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.
March 21st, 2009
It is about time the record was set straight on this issue. From what I understand from the history of the office, we struggled to come from under the control of the chief judge and become an independant agency committed to the representation of our clients free from judicial control. Thank you to the Illinois Supreme court for reminding their junior jurists that we are not their puppets!
March 24th, 2009
Finally there is some clarity on this issue!