Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Question of the day: 2023 Golden Horseshoe Awards
Next Post: Who thumbs it better?
Posted in:
* WEEK TV…
An appeals court finds a Livingston County judge must abide by Illinois’ Pretrial Fairness Act even though she’s strongly opposed to ending the cash bond system for people awaiting trial.
Three justices on the Fourth District Appellate Court found that Brandin Atterberry, charged in Livingston County with indecent solicitation of a child and traveling to meet a child, is entitled to a second pretrial detention hearing applying the new law’s provisions.
In early October, Judge Jennifer Bauknecht ordered Atterberry jailed before his trial, claiming he’s a threat to Livingston County children and that the new law has taken away her authority to set bond in the case.
* Here’s some of what Judge Bauknecht said…
Here I do find that the proof is evident and the presumption is great that the Defendant has committed a qualifying offense for which he is eligible for detention under the dangerousness standard. I do believe that the State has shown by clear and convincing evidence based upon the nature of the charges and the probable cause statement that the Defendant poses a very real and present threat to the safety of all of the young children under the age of 18 living in Livingston County, and I do find that at present there are no conditions of pretrial release or combination of conditions that could mitigate the real and present threat of safety to the endangered persons in Livingston County. […]
As I stated earlier, before the Pretrial Fairnesses [sic] Act, I would have given the Defendant a reasonable monetary bond that would have taken into consideration the factors that I have just enumerated here that raise concern about the Defendant having contact with any child under the age of 18 within this community; and I believe that that monetary bond would have taken into consideration his ability to pay. The Defendant may or may not have been able to post that. However, that would have served as a very strong deterrent for the Defendant; and the risk of losing that bond money has historically proven to provide a good incentive for people to not continue to engage in criminal behavior.
And since I do not have that incentive because the legislature, governor and Illinois Supreme Court have taken that discretion away from me and because the Defendant meets the dangerousness standard by clear and convincing evidence, I am ordering that he be detained pending trial.
Um, what? She’d be willing to release him on bail even though she believed he was a threat to the community?
* More from the judge…
I would note that although I have not formally incorporated this into my notes, that while the legislature has funded this brand new department [Office of Statewide Pretrial Services] with over five layers of bureaucratic management, we continue to see an inordinate amount of people with mental health disorders in our jail awaiting transfer to the Department of Human Services; and I would further note that I am aware of at least one county, that being Sangamon County, that is also concerned that we have individuals who have been found to be unfit by courts sitting in our jails for months at a time while we have this brand new department with all this money and all of this bureaucratic oversight to deal with people who have been charged with crimes.
So I point out that we have at least one individual in the Livingston County Jail who’s been there since June 23rd awaiting transfer to the Department of Human Services for mental health treatment. I have found that person to be unfit for trial and in desperate need of mental health treatment, yet he sits in our jail waiting to be transferred.
I received a letter from DHS today indicating that they have 180 people waiting for admission to a mental health facility and that it will be at least another four to five weeks before this individual will be able to obtain his mental health treatment, yet we have spent not only our time but also our very valuable resources setting up this nice, new Pretrial Fairnesses [sic] Act with a brand new department with five layers of bureaucratic oversight.
Publicity hounds gonna publicity hound.
* Yadda-yadda-yadda, the appellate court sent the case back to the judge…
Accordingly, we remand the cause with directions to hold a new detention hearing applying the proper statutory criteria. Specifically, the trial court shall make express findings, based on defendant’s individual circumstances, as to whether any condition or combination of conditions allow for defendant’s pretrial release. As judges, our role is not to choose the law but to faithfully apply it; that is, in fact, the sole object of our oath. Where a law is passed by the legislature and upheld by our supreme court as constitutional, the role of the judge is to apply the law as it is, not as the judge might wish it to be. On remand, it is the trial court’s obligation to give this case the individualized attention it deserves.
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Dec 13, 23 @ 10:55 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Question of the day: 2023 Golden Horseshoe Awards
Next Post: Who thumbs it better?
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
This is the part where I do not understand why the people that are pro-justice, do not embrace this law. It gets bad people off the street without bond as a scapegoat.
“Um, what? She’d be willing to release him on bail even though she believed he was a threat to the community?”
Comment by Lurker Wednesday, Dec 13, 23 @ 11:01 am
She’d be willing to release him on bail even though she believed he was a threat to the community?
Modern conservatism: saying the quiet parts out loud since 2015
Comment by The Truth Wednesday, Dec 13, 23 @ 11:08 am
By now, somebody has told the judge the fun part.
If she would have kept that political nonsense out of her statements, specifically identifying politics as the reason for her decision instead of making statements only on the merits of the case, the pretrial detention likely would have held up as valid.
In the end, it was her own actions which caused him to be released, making her actions a danger to the community by her own standards - not the law.
Her ability to understand that is important.
Comment by TheInvisibleMan Wednesday, Dec 13, 23 @ 11:15 am
Someone needs to tell Judge Jenny it’s not OSPS’s (or the PFA’s) fault that there’s a waitlist for mental health facilities.
Comment by Jocko Wednesday, Dec 13, 23 @ 11:21 am
No justice from a judge who refuses to follow the law.
Comment by Norseman Wednesday, Dec 13, 23 @ 11:21 am
“This is the part where I do not understand why the people that are pro-justice, do not embrace this law. It gets bad people off the street without bond as a scapegoat.”
Because since it was passed by all the anti-police libs and signed by the tyrant Pritzker then it must be bad and they must be against it. /s
Comment by workingfromhome Wednesday, Dec 13, 23 @ 11:22 am
I guess laws only matter if they support your political positions. If they don’t, use your position to pontificate on behalf of your political position. Got it. Meanwhile, your argument supports the release under bond of an accused person deemed by all to be a potential threat to children. And that’s what you want to be known for… what a disgrace.
Comment by Lincoln Lad Wednesday, Dec 13, 23 @ 11:36 am
This is not this judge’s first kooky ruling.
Comment by Big Dipper Wednesday, Dec 13, 23 @ 12:12 pm
Would be great if the police, state’s attorneys, county judges and sheriffs’ also followed this nugget and actually started holding people accountable under the law for not paying rent, violating the terms of their leases, not paying their mortgages, violating the statutes on trespassing and loitering, violating building codes, etc.
“Where a law is passed by the legislature and upheld by our supreme court as constitutional, the role of the judge is to apply the law as it is, not as the judge might wish it to be.
Instead, all seem to be making value decisions when the laws don’t permit the same. This problem is a two way street.
Comment by Frustrated Wednesday, Dec 13, 23 @ 12:20 pm
You guys are missing the point here.
If she just issued the ruling the correct way and do what the law intended, which is keep dangerous people off of the streets she wouldn’t be able to grandstand and then no one would pay attention to her.
I mean how else does she raise her social media profile so she can run for other offices?
Comment by JS Mill Wednesday, Dec 13, 23 @ 12:22 pm
Prominent Chicago crime bloggers will happily trumpet the dangers of the SAFE-T Act and blame Kim Foxx for loosing repeat offenders on the streets while also adding chapters to their ongoing series of people arrested for committing felonies while out on bail for other felony charges, and repeatedly noting the low bond amounts given by Cook County judges in a host of gun cases.
The cognitive dissonance ain’t a bug.
Comment by Roadrager Wednesday, Dec 13, 23 @ 12:23 pm
Either (1) the defendant is a threat to the community or (2) he isn’t. Easy peasy decision for a judge, but this judge wants to make things more complicated.
Comment by Homebody Wednesday, Dec 13, 23 @ 12:38 pm
What sane judge would have set bail for this guy?
Comment by Big Dipper Wednesday, Dec 13, 23 @ 12:51 pm
“What sane judge would have set bail for this guy?”
Let me introduce you to Will County, where a youth pastor/teacher in the diocese charged with the same thing, never spent a single day in jail. At the conclusion of his trial a plea deal was given to him by the State’s Attorney where he was given probation at the start of this year, with zero prison time. At the end of his months long probation, he won’t even have to register as a child offender.
Judges are just people, and there are a lot of terrible people in this world on both sides of the bench.
Comment by TheInvisibleMan Wednesday, Dec 13, 23 @ 12:56 pm
Frankly, I think that the Appellate Court should have sent it back for a new bond hearing before a different judge. They can do that.
Comment by JoanP Wednesday, Dec 13, 23 @ 2:07 pm
- Her ability to understand that is important. -
This theatrical Judge understands…perfectly…how to act out her need for attention.
Comment by Dotnonymous x Wednesday, Dec 13, 23 @ 2:39 pm
This “Nation of Laws” has been slipping into a “Nation of Feelings”. You know it is bad when those entrusted to interpret and apply the law (Judges) choose instead to whine about their personal feelings.
Comment by Henry Francis Wednesday, Dec 13, 23 @ 2:47 pm
This “Nation of Laws” has been slipping into a “Nation of Feelings”.
When I hear (entitled) people make the claim they are being made to feel “uncomfortable”…in a voice that should only accompany being gutshot…I sense the encroaching narcissism…with trepidation.
Comment by Dotnonymous x Wednesday, Dec 13, 23 @ 3:06 pm