Criminal Justice
December 15, 2025
Miranda v. Arizona (1966) is the Supreme Court case that established the rule requiring police to inform individuals of their rights before questioning them while in custody. The case began when Ernesto Miranda was arrested in Phoenix in 1963 and was questioned for two hours without being informed that he had the right to remain silent or to ask for a lawyer. He signed a confession, and the court used it to convict him. When Miranda appealed, the Supreme Court reviewed whether this confession violated the Fifth Amendment, which protects people from being forced to incriminate themselves, and the Sixth Amendment, which guarantees the right to a lawyer. Before this case, courts used a mixed and uneven "voluntariness test" to decide if a confession was truly given freely, which made it difficult to protect people during police questioning consistently.
November 15, 2025
When wars and other disasters disrupt everyday life and impose severe risks to the public, the operation of the legal system is often forced to adjust. In the context of criminal law, this tends to manifest itself in the modification of procedural safeguards for individuals. A leading case on this subject is Ex parte Merryman, a Civil War-era decision which held that only a legislative body, and not the executive branch, can suspend habeas corpus, the vehicle by which a person deprived of liberty may challenge their status in court and obtain release.
October 15, 2025
Since the mid-20th century, federal laws have increasingly regulated human behavior to protect the environment, ranging from waste disposal to surface mining to fishing. In that same time period, the number of criminal statutes increased, along with an increase in criminal prosecutions and prison sentences. This article examines laws at the intersection of these two trends: statutes which impose criminal liability for conduct dangerous to the natural environment.
August 15, 2025
Probable cause is a foundational concept to the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures by government agents- most frequently, the police. A place is "searched" when an agent trespasses onto a person's private property, goes through their private effects, or searches their physical person. A person or effect is "seized" when a government agent either confiscates a person's private property, uses force or makes a show of authority which then results in submission to that authority.
July 15, 2025
The Fourth Amendment protects a cornerstone principle of America. It is the part of the Bill of Rights that protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. The government must have cause to search and seize a citizen's property, or to detain a citizen, and they must be able to reliably defend their reason. Who is allowed to conduct these searches, who can be searched, and at what time a search can be conducted have all been points of contention and come up for debate in many landmark cases over the last 300 years.
July 15, 2025
The justice system is built on the principle that the innocent should be protected and the guilty held accountable. Yet, for countless individuals, this ideal breaks down when they are wrongfully convicted of crimes they did not commit. In such cases, there are legal processes that allow individuals to seek correction, such as post-conviction relief or civil claims. However, these processes are often subject to statutes of limitations—laws that set time limits for filing certain legal actions.
June 15, 2025
Tabler v. Lumpkin is a federal appellate case involving Richard Lee Tabler, who was convicted in Texas for the 2004 murders of Mohamed-Amine Rahmouni and Haitham Zayed and sentenced to death in 2007. At the sentencing stage of his trial, the prosecution presented victim-impact statements about two other individuals, Amanda Benefield and Tiffany Dotson, whose deaths had not resulted in convictions against Tabler. His defense attorney did not raise any objections to this testimony.
May 15, 2025
Tabler v. Lumpkin is a federal appellate case involving Richard Lee Tabler, who was convicted in Texas for the 2004 murders of Mohamed-Amine Rahmouni and Haitham Zayed and sentenced to death in 2007. At the sentencing stage of his trial, the prosecution presented victim-impact statements about two other individuals, Amanda Benefield and Tiffany Dotson, whose deaths had not resulted in convictions against Tabler. His defense attorney did not raise any objections to this testimony. Years later, Tabler filed a federal habeas corpus petition, a legal procedure that allows inmates to challenge the constitutionality of their detention after all state appeals have been exhausted. In this petition, he argued that his trial counsel had been ineffective, meaning his attorney's performance had fallen below constitutional standards and may have affected the outcome of the case. He also claimed that he had improperly waived his right to state post-conviction relief, stating he lacked mental capacity and was unrepresented by a lawyer during a key part of the process.
May 15, 2025
In the early 2000s, Michael Madigan, then Speaker of the Illinois House of Representatives, successfully thwarted several legislative initiatives supported by the Commonwealth Edison company. In an effort to improve the relationship with the House Speaker, ComEd began to hire Madigan's allies, as well as a law firm with ties to the Speaker. From 2011 through 2019, the defendants' coordinated to influence and reward Madigan. In 2019, ComEd hoped to capitalize on their flow of bribes to Madigan's associates. The company championed the Future Energy Jobs Act which eventually made its way through the state's legislative chambers.
April 15, 2025
Habeas corpus is a legal safeguard that prevents unlawful detention by ensuring that a person cannot be held without justification. If someone believes they are wrongfully imprisoned, they can petition for a writ of habeas corpus, requiring a judge to review whether their detention is lawful. Unlike a jury trial, which determines guilt or innocence, habeas corpus proceedings focus on whether due process was followed, reinforcing judicial oversight and protecting individuals from government overreach. In this specific case we explore what happens when strict procedural rules block someone from presenting new evidence that could prove their innocence.
February 15, 2025
Amendment 828 is a federal amendment that addresses conflicts between different federal circuits concerning the sentencing of firearm offenses. The circuit court hears appeals and other cases and is responsible for making laws. This amendment became effective on November 1st, 2024. It mainly affects cases where a firearm's serial number is modified or erased and other situations on how sentencing enhancements should be involved.
January 15, 2025
House Bill 4409 amends the language in the Illinois Crime Reduction Act, specifically focusing on the Adult Redeploy Illinois program (ARI). This bill replaces the term "offender" with "justice impacted individual" when referring to an individual convicted of a crime. This change considers a rehabilitative approach as an alternative to prison time.
December 15, 2024
In January 2021, the Illinois General Assembly passed House Bill 3653. This crime bill is known as the Safety, Accountability, Fairness, and Equity Act. A segment of this act is referred to as the Pretrial Fairness Act. The Pretrial Fairness Act abolishes the cash bail system. It also prohibits pretrial detention for...
November 15, 2024
The Clean Slate Acts are a series of laws, currently enacted in 12 states, in which courts are obligated to seal criminal records pertaining to specific offenses, including: conviction for minor possession of a controlled substance, nonviolent possession of small amounts of marijuana, and an arrest that did not result in any conviction.