In a unanimous decision from the Illinois Supreme Court, the Court, exercising its supervisory powers, ruled that J Terrell, and by implication all other judges, may not pick and choose which public defender is assigned to which defendant. Writing for the court, Justice Garman states:
We conclude that because assistant public defenders serve at the
pleasure of the public defender (55 ILCS 5/3–4004, 3–4004.1 (West
2006)), the public defender has the sole statutory authority to make work assignments to the assistant public defenders. Thus, absent a finding of contempt or other specific cause, it is beyond the scope of judicial authority for an individual judge to reject an assistant public
defender assigned to his courtroom, to refuse to allow an assistant
public defender to represent defendants when she has been assigned
to do so, or to remove an assistant public defender from
representation of a defendant (emphasis added).
pleasure of the public defender (55 ILCS 5/3–4004, 3–4004.1 (West
2006)), the public defender has the sole statutory authority to make work assignments to the assistant public defenders. Thus, absent a finding of contempt or other specific cause, it is beyond the scope of judicial authority for an individual judge to reject an assistant public
defender assigned to his courtroom, to refuse to allow an assistant
public defender to represent defendants when she has been assigned
to do so, or to remove an assistant public defender from
representation of a defendant (emphasis added).
Read the case yourself by clicking this.
