it up yourself. Either way, listen and enjoy.
Meanwhile, herewith, the updated Who Sits Where. My list is no doubt incomplete. But I only include vacancies I can verify. I will update this list as necessary or appropriate.
However incomplete my list may be, it is so far still better than the "Judicial Vacancies" page of the new Supreme Court website: It still shows no vacancies at all.
Where a vacancy has been filled by an interim Supreme Court appointment, I have provided the identity of the appointee. If history is any guide, there will be several more vacancies opening up in the months to come.
As always, all errors of omission or commission in this list are mine alone and I am grateful for additions and corrections provided.
The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois and the American Bar Association are sponsoring their inaugural Judge John F. Grady Summer Institute for Teachers. This year’s event will focus on the First Amendment’s Right to Assemble and Associate. The program will be held virtually and will take place over two days, on July 29th and August 5th.
The Institute will feature a lecture and Q and A with Prof. Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean of the UC Berkeley School of Law, and curriculum support from Mary Ellen Daneels, the Lead Teacher Mentor for the Robert R. McCormick Foundation.
For more information, including the agenda for the Institute, or to register, click here. Questions about the Institute may be directed to Education@ilnd.uscourts.gov.
CWBChicago reported yesterday about "the 26th person that authorities have accused of killing, shooting, or trying to kill someone in Chicago this year while on bond for felonies." This particular person, Dominique Johnson, 20, allegedly killed his girlfriend, Shanal Guy, and then committed suicide while on bail for two pending felony gun cases, according to the article.
Also yesterday, Cook County Chief Judge Timothy C. Evans issued the following statement about bail reform and electronic monitoring. It is reproduced here without further comment:
In recent weeks, in response to tragic incidents of violence in Cook County, some public officials have criticized the courts, and, in particular, judicial decisions to impose electronic monitoring on some defendants rather than incarcerate them in Cook County Jail while they await trial. Both the public and elected and appointed officials must remember that bail reform, instituted by the Circuit Court of Cook County in 2017, is based on the constitutional principle that people should not be punished by imprisonment before they are tried, unless they pose a significant danger to the community. A person charged with a crime is presumed innocent under the law, and the U.S. Constitution states that “excessive bail” shall not be required.
“Looking at individual tragic cases in isolation may contribute to the speculation that releasing individuals before trial rather than incarcerating them -- whether by placing them on Electronic Monitoring (EM) or other forms of supervision -- means an increase in crime,” said Chief Judge Evans. “But speculation based on isolated cases is not the same as reality based on a complete picture, and research has shown that bail reform has not led to an increase in crime.”
Judge Evans pointed to a Loyola University study last November that confirmed a previous internal court report that bail reform has kept hundreds out of jail, while not contributing to a rise in crime, and saved Cook County residents from having to post more than $31 million in bail in just one six-month period.
In deciding to release some individuals charged with crime to EM, judges are guided by looking at the criminal backgrounds of defendants before them. Only those individuals judged to pose a clear and present danger to society are kept in jail before trial. In determining whether to confine an individual before trial, or to set restrictions such as EM as a condition of release, judges consider multiple factors, including the facts of the case, input from the defense and prosecution, and the Public Safety Assessment (PSA) tool. This helps to assess danger to the public by calculating the risk of failure to appear, risk of new criminal activity and risk of new violent criminal activity. During the pandemic, judges have also had to balance the risks of incarceration to the health of jail detainees, corrections staff, and the greater community, with more traditional public safety considerations. EM is used throughout the country as an alternative to incarceration pre-trial.
For new felony cases filed between October 1, 2017, and December 31, 2020, murder, attempted murder and reckless homicide accounted for 1.3%, or 1,150, out of 86,653 total assessed felony cases. Of these cases, 181 defendants, or 15.7%, were released pretrial. In just seven of those 181 cases did a suspect miss at least one court appearance. Eleven defendants (6%) were charged with a new offense pretrial, and of these, two were charged with violent offenses (1.1%). In other words, 94% of murder defendants released pretrial were not charged with any new crime, and about 99% were not charged with a new violent offense. Similarly, of all defendants released pretrial for all types of crimes, the total percentage who are charged with new violent offenses is less than 1%. Any violent crime is tragic. But depending on many factors, the slight risk of re-offense would not have justified jailing even some murder defendants while they awaited trial. Prison before trial deprives defendants, who are presumed innocent, of their right to prepare for a defense, while leading to job loss and other personal and financial difficulties.
The Illinois Supreme Court issued two orders on June 30 which will resume statutory time restrictions for speedy trials on October 1 and relax social distancing requirements in courthouses. Both orders are effective immediately.
“It is important to note that our courts remained open during the COVID-19 pandemicand thousands of court proceedings have taken place via both in-person and virtual hearings,” Chief Justice Anne M. Burke said. “However, conducting criminal jury trials has been very difficult. These two orders will help our courts prepare for a return to a full slate of jury trials.”
M.R. 30370, In re: Illinois Courts Response to COVID-19 Emergency/Social Distancing, states that “Chief Circuit Judges of the State are permitted to relax or eliminate social distancing requirements,” and notes that the decision to do so should be based on local conditions.
M.R. 30370, Illinois Courts Response to COVID-19 Emergency/Speedy Trial, states that statutory time restrictions will no longer be tolled and that “all days on and following October 1, 2021, shall be included in speedy trial computations contained in §103-5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 and §5-601 of the Illinois Juvenile Court Act.” This provides the chief circuit judges at least 90 days to prepare for the tolling to be lifted.
The order also states the days prior to March 20, 2020, and April 3, 2020, when the Court put out orders tolling the statutory time restrictions for §103-5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 and §5-601 of the Illinois Juvenile Court Act, will be included in speedy trial computations.
Cook County Chief Judge Timothy C. Evans announced yesterday that Kerry M. Kennedy has been appointed as Acting Presiding Judge of the Fifth Municipal District in Bridgeview.
“Judge Kennedy has shown great dedication and knowledge in his years as a judge in the Fifth Municipal District, and I am confident that he will succeed in his new leadership role,” said Judge Evans.
Judge Kennedy was ekected to a countywide vacancy in 2002. After serving several months in the First Municipal District, he was assigned to the Bridgeview courthouse. He has exclusively handled criminal cases during his time at the Fifth Municipal District, and primarily been responsible for felony cases.
Before being elected to the bench, Judge Kennedy served as a Cook County public defender for 23 years, first in Markham and then in Bridgeview.
Born in Oak Park, Judge Kennedy graduated from what is now the Northern Illinois University College of Law in 1978. He called today’s appointment “a great honor.”
“I’m extremely honored for Chief Judge Evans to have such confidence in me, and I look forward to serving the people of Cook County,” Judge Kennedy said.
The announcement follows the retirement of former Fifth Municipal District Presiding Judge Raymond L. Jagielski, who was first elected to the bench in December of 1992. Judge Jagielski had served as presiding judge in Bridgeview since April 2011. He had previously served as chairman of the Chicago Board of Elections, as a public defender, and as teacher and football coach for St. Rita of Cascia High School.
“I’d like to thank Judge Evans for the opportunity to be a presiding judge and to thank all the judges I had an opportunity to work with, not only in the Fifth District, but throughout my career as judge,” said Judge Jagielski.
Judge Jagielski's retirement creates a vacancy in the 14th Subcircuit.
The Juvenile Justice Mentoring Initiative aims to create mentoring relationships for young men, aged 13 to 18, who are serving probationary sentences for non-violent offenses. Male attorneys or law students willing to commit to a year-long relationship with a court-involved minor can serve as a mentor.
An informational Zoom meeting about the Initiative has been set for July 21 at noon. Registrations are required and can be made through the CBA website.
The Juvenile Justice Mentoring Initiative began in 2012. It resulted from the collaborative efforts of the Chicago Bar Association, the Cook County Bar Association, the Hispanic Lawyers Association of Illinois, the Lawyers Lend-a-Hand to Youth, and the Juvenile Justice Division and the Juvenile Probation Department of the Circuit Court of Cook County.
The one-year commitment is required, according to program administrators, because studies and research demonstrate that a stable mentoring relationship of one year or more is necessary for youth to reap benefits.
Mentors will be required to complete an application process, attend the orientation and follow-up training sessions, and commit to a minimum of weekly communication with their mentee and a minimum of two face-to-face contacts per month. One of the contacts would be as a part of a group outing planned and coordinated by the Initiative, often with input from the mentors and mentees.
Participating attorneys who complete the program will receive six hours of MCLE professionalism credit based upon the full-day orientation program and quarterly booster training sessions.
The Illinois Judicial Council Foundation, Inc., an affilliate of the Illinois Judicial Council, is looking for donations to its 2021 Scholarship Fund. This can be done by using the PayPal page linked from the IJCF website or by sending a donation directly to the IJCF, 1510 E. 55th Street, P.O. Box 15143, Chicago, Illinois 60615-2598.
The IJCF Scholarship Banquet will take place this year on August 18. Donations of $250 or more which are received on or before August 1 will be acknowledged in the Banquet Program.
The IJCF is a 501(c)(3) organization, and donations made will be tax deductible to the extent permitted by law. The IJCF will provide tax letters to donors for the year in question.
The Illinois Supreme Court filled two subcircuit vacancies this week.
On Monday, June 29, the Court appointed David L. Kelly to the Portman-Brown vacancy in the 5th Subcircuit. The appointment is effective July 9 and expires December 5, 2022.
According to ARDC, Kelly (pictured here) has been licensed as an attorney in Illinois since 2001 and is currently employed by the State.
Kelly was a candidate for a 5th Subcircuit vacancy in 2018 (the accompanying photo comes from his 2018 campaign website). At that time, Kelly was a solo practitioner, handling criminal defense and civil matters including real estate, family law, personal injury, and housing matters. According to his 2018 campaign bio, Kelly has served as a board member of the Cook County Bar Association and the Bronzeville Neighborhood Collaborative, volunteered at legal aid clinics, and established local block clubs. Kelly began his legal career as a Cook County Assistant State's Attorney, serving in that office for six years.
On Tuesday, June 30, the Court appointed John Wellington Wilson to the 1st Subcircuit vacancy created by the election of Judge Sharon O. Johnson to the Appellate Court.
Licensed as an attorney since 1996, according to ARDC, Wilson has been working as a Cook County Assistant Public Defender.
Wilson's appointment is effective August 13 and terminates on December 5, 2022.
Both Wilson and Kelly have previously applied for associate judgeships. Both are in the current applicant pool.
Posts
All Comments
