Accused of making racist comments, Judge Hooks recuses himself from domestic battery case

Most FWIW readers know more about the particulars of this story, or at least think they do, than I do. What I know I've learned from media accounts -- which, all too often, botch the simplest facts or, perhaps just as bad, fail to ask the most obvious questions.

Just one example. Experienced criminal practitioners probably knew the answer to this, but I hardly ever set foot in a criminal courtroom, so I had no clue: The alleged racist remarks came at a pretrial conference in January. The motion for substitution of judge was apparently quite recent. Was the motion timely?

I can infer, from the reference to affidavits in the media accounts, that the motion was brought under §114-5(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 725 ILCS 5/114-5(d), as opposed to §114-5(a), 725 ILCS 5/114-5(a), which requires a motion for substitution of judge to be brought "[w]ithin 10 days after a cause involving only one defendant has been placed on the trial call of a judge." In contrast, §114-5(d) allows the motion to be filed, for cause, with at least one supporting affidavit, at any time. Maybe the pretrial conference was set, and would typically be scheduled, after the 10-day deadline had passed. Experienced prosecutors or criminal defense attorneys would know the answer to this question without batting an eye. I would not. But it's still curious that it would take from January to June to put such a motion on file. If a judge made racist assertions, or not-so-very-veiled threats, about me or my client, or both, as is apparently the original allegation here, I would expect most attorneys would want to memorialize the misbehavior as soon as possible.

But what do I know?

What I do know -- and find interesting -- is the roundabout means by which I came upon the latest development in this story: The ISBA E-Clips in my email this morning led off with this story, citing to an account published in the Rock Island Dispatch-Argus. But this was not a dispatch filed from exotic Cook County by a Rock Island Dispatch-Argus reporter; rather, it was an apparent reprint of a story by Madeline Buckley, that first appeared in the Chicago Tribune. The Downstate paper apparently had a paywall that could be more easily breached, at least for a single story. And new, original content is so rare it must be shared. Such is media in the 21st Century.

I also know that recusal will prevent an immediate hearing on the merits of the motion.

Section 114-5(d) provides that, once a for-cause SOJ motion is filed, a hearing shall be conducted as soon as possible after its filing by a judge not named in the motion; provided, however, that the judge named in the motion need not testify, but may submit an affidavit if the judge wishes. If the motion is allowed, the case shall be assigned to a judge not named in the motion. If the motion is denied the case shall be assigned back to the judge named in the motion."

Counsel bringing the motion is reportedly upset that the recusal will derail that hearing -- but, under the statute, if the motion were denied, the case would have been returned to Judge Hooks. Which would have been awkward for all concerned.

I don't know, but I suspect, that this will not be the end of this story. Given the serious nature of the allegations, and counter-allegations, and allegations about the response to the allegations, there may well be inquiries opened by both ARDC and JIB. We won't hear about these unless public charges are brought. Which may never happen. But it seems likely that inquiries will continue.