Robert C. Underwood

This case concerned a special grand jury investigation into the unauthorized disclosure of confidential juvenile court transcripts to Chicago newspapers, which quoted a judge's remarks from closed hearings. The circuit court granted a special prosecutor's request to compel reporter Rob Warden to identify his source, overriding his statutory reporter's privilege under the Code of Civil Procedure. The Illinois Supreme Court reversed that order on direct appeal. It held that no compelling public interest justified divestiture because the disclosed information involved only the judge's statements made in open court and did not reveal the identities or conduct of any juveniles protected by the Juvenile Court Act. The court further noted that alternative sources of the transcripts existed within the State's Attorney's office and that the privilege serves important First Amendment interests in newsgathering.

criminal lawfree speechprocedure

The case involved defendant Charles Henry Thurman, who was convicted of involuntary manslaughter and armed violence after shooting and killing a customer outside his tavern following a disturbance; he claimed the shooting was accidental while defending himself. The circuit court sentenced him to 13 years in prison, but the appellate court reversed and ordered a new trial, finding error in the jury instructions. The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed in part, holding that the omission of "lawful justification" language from the issues instruction on involuntary manslaughter was reversible error because evidence supported both recklessness and self-defense, and jurors needed clear guidance on the affirmative defense despite its presence in the definitional instruction. The court reversed the remand for armed violence, as that offense cannot be based on involuntary manslaughter, and remanded solely for a new trial on the involuntary manslaughter charge. The decision addressed waiver rules but found the instructional defect affected fundamental fairness.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned Sherry Lynne Mitchell's convictions on two counts each of attempted murder and aggravated battery of a child for repeatedly beating her 16-month-old daughter, causing life-threatening injuries and permanent disabilities. The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the appellate court's judgment, upholding the aggravated battery convictions and sentences while vacating the attempted murder convictions, and remanded the matter for further proceedings. The core reasoning focused on the sufficiency of evidence establishing great bodily harm for the battery counts, the propriety of the sentences, and whether defense counsel's performance rendered the trial fundamentally unfair, with the majority concluding that the convictions for aggravated battery were supported despite concerns about counsel's competence.

criminal lawfamily lawprocedure

In this case, defendant Charles Albanese was convicted by a jury in the circuit court of Lake County of the arsenic-poisoning murder of his mother-in-law, Marion Mueller, and was sentenced to death following a separate sentencing hearing under the Criminal Code. On direct appeal, the Illinois Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and death sentence. The court held that the State's circumstantial evidence sufficiently proved guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, including proof of financial motive and additional incriminating facts such as the defendant's prior denial of possessing arsenic, his related convictions, and schemes involving cellmates and implicating others. The court further ruled that evidence of the defendant's financial problems was properly admitted because it was accompanied by other incriminating evidence, and that evidence of other crimes did not deny him a fair trial.

criminal lawprocedure

This case addressed whether a spouse's settlement and release of a personal-injury claim from a car accident bars the other spouse from pursuing an independent action for loss of consortium. The court established a general rule requiring that loss-of-consortium claims be joined with the impaired spouse's action whenever possible to avoid double recovery of damages for support and related losses, with dismissal required absent proof that joinder was not feasible. However, it held that the wife could proceed with her separate claim here because her loss-of-consortium suit and divorce proceedings were already pending with an injunction against settlement proceeds at the time of the husband's release, and the defendant settled with knowledge of those actions. The court affirmed the appellate decision reversing the trial court's dismissal, while directing that the jury be instructed to exclude allegations of lost support and medical expenses already covered in the husband's settlement.

torts & liabilityprocedurefamily law

The case involved a breach of contract claim by Archer Daniels Midland Company against Edward Barth for failure to deliver soybeans as agreed. After the trial court granted summary judgment for the plaintiff, with the formal order filed on October 6, 1982, the defendant filed a motion to reconsider on September 20 and a notice of appeal on January 28, 1983. The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court's dismissal of the appeal, holding that the motion to reconsider was untimely under Rule 272 because it was filed before the signed judgment order, and thus did not extend the 30-day period for filing the notice of appeal. The court reasoned that judgments become final and appealable only upon entry of the signed order, and an untimely post-judgment motion has no effect on appellate jurisdiction, rejecting arguments based on revestment or constructive refiling.

procedurebusiness & regulatory