Mediaboss Marketing

Judge Robert Adrian presides over court on Aug. 26, 2020, in Adams County, Ill. Adrian could face removal from office after a judicial oversight body considered allegations this week, Wednesday, Nov. 8, 2023 that he circumvented the law when he decided to reverse a rape conviction in a move that sparked outrage in the victims hometown of Quincy, Illinois, and beyond. (Jake Shane/Quincy Herald-Whig via AP, File)

CHICAGO A western Illinois judge could face removal from office after a judicial oversight body considered allegations this week that he circumvented the law when he decided to reverse a rape conviction.

The move sparked outrage in the victims hometown of Quincy, Illinois, and beyond.

The Illinois Courts Commission, which rules on complaints against judges in the state and has the power to remove, suspend, or reprimand them, heard arguments in Chicago on Wednesday over the allegations Adams County Judge Robert Adrian acted with willful misconduct by throwing out his own decision to avoid sending the defendant to prison.

Adrian presided over a three-day bench trial in which Drew Clinton of Taylor, Michigan, was accused of sexually assaulting a 16-year-old girl during a graduation party in May 2021.

In October of that year, Adrian found Clinton who was 18 guilty of criminal sexual assault. The offense carries a minimum sentence of four years in prison in Illinois.

But at Clintons sentencing hearing three months later, Adrian reversed his decision and said the 148 days the teenager had spent in county jail were punishment enough.

Complaints against judges in Illinois must first pass through the Judicial Inquiry Board, where a majority must find there is a reasonable basis to believe a judge acted with willful misconduct, brought the court into disrepute, or failed or are unable to perform their duties. Although complaints against judges are common, only two or so cases a year make it past the board to the commissions desk, according to Shelley Bethune, executive director and general counsel for the Illinois Courts Commission.

The boards complaint against Adrian says the judge acknowledged he was supposed to impose the mandatory four-year sentence, but that he would not send Clinton to prison. That is not just, Adrian said at the sentencing hearing, according to court transcripts. I will not do that.

Adrian and his attorney maintained that his reversal was based on the evidence in the case and not an effort to thwart the law.

But Adrian's lawyer, Daniel Konicek, made a broader argument Wednesday that maybe the legislature is wrong" to mandate four years in prison for sexual assault.

Konicek urged commissioners not to base their decision on public outcry or social media, adding that his client has been maligned by the press and his family threatened as a result of the hellstorm.

The complaint also alleged Adrian retaliated against a prosecutor working on a different case by telling him to get out of the courtroom because he liked a Facebook post that was critical of Adrian in the days following the judge's decision to reverse his own verdict.

The lawyer who Adrian removed from the courtroom, Joshua Jones, testified Wednesday that the post in question said: Hold rapists accountable.

Jones said he was incredibly angry after being kicked out of court over the post, which he felt represented part of his job as a prosecutor, and said Adrian later called him to apologize.

Cameron Vaughan, the victim of the 2021 assault, told The Associated Press this week that Adrian's reversal of verdict left her completely shocked but determined to oust him.

He does not deserve to be a judge at all, said Vaughan, who attended this weeks proceedings along with family, friends and supporters.

Cameron Vaughan, 18, poses for a photo on Wednesday, Nov. 8, 2023 in Chicago. Vaughan told The Associated Press this week that she was completely shocked when Adams County Judge Robert Adrian reversed his own guilty verdict for the man who sexually assaulted her two years ago, setting him free. "He does not deserve to be a judge at all." The Associated Press does not typically name people who say they were sexually assaulted unless they come forward publicly. (AP Photo/ Claire Savage)

Vaughan is now 18 years old. The Associated Press does not typically name people who say they were sexually assaulted unless they come forward publicly.

It was just really shocking and upsetting for him to not only let (Clinton) go, but to then blame me, blame my parents, blame the parents at the party, Vaughan said.

After throwing out the conviction, Vaughan said the judge told the court this is what happens whenever parents allow teenagers to drink alcohol, to swim in pools with their undergarments on, she recounted, which is supported by a court transcript of that day.

Her mother, Roxanne Lindley, said Adrian completely took the blame off of Drew and put it on all of us.

Adams County court records show the guilty verdict was overturned because prosecutors failed to meet the burden of proof to prove Clinton guilty. He cannot be tried again for the same crime under the Fifth Amendment. A motion to expunge Clinton's record was denied in February of this year.

Court commissioners must now weigh all of the evidence in deciding whether Adrian will be disciplined, which may take several weeks or months.

Get local news delivered to your inbox!

The rest is here:
Commission weighs whether to discipline Illinois judge who ... - St. Louis Post-Dispatch

In January 2022, Crystal Smith was arrested by the Cadiz Police Department and charged with the second-degree burglary, possession of stolen property, first-offense possession of heroin and possession of drug paraphernalia, and all while on the premises of Trigg County Sheriff Aaron Acrees family home.

Wednesday afternoon in front of Trigg County Circuit Court Judge Natalie White, the Cadiz woman said she was ready to put two years behind her and entered a guilty plea through her defense attorney, Marilyn Linsey Shrewsbury.

Bolstered by an agreement with the courts and the Commonwealths special prosecutor Dan Boaz, of Paducah, Smith received an amended charge of third-degree burglary, a Class D felony punishable by 1-to-5 years in prison, and was probated for 25 months.

White read aloud Smiths original indictment, one handed down by the Trigg County grand jury March 9, 2022. And had Smith gone to trial and been convicted, the prosecution and the jury could have sought anywhere from 5-to-15 years in prison depending on aggravators, and any argument for concurrent or consecutive service.

Smith told White the only thing that had impaired her decisions was the September 2021 death of her son, Kameron.

Meanwhile, Smiths federal lawsuit though amended remains open against Acree and Trigg County Jailer James Hughes. In the original document, she claimed Acree and Hughes each violated her Fourth Amendment rights surrounding unreasonable seizure and excessive force, her Fifth Amendment rights of due process, and her Eighth Amendment right against cruel and unusual punishment.

Acree is accused of civil battery and civil assault, and both Acree and Hughes are charged with intentional infliction of emotional distress. Due process has been removed from the complaint, but false imprisonment against Hughes has been added.

Furthermore, on November 30, 2022, Acree was indicted on charges related to Smith: one count of official misconduct, one count of fourth-degree assault, and one count of third-degree terroristic threatening. A second count of official misconduct is allegedly unrelated to this incident.

A jury trial for Acree is currently scheduled for 9 AM November 30 in Trigg County District Court.

More:
Smith Sentenced To Probation In Break-In At Sheriff's Residence - wkdzradio.com

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) accepted 43 cases for the 2023 term as of November 7, 2023. Of those cases, 20 have been scheduled for argument, and one case was dismissed.

The Court has seven cases scheduled for its December sitting. Among these is McElrath v. Georgia, which concerns the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment. The Court will determine if the clause bars a second prosecution for a crime that a defendant was acquitted of.

The Court will also hear Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Missouri in December 2023, which concerns Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Jatonya Muldrow, a sergeant with the St. Louis Police Department, filed a sex discrimination lawsuit against the department after she was involuntarily transferred from her Intelligence Division position to the position in the Fifth District. The Court will determine if Title VII prevents discrimination in transfers if a court has not decided that the transfer decision caused a significant disadvantage for the employee.

Brown v. United States (Consolidated w/ Jackson v. United States) is also on the argument calendar and concerns the Armed Career Criminal Act and its definition of a serious drug offense.

SCOTUS will issue new order lists on November 13 and November 20, 2023, and will conference on November 17, 2023. Order lists are documents that the Court releases to the public with information on their decisions regarding cases, including whether or not they accept to hear a case. A conference is a private meeting of the justices. In its 2022 term, SCOTUS heard arguments in 60 cases. One case was dismissed.

Continued here:
SCOTUS accepts 43 cases this term; 20 scheduled for argument so ... - Ballotpedia News

Premiering at the 76th Cannes Film Festival, this fourth feature, directed and co-written by Justine Triet, won the Palme d'Or, making Triet only the third female director to do so after Julia Ducournau (Titane) and Jane Campion (The Piano). Triet's narrative was under consideration to be France's submission to the 96th Academy Awards for Best International Feature, but France went with another choice. Its distributor, Neon, is pushing it for other categories, such as Best Actress and even Best Picture. According to Gold Derby, the odds are in its favor.

If one enjoys courtroom dramas, one might be primed to enjoy Triet's film. If one is not familiar with the criminal justice system in France, one might be curious to see how French courts differ from United States' courts. In terms of procedure, the U.S. has what's known as the Fifth Amendment, which means that a defendant in a criminal case can't be compelled to testify during a trial, or at any point during a legal proceeding. This is apparently not the case in France. Not only that, but apparently a defendant can be questioned by the prosecutor at any time and the defendant doesn't even have to be at the witness stand. It makes the whole thing feel unstructured and possibly chaotic.

Sandra Hller (I'm Your Man and Toni Erdmann) stars as Sandra Voyter, a German author who married a French teacher who's also an aspiring author. She has a son with him and it looks like they live in a chalet in the French alps. Sandra is in between books. She instead works as a translator, while her husband is a stay-at-home dad who is trying to come up with writing but isn't as successful. He instead spends time renovating the chalet. Sandra feels estranged from her husband and has so for some years. When he's found dead, she becomes the prime suspect.

Swann Arlaud (By the Grace of God) co-stars as Vincent Renzi, the lawyer representing Sandra. He's a no-nonsense guy who pushes Sandra to go along with his theory that her husband's death was due to suicide, even though Sandra doesn't believe it. This film doesn't show much of his process, but he prepares himself very well and we come to see that he and his co-counsel are very knowledgeable about Sandra. There's a bit of drama, which catches them off guard, but otherwise Vincent seems more than competent. His knowledge of things though possibly comes from a prior and even current friendship he has with Sandra.

Milo Machado-Graner also co-stars as Daniel Maleski, the 11-year-old son to Sandra. He's visually impaired due to an accident when he was 4. He has a seeing-eye dog named Snoop. Unfortunately, he's called to testify at the trial. There's an interesting aspect about that, which hasn't been explored, certainly not in American courtroom dramas. Here, the court assigns a social worker to keep watch over Daniel, so that his mother doesn't do or say anything to influence his testimony.

There's a scene where we see this social worker named Marge, played by Jehnny Beth, a real-life musician, following Sandra and Daniel. It's implied that she's akin to a live-in nanny because otherwise how could she keep watch over Sandra and Daniel? The trial doesn't start for a year, so the implication is that she lives with them for a year. The film rather skips over this aspect and how intrusive that would be or what kind of relationship develops from that.

After the first hour, the film takes place mostly in court. I'm not sure what the intention of Triet was. I assume she wanted it to be a mystery or a question of Sandra's guilt or innocence. However, it got to a point where I fully believed that Sandra was innocent. Triet's question or mystery was neither a question nor a mystery because the so-called evidence was never convincing, mainly because a lot of it is speculation. Also, the behavior of Sandra never suggests she's the psychotic murderer that the prosecution is trying to paint.

Having seen so many legal dramas, particularly on television, most recently, the second season of Netflix's The Lincoln Lawyer (2022), I thought Triet crafted the narrative to put us on the side of Sandra in order to undermine the expectations. There is a scene where we see Sandra arguing with her husband, which is supposed to set up her possible motive for killing him. Triet seemed to want to use the scene to put doubt in the audience's mind about Sandra's guilt, but it only put me more firmly on Sandra's side. The so-called motive never felt solid by the end.

As such, the courtroom scenes weren't as thrilling as I had hoped. The best courtroom dramas always present both the defense and prosecution as equally strong. Here, I never felt the prosecution was as strong. I always felt like the prosecution was grasping for straws.

Rated R for language, sexual references and violent images.

Running Time: 2 hrs. and 31 mins.

In select theaters.

Visit link:
Movie Review - Anatomy of a Fall | The-m-report | wboc.com - WBOC TV 16

Before the jury came back, I told you thatTrump would losethe E. Jean Carroll rape case.

I also told you that the result of that first E. Jean Carroll trial woulddictate the result of the next one. The next trial isnt scheduled to begin until January, but I told you months ago that Trump will lose; the only open question is the amount of damages that will be awarded. (I stand by that prediction. Its correct.)

So, if Im that clever or at least sufficiently clever to be able to read and think what will happen in the case thats currently in trial between New York Attorney General Letitia James and the Trumps?

First, the Trumps will lose. You dont have to be too smart to predict that because I didthe judge hasalready ruled, on summary judgment, that the Trumps committed fraud. All the judge is considering now is the amount of restitution the Trumps must pay (and perhaps other remedies). So dont be confused by all the news coverage: Trump has already lost. The press is (appropriately) covering the testimony that witnesses are giving, but the final result is not in doubt.

Second, the Trumps are doing almost nothing at trial that helps their cause. Its pretty unusual for a lawyer to be sanctioned for making frivolous arguments in court. (I dont know if there are empirical studies about this, but Id bet the average lawyer goes a lifetime without ever being sanctioned by a court.)

Trumps lawyers are different: Judge Engoron has sanctioned Trumps lawyers for making frivolous arguments. That reflects pretty poorly on the lawyers. Engoron also sanctioned Trump himself twice for attacking the judges clerk after the judge issued a gag order forbidding Trump from doing so.

But thats not enough for Trump. Trump routinely publicly attacks the judge.

None of this helps Trumps cause.

Third, the routine that Don Jr. and Eric used when testifying last week is as old as the hills, and it wont work.

We all know that success has many fathers; failure is an orphan. Anyone whos defended commercial cases for a few years has seen this proverb play out repeatedly. Everyone in a company is delighted to take responsibility for a good decision.

But defense counsel asks each of the four players who were in the room when the bad decision was made whether they personally made the bad decision: The decision that got your company sued doesnt look like a very good one. Who made that decision?

Person No. 1: I know the decision affected my line of business, but I was only making a recommendation. I wasnt responsible for the decision.

Person No. 2: I was on the committee that reviewed that decision, but it wasnt my area of expertise. I was relying on others.

Person No. 3: The committee wasnt really approving anything. We were just hearing about how the business operated.

Person No. 4: None of the accountants or lawyers said there was any problem, so things just floated by. I didnt pay much attention.

Failure is an orphan.

Every time any institution makes a bad decision, youre writing in the passive voice: A decision was made. You can never identify who made the decision; no ones willing to take the blame.

Things can get heated sometimes: As your lawyer, I cant go into court and say that no one made the damned decision. Someone made the decision, and that person will have to defend the decision under oath in court. Which of you made the decision?

Crickets.

So Don Jr. and Eric Trump think theyre being clever when they testify under oath that they didnt approve financial statements. They were just running the company. They got numbers from the accountants who were really the decision-makers. (The accountants, of course, say that they relied on the Trump Organization to provide honest numbers. Its a tale as old as time: No one made the bad decision!)

Hence my prediction: The judge will reject this testimony (because hes undoubtedly heard it many times before) and find Don Jr. and Eric not to be credible.

Im writing this column over the weekend, before the former president takes the witness stand, but my final prediction is that Engoron will also reject certain testimony that he hears from Donald Trump.

Heres my thinking: First, Engoron has already found that many of the financial statements prepared by the Trump Organization contain false statements. That reflects poorly on the folks running the Trump business; they lied for years, in multiple documents. The judge is not going to change his mind about that fact, and the fact reflects poorly on Trump.

Second, the judge has already heard from Donald Trump during a brief sanctions hearing and found Trumpnot to be credible (which means that Trump lied under oath). The judge thus knows in advance that a liar is about to take the witness stand.

Third, the testimony that Donald Trump will give on Monday is going to hurt Trump, likely in two ways. When he denies that he had knowledge of certain issues, hell be confronted with documents showing that he did have knowledge. That happened with Don Jr. It happened with Eric. It will also happen with Dad, and it wont reflect well on Dad.

Moreover, Trump may invoke the Fifth Amendment and refuse to testify about certain issues when hes asked about them on Monday. The lawyers from the Attorney Generals Office know full well that Trump will look terrible if he refuses to answer questions because the answers would incriminate him. If that happens, the judge will be permitted to presume that Trumps testimony on those subjects, if it had been given, would hurt Trumps cause. If Trump takes the Fifth, Engoron will use that presumption against Trump in his ultimate decision.

It should be relatively easy for the the AGs lawyers to force Trump to invoke the Fifth Amendment at trial. As just one example, Trump reinstated himself as trustee of his business trust on January 15, 2021, before he handed over the White House to Joe Biden on January 20. That decision will cause Trump heartache in his criminal trials: Why did Trump put himself back in charge of his business which suggests Trump was returning to the private sector on January 15 if Trump truly believed that he was still president for another four-year term? And if Trump knew he had lost the election, why was he conspiring with others to keep power?

If Trump has any sense or if he simply has competent lawyers he will decline to answer questions on this subject for fear of self-incrimination. Engoron will then presume from that invocation of the Fifth Amendment that Trumps testimony would have hurt his cause at trial.

Thus, the Trumps will lose the civil case pending in New York, and the judges opinion will castigate the whole family.

How about timing? When will the Trumps lose?

I cant help with that one. Engorons the judge; Im not. He will issue the opinion whenever he cares to. I suspect that hell issue the opinion reasonably promptly perhaps within the next several months but the timing is up to him.

On the other hand, I can intelligently predict the length of his opinion: Engorons decision on summary judgment was 35 pages long; hes taking this case seriously. Engoron knows that the whole world is watching the current trial. Engoron knows that the Trumps are certain to take an appeal from his decision. Engorons decision after trial will thus be long, detailed, and written to persuade the public and to avoid reversal on appeal.

How much will the Trumps lose?

Sorry: This would once again be pure guesswork. To have an informed opinion on this subject, I would have to study the opinions of the expert witnesses in the case. Even then, the judge could have a surprise. I have no idea none how much the judge will order the Trumps to pay in restitution.

There you have it.

Sensible journalists report things only after they happen. Thats the intelligent course, so it doesnt restrain me.

I report things before they occur.

By early next year, I suspect, well know how I did.

MarkHerrmannspent 17 years as a partner at a leading international law firm and is now deputy general counsel at a large international company. He is the author of The Curmudgeons Guide to Practicing LawandDrug and Device Product Liability Litigation Strategy(affiliate links). You can reach him by email atinhouse@abovethelaw.com.

Read the original post:
Another Result Before It Happens: The Trump Civil Case In New York - Above the Law