Changes to Appeals of Pretrial Detention Decisions Prompts Illinois Supreme Court to Adopt Changes to Appellate Rules
by Douglas Ankney
Due to the monumental increase in the number of appeals of bond decisions, the Illinois Supreme Court adopted new appellate rules recommended by a five-person taskforce (“Taskforce”). The Pretrial Fairness Act (“PFA”), implemented in April of 2023, allows pretrial detainees to appeal district courts’ decisions regarding conditions for release. Under the PFA, whether a person remains detained prior to trial is based on, inter alia, whether the person is a flight risk, a danger to the community, and the charges faced by the person. Each of these determinations by the judge may now be appealed.
Prior to enactment of the PFA, a bond was set by the judge. Infrequently, about 17 times each year according to the Taskforce, an appeal of the bond decision was sought. But under the PFA, the number of appeals was projected to total 4,557 annually. And in the five months following the PFA’s enactment, about 1,900 appeals have already been filed.
“That’s just too much of a change in too short of a time,” said Justice Eugene Doherty of the Fourth District Appellate Court and Taskforce member. Among the Taskforce’s recommendations adopted by the Supreme Court are:
* Issues with the detention decision must be raised in a motion at the trial court level before going to the court of appeals;
* Only those issues raised in the motion are permitted for appeal;
* Removal of the 14-day deadline to file an appeal;
* In cases of multiple detention decisions, only one appeal at a time is permitted.
Doherty explained that the “previous process made it easy to appeal in name, but in function, it was falling short of effectively representing defendants. What we want is to make it as easy as possible for an attorney to appeal for their client, but to make it a true appeal.”
He added, “appellate courts are supposed to be the ones that slow it down, take a deep dive, explore the law with greater time and resources than a trial judge ever could. It was changing our mode of operations because instead of having that deep dive opportunity, it’s like you’re swatting these cases – you get a case done and there’s three more that come in the door.”
Source: Wglt.org
