4

Ann

ual R

eport

to the

Gen

eral A

ssem

bly

2006 Annual Report � SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS � Administrative Summary

January 31, 2007

Honorable Michael J. Madigan Honorable Emil Jones, Jr.Speaker of the House President of the SenateHouse of Representatives State SenateSpringfield, Illinois 62706 Springfield, Illinois 62706

Honorable Tom Cross Honorable Frank C. WatsonRepublican Leader Republican LeaderHouse of Representatives State SenateSpringfield, Illinois 62706 Springfield, Illinois 62706

Gentlemen:

Attached is the 2006 Annual Report of the Illinois Supreme Court. I submit this Report to the GeneralAssembly pursuant to Article VI, Section 17 of the Illinois Constitution of 1970, which requires theSupreme Court to report annually in writing to the General Assembly regarding the annual JudicialConference. The Judicial Conference considers the work of the courts and suggests improvements in theadministration of justice. In compliance with the constitutional mandate, this Report includes a summaryof the work performed by the several committees which make up the Judicial Conference.

The Committees of the Judicial Conference include (1) Alternative Dispute Resolution, (2) Automationand Technology, (3) Criminal Law and Probation Administration, (4) Discovery Procedures, (5) Education,(6) Study Committee on Complex Litigation, and (7) Study Committee on Juvenile Justice. The JudicialConference was convened on October 19, 2006, to consider the aforementioned committees' reports andrecommendations. Those reports detailed initiatives undertaken by the respective committees duringConference Year 2006. This Annual Report summarizes those initiatives, which also foretell of the projectsand goals anticipated to be undertaken by the conference committees in 2007.

This report additionally includes a summary of selected Supreme Court decisions which are offered forthe General Assembly's consideration. In offering these matters for the legislatures's consideration, theCourt is not unmindful of the respective roles of the General Assembly and the Court. While we intendno intrusion upon the prerogatives of the General Assembly in the exercise of its authority, we dorespectfully offer these matters for your consideration and look forward to the General Assembly'scontinued responsiveness and support.

With the submission of this report to the General Assembly, the Supreme Court renews its commitment to theeffective administration of justice and the management of the courts, to the careful stewardship of thoseresources provided for the operation of the courts, and to the development of plans and goals designed to assurethat the Illinois judicial branch provides justice to our citizens and upholds the rule of law.

On behalf of the Court, I respectfully submit the Supreme Court's 2006 Annual Report to the GeneralAssembly.

Sincerely,

Robert R. ThomasChief JusticeSupreme Court of Illinois

2 0 0 6 A N N U A L R E P O R T T O T H E N I N E T Y - F I F T H I L L I N O I S G E N E R A L A S S E M B L Y

2006 Annual Report � SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS � Administrative Summary

5

2006 Illinois Judicial Conference The annualmeeting of the Illinois Judicial Conference washeld on October 19, 2006, in Chicago. TheConference, which is authorized by Article 6,Section 17 of the Illinois Constitution, ismandated to consider the work of the courts andto suggest improvements in the administration ofjustice. The constitutional mandate is implementedthrough Supreme Court Rule 41, which definesthe duties and the membership of the IllinoisJudicial Conference. Consistent with the Rule, theConference is composed of judges from every levelof the judiciary representing Illinois' five judicialdistricts. The Justices of the Supreme Court ofIllinois, including the Chief Justice, who presidesover the Conference, also serve as members.

The work of the Judicial Conference isconducted throughout the year, largely through theefforts of seven appointed committees: Automationand Technology Committee, Alternative DisputeResolution Coordinating Committee, StudyCommittee on Complex Litigation, Committee onCriminal Law and Probation Administration,Committee on Discovery Procedures, StudyCommittee on Juvenile Justice, and the Committeeon Education. The rosters of the variouscommittees include appellate, circuit and associatejudges who serve as full members of the JudicialConference. The work of the committees is aidedby non-Judicial Conference judges, law professors,and attorneys, who are appointed by the SupremeCourt to serve as either associate members oradvisors. Senior level staff of the AdministrativeOffice of the Illinois Courts serve as liaisons to thecommittees to support their work as defined in thecommittee charge.

The Executive Committee, which is alsoauthorized through Supreme Court Rule 41, actson behalf of the Conference when the Conferenceis not in session. The Executive Committee iscomprised of fourteen judges, six of whom arefrom the First Judicial District (Cook County)and the remaining eight of whom are from judicialdistricts two, three, four and five. The ExecutiveCommittee previews the written reports of theconference committees and submits, for theSupreme Court's approval, an agenda for theannual meeting.

The 2006 Annual Meeting of the JudicialConference, as was the manner in the two prioryears, was consolidated into a one-day format inorder to minimize judicial time away from thebench and to effectively manage costs. Themeeting was convened by the Chief Justice of theSupreme Court of Illinois, the Honorable Robert

R. Thomas. In his opening remarks, Chief JusticeThomas welcomed the Conference members andthanked them for their hard work during theConference year. He also recognized the presenceof current members of the Supreme Court as wellas retired Supreme Court Justices Mary Ann G.McMorrow and John Nickels. In concluding hisintroductions, Justice Thomas recognized CynthiaY. Cobbs, Director of the Administrative Office ofthe Illinois Courts, and thanked the Director andher staff for their work in preparing for the annualmeeting of the Conference.

Chief Justice Thomas remarked that,notwithstanding that the Judicial Conference isconstitutionally mandated, such a gathering, toimprove the administration of justice, would occurabsent such a mandate because of the sense ofcommitment to duty that is commonly shared byIllinois' judges. Reflecting on the role of thejudiciary as a coequal branch of government, theChief Justice noted that the judiciary is chargednot only with deciding individual cases, but alsowith managing and administering the system inwhich those decisions are made. Citing theFederalist 78, and Hamilton's analysis of the roleof the judiciary in a true democracy, JusticeThomas reminded all in attendance that thejudiciary's strength lies not in the power of thesword, nor in the power of the purse, but rather, itlies in the power of our judgments. If thejudgments are just and persuasive, then thejudiciary will have earned, and continue to earn,the respect of the other two branches ofgovernment.

Chief Justice Thomas offered to theattendees that the purpose of the JudicialConference, "to consider the work of the courts andto suggest improvements in the administration ofjustice," essentially provides a compulsory self-evaluation. A little introspection, the Chiefoffered, is always a good thing. Over the past fewyears, the Supreme Court of Illinois has takenactive and high-profile measures to ensure thatthe attorneys of Illinois are serving the judicialsystem effectively and with a high degree ofprofessionalism. The Supreme Court recentlyenacted rules establishing minimum continuinglegal education requirements for attorneys, and inan equally worthy initiative, created the SupremeCourt Commission on Professionalism to create aforum in which lawyers, judges and legaleducators can explore the meaning andaspirations of professionalism in contemporarylegal practice. While these programs focus on theattorney side of the system, Justice Thomas also

2 0 0 6 A N N U A L R E P O R T T O T H E N I N E T Y - F I F T H I L L I N O I S G E N E R A L A S S E M B L Y

Ann

ual R

eport

to the

Gen

eral A

ssem

bly

6

2006 Annual Report � SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS � Administrative Summary

highlighted that judges must also take affirmativesteps to ensure that the system lawyers serve is thebest it can be. To that end, the Supreme Court hasincreased the continuing education requirementfor Illinois judges. Beginning in 2008, the judgesof the state of Illinois, like the lawyers of the state,will be required to complete 30 hours of approvedcourse work every two years.

In closing, Chief Justice Thomas commentedthat the important work of the Conference, theamount of study, debate and analysis that isdedicated by each committee to meet itscharge and tasks, is the foundation forimproving the quality and efficiency of ourjustice system. The committees' work duringConference Year 2006 provides a hint of thegreat things that are to come that will shapethe future of the judicial branch.

The Annual Meeting continued with timededicated to Conference Committee meetings,devoted in part to finalization of the Committees'annual reports and to initiate planning forConference Year 2007. The afternoon plenarysession included a presentation of each of thecommittees' activities in Conference Year 2006and some initial suggestions for tasks inConference Year 2007. The following summarizesthe written and oral substance of those reports:

Alternative Dispute ResolutionCoordinating Committee

The Alternative Dispute ResolutionCoordinating Committee monitored both Court-Annexed Mandatory Arbitration Programs andCourt-Sponsored Major Civil Case MediationPrograms.

During the course of the Conference year, theCommittee met with arbitration administratorsand supervising judges of circuits with mandatoryarbitration programs. Meeting topics includeddiscussion on amending Supreme Court Rule 87with respect to arbitrator compensation, SupremeCourt Rule 93 with respect to the rejection fee foran arbitration award, consideration of thefeasibility of a voluntary arbitration program, anddiscussion on programmatic issues raised byarbitration administrators and supervising judges.

Currently, Supreme Court Rule 87 providesthat arbitrators be compensated at the rate of$75 per case. Noting that the compensationamount has not increased since the inception ofthe program, the Committee recommended to theCourt that, upon research by the Administrative

Office of the Illinois Courts, the compensationrate be increased.

Supreme Court Rule 93 mandates that a feeof either $200 or $500, dependent upon theamount of the award, shall be paid by litigantswho, upon the announcement of the arbitrator'saward, rejects that award. Upon rejection, anarbitration case may be disposed of by proceedingto trial but, more often than not, the caseterminates by settlement of the parties. Inaddition to the Committee's recommendation foran increase in the arbitrator's fee, the Committeealso recommended that the Court consider anincrease in the arbitration award rejection fee.

Finally, the Committee focused someattention on identifying a means by which theCourt could indicate appreciation to those Illinoisattorneys who serve as arbitrators. In thatregard, the Committee suggested that theSupreme Court issue Certificates of Appreciationacknowledging arbitrator service and dedicationto the arbitration program.

Automation and TechnologyCommittee

In Conference Year 2006, the Automationand Technology Committee was charged tocontinue its work in examining and analyzing the

Illinois State CapitolAnn

ual R

eport

to the

Gen

eral A

ssem

bly

2006 Annual Report � SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS � Administrative Summary

7

myriad issues related to the effective and efficientuse of technology in the Illinois courts. A newproject undertaken in this conference yearincluded the Committee's development of aDisaster Recovery Guide ("Guide") for use in thetrial courts. In its current format, the Guideidentifies critical topics and procedures whichmay be included in a court's disaster recoveryplan. The Guide includes general topics, sampleresponses and templates that may be customizedfor each county where more detailed informationand practices can be included for county andcircuit-wide disaster recovery plans. The Guide alsofacilitates the sharing of resources, practices, andprocedures among neighboring counties/circuits.

The Committee also began discussionsregarding the use of video conferencing and videoarraignment equipment in the circuit courts.While recognizing the benefits of the availabilityof such technology, myriad issues are presented byits use, including equipment costs and integrationof existing technology systems. Continuedresearch and analysis will include furtherexploration of the costs and concerns of videoarraignment systems and additional research inthe technology required to support these systems.

Study Committee on Complex Litigation

The charge to the Study Committee onComplex Litigation is to study and makerecommendations regarding the management ofmultiple, overlapping litigation and otherproblems associated with complex litigation. TheIllinois Manual for Complex Civil Litigation andthe companion Manual for Complex CriminalLitigation were first developed by the Committeein 1991 and 1997, respectively. Both Manualsare updated annually, with the Committeeperiodically adding a new topical area to one orboth manuals. In Conference Year 2006, theCommittee monitored and culled case law andother legal developments involving complexlitigation in order to keep the Manuals current.Updated information will be incorporated in themain text of the civil and criminal manuals. Thetext of the manuals will continue to be availableon CD-ROM which affords users the convenienceof downloading, hyperlink and search capabilities.

This year the Committee undertook thedrafting of a new Alternative Dispute Resolution(ADR) section for inclusion in the Civil Manual.The new section, which covers the use of ADR in

specific types of complex cases, such as classactions, mass torts, and construction and realestate disputes, is intended to provide guidance tojudges in selecting cases that likely will mostbenefit from ADR. A final version of the new draftsection will be finalized for inclusion in the Manualupon review and comment by the AlternativeDispute Resolution Coordinating Committee.

Finally, the Committee considered the utilityof centralized document depositories in complexlitigation cases. Such repositories, which arecurrently utilized in the Third Judicial Circuit andthe Circuit Court of Cook County, serve thepurpose of promoting the efficient and economicalmanagement of voluminous documents in multi-party litigation. The Committee recommendedthat the use of centralized document depositoriesbe expanded in Illinois for appropriate complexlitigation cases.

In the next Conference year, the Committeeplans to continue monitoring and evaluating caselaw, rule changes, and legislation in order toupdate and supplement the Manual for ComplexCivil Litigation and the Manual for ComplexCriminal Litigation to keep them current. TheCommittee also will work to update the formscurrently contained in the Manual Appendixes andmake them available electronically which willpermit judges easy access to form orders.

Committee on Criminal Law andProbation Administration

The Committee on Criminal Law andProbation Administration focused its work onthree major areas: evidence-based practices(EBP), the efficacy of problem-solving courts,and review of Supreme Court Rule 415. EBP isthe term used to represent a body of researchbased strategies in the study of criminal conductthat, when implemented, demonstrate substantialimpact in reducing offender recidivism. TheCommittee conducted literature reviews, heldinterviews with probation departments and selectjudiciary, as well as attended workshops on EBP.The review of these principles has prompted theCommittee to seek approval from the SupremeCourt to develop a guide for use by judges toassist their work in crafting targeted and effectiveconditions of community-based sentences.

There are no less than thirty-five problemsolving courts in either operational or implementationphases in Illinois. Since the creation of the firstdrug court in the Circuit Court of Cook County in A

nnua

l Rep

ort

to the

Gen

eral A

ssem

bly

8

2006 Annual Report � SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS � Administrative Summary

1989, several other jurisdictions have createdproblem solving courts, including mental healthcourts. The Committee conducted a survey of thoseseveral therapeutic courts and compiled a sum-mary report which includes such information as thedescription of the purpose, case processing pro-cedures, administration, and staff training for suchcourts. The compiled report was filed as a part ofthe Committee's report and serves to provide theCourt with an inventory of Illinois' currentspecialty courts.

Finally, the Committee concentrated some ofits efforts on examining a proposed amendment toSupreme Court Rule 415. Rule 415 addressesthe regulation of discovery in criminal proceedingsin the trial courts. The amendment, as proposed,would have allowed defense counsel the option ofproviding a copy of discovery to the defendant.Upon completion of its review, the Committeedetermined to recommend rejection of the proposedamendment because of the concern that it couldgive rise to increased harassment, or reprisals,against witnesses and alleged victims.

Committee on Discovery Procedures

The Committee on Discovery Proceduresaddressed the problems associated with sortingthrough various and often voluminous documentssubmitted pursuant to a written request toproduce under Supreme Court Rule 214. TheCommittee sought to clarify the rule by requiringthat documents, produced pursuant to a Rule 214request, are labeled to correspond with the spe-cific categories in the written request. Consistentwith Supreme Court Rule 3, which sets forthprocedures for the creation or amendment ofSupreme Court Rules, the Committee forwardedits proposed amendments to the Supreme CourtRules Committee.

The Committee also analyzed the abusessurrounding a request to admit under SupremeCourt Rule 216, which include burying therequest with numerous other discovery requestswhere they are more likely to go undetected by theresponding party until after the deadline haspassed. The Committee found that such abusesoften occur in small cases in high volumecourtrooms, such as municipal court, where manyof the law firms are "bulk filers," who representcredit card companies and collection agencies,and many of the litigants are pro se. After muchdiscussion, the Committee proposed certainnarrow amendments to Rule 216, including

requiring prior leave of court before serving arequest to admit; proper notice to all parties; and,prohibiting such requests from being served morethan 120 days after the filing of a responsivepleading unless there is agreement otherwise, orthe court so orders. Nevertheless, the Committeelimited application of its proposed amendments tocivil actions not in excess of $50,000. Consistentwith Supreme Court Rule 3, the Committeeforwarded its proposed amendments to theSupreme Court Rules Committee.

The Committee began exploring the feasibilityand nuances of a rule requiring mandatorydisclosure of relevant documents to address theproblem of parties not receiving relevantinformation before trial. The Committee considered,but rejected, adopting the automatic disclosure ofdocuments procedure required under Federal Ruleof Civil Procedure 26. Instead, the Committee isconsidering a form of minimum disclosure wherebycertain aspects of Supreme Court Rule 222, whichhas its own mandatory disclosure requirements forcivil actions seeking money damages not in excessof $50,000, are made applicable to generaldiscovery. To assist its discussion, the Committeehas begun to examine discovery rules concerningdisclosure in other states, along with gatheringinformation about the use of case managementconferences and related orders.

Committee on Education

The Supreme Court's ComprehensiveJudicial Education Plan was first implemented in1998. The Committee on Education is chargedwith identifying and addressing the ongoingeducation needs for the Illinois judiciary. Since thePlan's inception, the Committee, in collaborationwith the Administrative Office of the IllinoisCourts, has developed and presented a wide rangeof judicial education programing for Illinois'judiciary annually.

In March 2006, the scope of the Committee'scharge grew, with the Supreme Court's adoptionof Minimum Continuing Judicial Education(MCJE) provisions for all circuit, associate andappellate judges, through the presentation of anexpanded 30-hour Education Conference inalternate years, beginning in 2008.

In accordance with its overall charge andthe new MCJE provisions, the Committeeundertook key specific activities and priorities inConference Year 2006:A

nnua

l Rep

ort

to the

Gen

eral A

ssem

bly

2006 Annual Report � SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS � Administrative Summary

9

� Developing and recommending a "core"judicial education curriculum for Illinoisjudges which identifies the key judicialeducation topics and issues to beaddressed through the judicial educationactivities each Conference year;

� Enhancing the identification, recruitmentand preparation of potential judicialeducation faculty members in each of therecommended core curriculum areas;

� Assessing the needs of Illinois judges forcomprehensive judicial reference docu-ments, "benchbooks," and self-study mate-rials and recommending a plan, includinga template for seminar materials, to meetthe identified needs; and

� Recommending a plan for advanced use oftechnology to deliver judicial educationprograms and resources, including web-casting, web archiving, CD and DVDtutorials, and other "distance learning"options.

In addition to assessing judicial educationneeds and initiating implementation of the Court'sMCJE provisions, the Committee's Conference Year2006 activities included conducting EducationConference 2006, a full seminar series, the annualNew Judge Seminar and the annual FacultyDevelopment Workshop as well as initial planningfor the 2007 Advanced Judicial Academy. TheResource Lending Library, sponsored by theCommittee and operated by the AdministrativeOffice of the Illinois Courts, continues to serve as avalued judicial education resource.

Study Committeeon Juvenile Justice

The Study Committee on Juvenile Justiceupdated Volume II of the Illinois Juvenile LawBenchbook, which primarily addresses juvenilecourt proceedings involving abuse, neglect, anddependency. The Committee researched anddrafted provisions on confidentiality for inclusionin Volume II of the benchbook. The new provisionswill address access to juvenile court proceedingsand records by the press; access to juvenile courtrecords for research; and, use of a minor's name in notice by publication to the parent. TheCommittee reasonably anticipates that an updateto Volume II will be available for distribution atthe New Judge Seminar which will be convened

in January 2007. During the 2007 ConferenceYear, the Committee seeks to revisit and updateVolume I of the Illinois Juvenile Law Benchbook,which primarily addresses juvenile courtproceedings involving allegations of delinquency.

The Committee also discussed the insufficientfunding for the operation/administration of juvenilediversion programs and the related lack of priorityfor juvenile diversion fees under Supreme CourtRule 529. Rule 529 sets forth the percentagedistribution of fines, penalties and costs collectedfor traffic offenses, which in turn is equal to thebail required by Supreme Court Rule 526. TheCommittee recommended that in the event theSupreme Court increases the $75 bail for trafficoffenses as provided for in Rule 526, the juvenilediversion fee be given priority under Rule 529.

Finally, the Committee began examiningProblem-Solving Courts in the management ofjuvenile delinquency, abuse, neglect, anddependency cases. The Committee is awaitingresponses from various circuits to inquiries madeby the Committee about the existence/nature ofsuch specialty courts.

Summary Statement

The work of the seven Judicial ConferenceCommittees is ongoing, with many of the projectsand initiatives begun in Conference Year 2006continuing in 2007. The work of the committeescovered a broad range of topics and issues. Thatwork, which included suggestions on improvingalternative dispute resolution processes, assessingthe efficacy of problem solving courts, providingresources for the continuation of court operationsin the event of a disaster, as well as enhancingjudicial competence through the development ofmanuals, benchbooks and course work, will serveto improve the administration of justice in Illinois.

SSUUPPRREEMMEE CCOOUURRTT DDEECCIISSIIOONNSS WWHHIICCHH TTHHEE

GGEENNEERRAALL AASSSSEEMMBBLLYY MMAAYY WWIISSHH TTOO CCOONNSSIIDDEERR

Governmental Regulation - Single Subject Clause

In People v. Olender et al., S. Ct. Docket No.98932 (December 15, 2005), the supreme court heldthat Public Act 88-669, entitled "An Act in Relation A

nnua

l Rep

ort

to the

Gen

eral A

ssem

bly

10

2006 Annual Report � SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS � Administrative Summary

to Governmental Regulation," violated the singlesubject clause of the constitution because itcontained unrelated provisions that by no fair inter-pretation have any legitimate relation to one another.The court concluded that not all of the provisions ofthe Act have a natural and logical connection to thesingle subject of revenue to the state.

Election Code-Constitutionality

In O'Brien et al., v. White et al., S. Ct.Docket No. 102077 (March 6, 2006), thesupreme court considered section 7A-1 of theElection Code (10 ILCS 5/7A-1 (West 2004)).Section 7A-1 of the Election Code providedthat an elected judge seeking retention mustfile a declaration of candidacy to succeedhimself or herself on or before the first Mondayin December before the general electionpreceding the expiration of the judge's term ofoffice. The court held that section 7A-1 of theElection Code was facially unconstitutionalbecause it directly conflicted with the clear andunambiguous deadline established by ArticleVI, §12(d) of the Illinois Constitution whichprovides that judges have the right to fileretention declarations not less than six monthsbefore the general election preceding theexpiration of their term of office. The supremecourt determined that §12(d) is directed at thejudge, not the General Assembly, such that itgives the judge the right to file his or herdeclaration within the constitutionally estab-lished time frame.

Endangering the Life or Health of a Child -

Mandatory Rebuttable Presumption

In People v. Jordan, S. Ct. Docket No. 99895(January 20, 2006), the supreme courtconsidered section 12-21.6(b) of the CriminalCode of 1961, (720 ILCS 5/12-21.6(b)) whichprovides that there is a rebuttable presumptionthat a person committed the offense ofendangering the life or health of a child if he orshe left a child six (6) years of age or youngerunattended in a motor vehicle for more than ten(10) minutes. The court held that section 12-21.6(b) created an unconstitutional mandatoryrebuttable presumption which impermissibly shiftsthe burden of production to the defendant.

Criminal Law-Mandatory Rebuttable Presumption

In People v. Woodrum, S. Ct. Docket No.99984 (October 5, 2006), the supreme courtconsidered section 10-5(b)(10) of the CriminalCode of 1961, (720 ILCS 5/10-5(b)(10) whichprovides that the "luring or attempted luring of achild under the age of 16 into a motor vehicle,building, house trailer, or dwelling place withoutconsent of the parent or lawful custodian of thechild shall be prima facie evidence of other than alawful purpose." The court concluded that theplain meaning of the phrase "shall be prima facieevidence" in section 10-5(b)(10) is that theultimate fact must be presumed upon proof of thepredicate facts unless disproved by evidence to thecontrary. Thus, the plain language of section 10-5(b)(10) creates a facially unconstitutionalmandatory presumption.

Ann

ual R

eport

to the

Gen

eral A

ssem

bly