Archive for the ‘Interesting Cases’ Category

The Code of Crim­i­nal Pro­ce­dure, enacted in 1963, retains the sub­stance of the for­mer statu­tory pro­vi­sions with respect to the issuance of arrest war­rants upon com­plaints and infor­ma­tions. (Ill.Rev.Stat.1965, chap. 38, par. 107–9.) But it also pro­vides for the use of a sum­mons, or a notice to appear, as ‘pro­ce­dures for get­ting per­sons into court with­out the neces­sity and incon­ve­nience of an imme­di­ate arrest.’

Share

NOW comes the Peti­tioner, Mark R. McCoy, and through his MOTION TO RECONSIDER COURTS DISMISSAL OF CASE 10-MR-212 ABSENT A REVIEW OF ALL AUTHORITIES CITED IN PLAINTIFF’S MEMORANDUM OF LAW, states as follows

Share

NOW comes the Peti­tioner, Mark R. McCoy, and through his MOTION FOR MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER’S MOTION TO RECONSIDER, moves this Court to take Manda­tory Judi­cial Notice of the fol­low­ing mat­ters set forth here­after, pur­suant to the Manda­tory Pro­vi­sions of the Illi­nois Code of Civil Pro­ce­dure Sec­tion 735 ILCS 5/8–1001 et seq., which Motion is made in sup­port of the here accom­pa­ny­ing MOTION TO RECONSIDER COURTS DISMISSAL OF CASE 10-MR-212 ABSENT A REVIEW OF ALL AUTHORITIES CITED IN PLAINTIFF’S MEMORANDUM OF LAW.

Share

As to an arrest by a pri­vate per­son, it is held, that any pri­vate per­son who is present when a felony is com­mit­ted, is bound by law to arrest the felon, on pain of fine and impris­on­ment if he escape through his neg­li­gence. This is the com­mon law. 2 Hawkins’ Pleas of the Crown, 74. Yet we should hardly con­sider, under our statute and usual prac­tice in such cases, that this oblig­a­tion rests upon a pri­vate indi­vid­ual, though it would be, doubt­less, his duty to attempt an arrest if one could be made with­out injury or peril to himself.

Share

Just after he walked through the cour­t­house door the next day, Alli­son says Craw­ford County Cir­cuit Court Judge Kim­bara Har­rell asked him whether he had a tape recorder in his pocket. He said yes. Har­rell then asked him if it was turned on. Alli­son said it was. Har­rell then informed the defen­dant that he was in vio­la­tion of the Illi­nois wire­tap­ping law, which makes it a Class 1 felony to record some­one with­out his con­sent. “You vio­lated my right to pri­vacy,” the judge said.

Share

Nei­ther the Illi­nois con­sti­tu­tion nor the leg­is­la­ture has attempted to define the pow­ers of the grand jury. It has its ori­gin in the com­mon law and has existed for many hun­dreds of years. Its con­struc­tion, orga­ni­za­tion, juris­dic­tion and method of pro­ceed­ing were all well known fea­tures of the com­mon law before the orga­ni­za­tion of the State of Illi­nois and have been rec­og­nized and adopted in all our con­sti­tu­tions and in leg­is­la­tion as it existed at the orga­ni­za­tion of the State.

Share

Your Right of Defense Against Unlaw­ful Arrest These are not my words. These are the words uttered by the courts within the United States and other States. I am not advo­cat­ing vio­lence or pro­mot­ing the unjust tak­ing of life. As a mat­ter of fact, I am morally opposed to any tak­ing of life. How­ever, in the […]

Share