Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Question of the day
Next Post: Meanwhile… In Opposite Land
Posted in:
* From WGLT…
Joshua Livingston has been indicted on — but pleaded not guilty to — three counts of first-degree murder and one count of homicidal death related to [Melissa] Ostrom’s disappearance […]
A domestic battery complaint filed March 22 against Livingston points to the volatile relationship he had with his girlfriend. The 42-year-old was accused of grabbing and throwing his 39-year-old partner to the ground 10 days earlier, on March 12. Livingston was released March 27 after posting $200, the required 10% of his $2,000 bond.
* The reason I’m posting this story is that McLean County State’s Attorney Erika Reynolds insists she would’ve had to release Livingston if the SAFE-T Act had been in place…
Reynolds said she’s concerned about how interpretations of the new law will impact domestic violence situations.
“We may be in a scenario in which there will be no way to hold a misdemeanor defendant, which is typically your domestic violence cases – unless there’s some type of other circumstances that would make it a felony,” Reynolds said.
The way that the court system determines whether a person should be released from jail still includes a person’s potential flight risk and their risk to the safety of the victim and community.
Supporters of the Pretrial Fairness Act stressed those points Friday as they pushed back on Reynolds’ comments. They say domestic violence is, in fact, one of several misdemeanors eligible for detention – and that the new law could ultimately provide more latitude to hold defendants deemed to be a threat, not less. They also note support for the bill came, in part, from organizations like the Illinois Coalition Against Domestic Violence.
Reynolds on Friday doubled down on her interpretation of the law, saying in a statement that her comments are part of “my job to inform the public about what may or may not happen when the SAFE-T Act takes effect.” Reynolds said her opinion stems from arguments made in favor of the SAFE-T Act before the Illinois Supreme Court by the bill’s proponents.
“The proponents of the bill publicly made other suggestions but argued during the litigation that holding a defendant in pretrial detention on misdemeanor offenses, including domestic battery offenses, would violate a defendant’s rights,” the statement read. “Consistent with that theory, as I have stated before, we may find ourselves in a situation in which we will be unable to hold anyone charged with a misdemeanor pretrial, including domestic battery defendants.”
* Reynolds should read the actual law…
In determining which conditions of pretrial release, if any, will reasonably ensure the appearance of a defendant as required or the safety of any other person or the community and the likelihood of compliance by the defendant with all the conditions of pretrial release, the court shall, on the basis of available information, take into account such matters as […]
(6) when a person is charged with a violation of a protective order, domestic battery, aggravated domestic battery, kidnapping, aggravated kidnaping, unlawful restraint, aggravated unlawful restraint, cyberstalking, harassment by telephone, harassment through electronic communications, or an attempt to commit first degree murder committed against a spouse or a current or former partner in a cohabitation or dating relationship, regardless of whether an order of protection has been issued against the person, the court may consider the following additional factors:
(A) whether the alleged incident involved harassment or abuse, as defined in the Illinois Domestic Violence Act of 1986;
(B) whether the person has a history of domestic violence, as defined in the Illinois Domestic Violence Act of 1986, or a history of other criminal acts;
(C) the mental health of the person;
(D) whether the person has a history of violating the orders of any court or governmental entity;
(E) whether the person has been, or is, potentially a threat to any other person;
(F) whether the person has access to deadly weapons or a history of using deadly weapons;
(G) whether the person has a history of abusing alcohol or any controlled substance;
(H) the severity of the alleged incident that is the basis of the alleged offense, including, but not limited to, the duration of the current incident, and whether the alleged incident involved the use of a weapon, physical injury, sexual assault, strangulation, abuse during the alleged victim’s pregnancy, abuse of pets, or forcible entry to gain access to the alleged victim;
(I) whether a separation of the person from the victim of abuse or a termination of the relationship between the person and the victim of abuse has recently occurred or is pending;
(J) whether the person has exhibited obsessive or controlling behaviors toward the victim of abuse, including, but not limited to, stalking, surveillance, or isolation of the victim of abuse or the victim’s family member or members;
(K) whether the person has expressed suicidal or homicidal ideations; and
(L) any other factors deemed by the court to have a reasonable bearing upon the defendant’s propensity or reputation for violent, abusive, or assaultive behavior, or lack of that behavior.
Instead of a she-said, he-said, maybe point to the actual law. Or, at the very least, reference this Illinois Supreme Court explainer.
My suspicion is that the state’s attorney is pointing fingers because Livingston was released on such low bond.
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Aug 21, 23 @ 11:44 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Question of the day
Next Post: Meanwhile… In Opposite Land
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Your suspicion seems correct, Rich. What a strange way to attempt a CYA.
Comment by The Truth Monday, Aug 21, 23 @ 11:54 am
“”Reynolds should read the actual law…”"
Sadly, that could be said for a lot of States Atty’s.
Many SA’s are remarkably political for critical functionaries in our courts.
Comment by walker Monday, Aug 21, 23 @ 11:55 am
=Reynolds said she’s concerned about how interpretations of the new law will impact domestic violence situations.=
It looks like the current interpretation of bail impacts domestic violence situations. Maybe she should have been addressing that?
=We may be in a scenario in which there will be no way to hold a misdemeanor defendant=
It looks like we ARE in a scenario where having someone pay $200 to get out of jail was the way the system was set up.
Comment by Cool Papa Bell Monday, Aug 21, 23 @ 11:57 am
It’s a terrible challenge for American democracy that the Republican Party and its elected officials, like Erika Reynolds, believe themselves to be entitled to their own “facts.”
Comment by Moe Berg Monday, Aug 21, 23 @ 12:00 pm
“my job to inform the public ”
Great. So when is she going to start doing that?
Comment by TheInvisibleMan Monday, Aug 21, 23 @ 12:01 pm
Erika Reynolds should be removed from her post.
Comment by Michelle Flaherty Monday, Aug 21, 23 @ 12:02 pm
==== and that the new law could ultimately provide more latitude to hold defendants deemed to be a threat, not less. ====
When this bill was first proposed I thought that’s just nuts. No bail? But then I did as you said Rich and I read the bill. And I thought the same sentiment as the above statement and it would provide more latitude. I can’t believe how many cops, attorneys, lobbyist or other moderate politicians I had to explain this to. And I don’t even have a dog in the fight. And I also think this will put more heat on the states attorneys and judges for any blame in situations like this case. As it should be.
Comment by Been There Monday, Aug 21, 23 @ 12:02 pm
The political lesson of this bill/law;
“We will still be strong and hold alleged criminals, I’m law and order”
And
“My hands are tied (insert case here) because of this or that part of the law”
Folks will run against the perception of the law to seem stronger than the law, but will cherry pick and blame the law, especially because the public will likely not be told what the law actually says in each of those instances.
Here I thought SAs were going to “be above the politics”
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Aug 21, 23 @ 12:04 pm
Livingston was released on bail.. With the safe-t act the judge would have been able to have him held as a risk. Perhaps the SA should look at why was bail set so low, allowing a quick release.
Comment by Dupage Dem Monday, Aug 21, 23 @ 12:11 pm
Disingenuity and conflicting the facts is a regular problem with elected States Attorneys.
Comment by Norseman Monday, Aug 21, 23 @ 12:12 pm
From an article last September:
Reynolds estimated about half of the county jail population will be released on Jan. 1 when cash bail ends in Illinois.
Wonder if she is still predicting that for next month?
https://www.wglt.org/local-news/2022-09-15/mclean-county-names-erika-reynolds-next-states-attorney-presents-127-million-budget
Comment by Big Dipper Monday, Aug 21, 23 @ 12:28 pm
200 bucks for a DB?
Ms. Reynolds, who in Livingston’s circle is also in yours?
Comment by Flyin'Elvis'-Utah Chapter Monday, Aug 21, 23 @ 12:29 pm
The existing bail bond schedule set his bond at $2000. As a D bond, it required payment of 10%.The SAFE-T Act would/will allow him to be held as a danger if the ASA makes that argument. I don’t think Reynolds is making the point she claims she is trying to make…
Comment by Leslie K Monday, Aug 21, 23 @ 12:34 pm
I think the bigger issue is whether we expect every domestic battery to now be a detention situation. While this case was ultimately horrific, the original charge seems fairly standard for a domestic battery case. If the expectation is that the state’s attorney would seek pretrial detention in this case, then every domestic case would turn into a detention scenario.
I think that the state’s attorney is arguing that unless every domestic charge is an automatic pretrial detention, there was nothing in the original charge here that would justify detention in a way that other domestic charges wouldn’t. This is particularly true since this was charged as a misdemeanor. It would be awfully odd to have pretrial detention for a charge that would not likely include jail time.
Comment by duck duck goose Monday, Aug 21, 23 @ 12:44 pm
This explanation is a “Don’t bother me with the facts, I’ve already made up my mind.”
This event will be used as “proof” that the law is making the public less safe.
Comment by Huh? Monday, Aug 21, 23 @ 1:00 pm
I wonder how many of these State’s Attorneys are gonna let people go without bond because they mistakenly believe that the SAFE-T Act requires it.
Comment by DTAG Monday, Aug 21, 23 @ 1:04 pm
The other end to this is - in both of these scenarios (real and dreamed up) that the alleged criminal is out. In one way its $200 bucks to walk free and another (again falsely made) they are out just because they are out.
The SA isn’t making a good case about this one way or the other.
Comment by Cool Papa Bell Monday, Aug 21, 23 @ 1:10 pm
===It would be awfully odd to have pretrial detention for a charge that would not likely include jail time. ===
And that’s likely a big reason why it’s in the law. The DV advocates see what happens to victims in the court system and the law is one way of bending the curve.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Aug 21, 23 @ 1:14 pm
I think that I am beginning to understand the SA’s opposition to the bail reform. The new act will require them to do some initial work and to make a judgement for which they can be held accountable.
Comment by Banish Misfortune Monday, Aug 21, 23 @ 1:23 pm
= If the expectation is that the state’s attorney would seek pretrial detention in this case, then every domestic case would turn into a detention scenario. =
Good (banned punctuation)
Comment by cover Monday, Aug 21, 23 @ 1:41 pm
==I think that I am beginning to understand the SA’s opposition to the bail reform. The new act will require them to do some initial work and to make a judgement for which they can be held accountable.==
DING DING DING
Comment by charles in charge Monday, Aug 21, 23 @ 1:48 pm
== My suspicion is that the state’s attorney is pointing fingers because Livingston was released on such low bond. ==
You might be onto something. It would be interesting to know what the assistant states’ atty requested for bail at the bond hearing and if they objected when the judge set bail at only $200.
== The new act will require (states attorneys) to do some initial work, and to make a judgment for which they can be held accountable. ==
I think from strictly a CYA standpoint, the new law takes a lot of pressure off the SA and places almost all of it on the judge. The SA just needs to ask the judge to detain any defendant who is eligible to be held under the new law and they’re covered. If someone gets released and commits a murder while free on cashless bail, the media will blame the legislature and governor (if the original offense was not “detainable”under the new law) or the judge (if the original offense was “detainable” but the court granted pretrial release.)
Comment by Roman Monday, Aug 21, 23 @ 1:56 pm
=== The new act will require (states attorneys) to do some initial work, and to make a judgment for which they can be held accountable. ===
I agree with “charles in charge’s” succinct response to this point. I think we’re going to see quite a few news articles where SAs drop the paperwork ball.
Comment by Norseman Monday, Aug 21, 23 @ 2:43 pm
Reynolds said, “my job to inform the public about what may or may not happen.”
No. Your job is to tell the truth. What may or may not happen is everything under the sun. What may happen is anything. What may not happen is anything. If you choose to enforce the law, you will enforce the law as written, not as theorized by people with alternative goals of being elected.
Comment by H-W Monday, Aug 21, 23 @ 2:56 pm
=And that’s likely a big reason why it’s in the law=
But the factors listed in the current sec. 110-5 were already factors to be considered in setting bail amounts or denying bail. These factors aren’t new to this law; they existed under the prior version of section 110/5 and under the now repealed section 110/5.1. If they didn’t work under the old system, they’re probably not going to work under the new, with its higher standards of proof and presumption of pretrial release. The state’s attorney is correct that it is unrealistic to to expect pretrial detention on a dv unless there’s aggravating factors to raise it to a felony level.
All that said, I don’t really see the difference between a pretrial release and a $200 bond, other than one is a minor inconvenience to the defendant.
Comment by duck duck goose Monday, Aug 21, 23 @ 2:57 pm
===The state’s attorney is correct that it is unrealistic===
That’s on her then.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Aug 21, 23 @ 2:59 pm
==All that said, I don’t really see the difference between a pretrial release and a $200 bond, other than one is a minor inconvenience to the defendant.==
The difference is that if the accused person is poor (as many are), coming up with $200 is more than a “minor inconvenience.” People sit in jail all the time on relatively low bonds that they can’t afford to pay.
Comment by charles in charge Monday, Aug 21, 23 @ 3:25 pm
Once the new law takes effect, I think will see a lot of SA’s taking a maximalist approach on domestic violence cases, meaning they’ll almost always petition the judge to detain the defendant — and I suspect most judges will go along with those requests knowing there is going to be extra scrutiny from the public and press.
In counties that have electronic monitoring programs, judges will have the option of releasing DV defendants on virtual house arrest. But it’s likely that the overwhelming majority of those accused of DV will be locked up one way or another, despite not being convicted. It will be interesting to see if that eventually creates a backlash against the Pretrial Fairness Act among its heretofore biggest backers. If it does, it will be awfully hard to pass a bill to ease criminal sanctions against those accused of domestic violence.
Comment by Telly Monday, Aug 21, 23 @ 4:18 pm
I have completed not understood the inane opposition to this law for repeat offenders and domestic abusers. This law saves us from them. It stops this easy bond release for these heinous people. How is that bad?
Comment by Lurker Monday, Aug 21, 23 @ 4:22 pm
===interesting to see if that eventually creates a backlash against the Pretrial Fairness Act among its heretofore biggest backers===
Don’t delude yourself. They knew exactly what they were doing.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Aug 21, 23 @ 4:24 pm