Illinois Appellate Court First District Appearance: Fill & Download for Free

Following is the text of Illinois Supreme Court Rule 23. It addresses Appellate decisions and describes which are published and which are not. Unpublished does not mean they are hidden. With electronic publication, I can easily search for “Rule 23” cases. When they were on paper it was more difficult, but possible. As noted at the bottom, a party can file a motion to have an unpublished decision, published.Rule 23. Disposition of Cases in the Appellate CourtThe decision of the Appellate Court may be expressed in one of the following forms: a full opinion, a concise written order, or a summary order conforming to the provisions of this rule. All dispositive opinions and orders shall contain the names of the judges who rendered the opinion or order.(a) Opinions. A case may be disposed of by an opinion only when a majority of the panel deciding the case determines that at least one of the following criteria is satisfied:(1) the decision establishes a new rule of law or modifies, explains or criticizes an existing rule of law; or(2) the decision resolves, creates, or avoids an apparent conflict of authority within the Appellate Court.(b) Written Order. Cases which do not qualify for disposition by opinion may be disposed of by a concise written order which shall succinctly state:(1) in a separate introductory paragraph, a concise syllabus of the court’s holding(s) in the case;(2) the germane facts;(3) the issues and contentions of the parties when appropriate;(4) the reasons for the decision; and(5) the judgment of the court.(c) Summary Order. In any case in which the panel unanimously determines that any one or more of the following dispositive circumstances exist, the decision of the court may be madeby summary order. A summary order may be utilized when:(1) the Appellate Court lacks jurisdiction;(2) the disposition is clearly controlled by case law precedent, statute, or rules of court;(3) the appeal is moot;(4) the issues involve no more than an application of well-settled rules to recurring fact situations;(5) the opinion or findings of fact and conclusions of law of the trial court or agency adequately explain the decision;(6) no error of law appears on the record;(7) the trial court or agency did not abuse its discretion; or(8) the record does not demonstrate that the decision of the trier of fact is against the manifest weight of the evidence.When a summary order is issued it shall contain:(i) a statement describing the nature of the case and the dispositive issues without a discussion of the facts;(ii) a citation to controlling precedent, if any; and(iii) the judgment of the court and a citation to one or more of the criteria under this rule which supports the judgment, e.g., “Affirmed in accordance with Supreme Court Rule 23(c)(1).”The court may dispose of a case by summary order at any time after the case is docketed in the Appellate Court. The disposition may provide for dismissal, affirmance, remand, reversal or any combination thereof as appropriate to the case. A summary order may be entered after a dispositive issue has been fully briefed, or if the issue has been raised by motion of a party or by the court, sua sponte, after expiration of the time for filing a response to the motion or rule to show cause issued by the court.(d) Captions. All opinions and orders entered under this rule shall bear a caption substantially conforming to the requirements of Rule 330. Additionally, an opinion or order entered under subpart (a) or (b) of this rule must clearly show the date of filing on its initial page.(e) Effect of Orders.(1) An order entered under subpart (b) or (c) of this rule is not precedentialand may not be cited by any partyexcept to support contentions of double jeopardy, res judicata, collateral estoppel, or law of the case. However, a nonprecedential order entered under subpart (b) of this rule on or after January 1, 2021, may be cited for persuasive purposes. When cited,for these purposes,a copy of the order shall be furnished to all other counsel and the court.(2) An order entered under subpart (b) of this rule must contain on its first page a notice in substantially the following form:NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 andmay not be cited asis not precedentby any partyexcept in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).(f) Motions to Publish. If an appeal is disposed of by order, any party may move to have the order published as an opinion. The motion shall set forth the reasons why the order satisfies the criteria for disposition as an opinion and shall be filed within 21 days of the entry of the order. The appellate court shall retain jurisdiction to grant or deny a timely filed motion to publish irrespective of the filing of a petition for leave to appeal under Rule 315 and shall rule on the motion to publish within 14 days of its filing, prior to disposition by the Supreme Court of any petition for leave to appeal.(g) Electronic Publication. In order to make available to the public all opinions and orders entered under subparts (a) and (b) of this rule, the clerks of the Appellate Court shall transmit an electronic copy of each opinion or order filed in his or her district to the webmaster of the Illinois Supreme and Appellate Courts’ Web site on the day of filing. No opinion or order may be posted to the Web site that does not substantially comply with the Style Manual for the Supreme and Appellate Courts.(h) Public-Domain Case DesignatorsAn opinion or order entered under subpart (a) or (b) of this rule must be assigned a public-domain case designator and internal paragraph numbers, as set forth in the accompanying administrative order.

The question is complicated as the dividing line still hasn’t been fully drawn. Certain low intelligent people will claim that the amendment is only applied for the militia. Issue is, they only read parts of the SCOTUS decision and leave out the rest because they figure that others will not go an read the same decision. Another issue is that SCOTUS has had a habit of narrowly defining the issue at hand during the first 200 or so years and only recently started to “broad brush” many of their rulings. Usually that is for rulings that SCOTUS basically had to make things up as they go such as abortion rights and immigration. But going to dive into both issues.The basic issue at hand is that the amendment uses a prefatory clause, and that causes confusion. But it is a pretty simple construct that people try to gloss over looking to make it overly complicated. The 2nd amendment basically says that the militia is necessary to the free state. Pretty simple considering the federal government cannot interfere with the states keeping and maintaining militias. Simple, short, and to the point. So if Virginia wanted to expand it’s militia’s, the federal government could not interfere. A balance of the states ability to offset a federal standing army.The second part is often run into the prefatory clause by those desperate to deny the issue. The right of the people to bear arms, shall not be infringed. Without the prefatory, it seems pretty simple. The federal government has no power over the people’s right to bear arms. The commerce clause has been used to bypass that, but that is a questionable action that has not appeared in front of SCOTUS due to the issue that if the federal gun control laws are declared unconstitutional, other sections of the federal government ranging from regulations to agencies that use the clause as justification for their being would also have to be ruled on as their power and enforcement depend heavily on the clause. So that is the true third rail of government as even strict constitutionalists are loath to limit the clause. Reason being, they benefit too much from agencies that are supposed to be in control of the state, but the federal government set up their own agencies that superseded the state level. But that is an argument for another time.To get back on point, the federal government has no control over the people’s right to bear arms. The question is, as the power is banned to the federal government, how much power do the states have in regulating firearms? The answer is, no one knows for sure. And SCOTUS has swung from side to side on that issue but over the last 30 years they have been narrowing it down to the state has the right of regulation, but they better have good reasoning and facts in place before they infringe on an individuals rights under the 14th. And that is something that Chicago, Washington D.C., and pretty soon New York found out as many of their regulations are not supported factually. And the upcoming New York case is going to have a major impact well beyond New York. Pro-control regulations in many areas survive because they do not make it up to SCOTUS. There are too many cases for SCOTUS to hear in any given year and time limits on appeals trims out the vast majority of cases. And New York tried to play those odds, was shocked that SCOTUS took the case when the odds were heavily against it, and tried to make retroactive changes trying to moot the case. But, as they found out, SCOTUS doesn’t like people doing that. And having New York's law struck down retroactively is going to nullify many local and state regulations controlling the possession and transportation of firearms in localities and states outside of New York. That is why pro-control advocates are scrambling. It will be a replay of the Chicago and Heller rulings, with over 800 local and state regulations in play to be declared unconstitutional which is why liberal SCOTUS judges like Ginsburg and Sotomayor and liberal pro-control media sites are decrying the decision to hear the case even though they had no problem with cases being heard where the laws changed before it got to SCOTUS on topics dear to them.Sigh… I tend to have diarrhea of the keyboard and this post doesn’t seem to be an exception. So far, we covered that the federal government is banned via the BOR from limiting the rights of people to own firearms and only do so by questionable use of to commerce clause. The states, they are not prevented from regulating, but how far that power goes is not known. States were given power over internal militias, but the people are allowed firearms even if they are not part of the states defense forces. So, this is a major sticking point and one that must be explored by looking at other rulings that were on other legal topics but touched on by the second amendment.United States v. Cruikshank- Touched on 2nd Amendment. Commonly misread as protecting discrimination, it runs into the issue that the plaintiffs had to rely on state courts for protection. The problem for the ruling was that the laws of the state were not brought up to SCOTUS for ruling on constitutionality. The issue brought before the courts was the Federal Enforcement Act of 1870, which SCOTUS overruled as an overreach of the federal government. Remember what I said earlier about SCOTUS ruling on cases on how it was presented to the court, it’s a common mistake that people make when citing SCOTUS cases. It may be seen as a bad ruling, but it was correctly decided as presented on how federal laws overstep the boundary of state and federal powers. If only the case was presented as how the state law was violating the constitution, it may have been a game changing decision. But as it was brought by the “villains,” the issue brought forth was that the federal law was overreach. And so, the ruling has gone down as questionable by those that don’t look at what SCOTUS had to rule on.For the second amendment touched on by the ruling,“The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called, in The City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. 139, the "powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was, perhaps, more properly called internal police," "not surrendered or restrained" by the Constitution of the United States.”So we have one of the rulings denying the power to the federal governmentDred Scott v. Sandford- Another questionable ruling, but one degraded because the issue brought before the court was a matter of deciding how the laws applied, and not whether slavery was legal or not. Not going to beat around the bush on this one, it’s one of the few cases where I wished SCOTUS had broad brushed their ruling to include other factors rather then limiting it to the scope to which it was presented as. But I digress…“For example, no one, we presume, will contend that Congress can make any law in a Territory respecting the establishment of religion, or the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, or the right of the people of the Territory peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for the redress of grievances.Nor can Congress deny to the people the right to keep and bear arms, nor the right to trial by jury, nor compel any one to be a witness against himself in a criminal proceeding. These powers, and others, in relation to rights of person, which it is not necessary here to enumerate, are, in express and positive terms, denied to the General Government; and the rights of private property have been guarded with equal care. Thus the rights of property are united with the rights of person, and placed on the same ground by the fifth amendment to the Constitution, which provides that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, and property, without due process of law. And an act of Congress which deprives a citizen of the United States of his liberty or property, merely because he came himself or brought his property into a particular Territory of the United States, and who had committed no offense against the laws, could hardly be dignified with the name of due process of law.”So, a second SCOTUS case denying the power to the federal government.Presser v. Illinois- A case brought before SCOTUS when Presser formed his own militia. SCOTUS rightfully ruled that the power to form active and recognized militia’s was a power of the state, and not the individual.“We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms. But a conclusive answer to the contention that this amendment prohibits the legislation in question lies in the fact that the amendment is a limitation only upon the power of congress and the national government, and not upon that of the state.…It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the States, and in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government. But, as already stated, we think it clear that the sections under consideration do not have this effect.…The right voluntarily to associate together as a military company or organization or to drill or parade with arms, without, and independent of, an act of Congress or law of the State authorizing the same, is not an attribute of national citizenship. Military organization and military drill and parade under arms are subjects especially under the control of the government of every country. They cannot be claimed as a right independent of law. Under our political system they are subject to the regulation and control of the State and Federal governments, acting in due regard to their respective prerogatives and powers. The Constitution and laws of the United States will be searched in vain for any support to the view that these rights are privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States independent of some specific legislation on the subject.”So the ruling was presented before SCOTUS as to whether or not an individual can form their own militia. SCOTUS ruled that official militias and military units were the purview of the state and federal governments and not that of the individual. So being prevented from forming a militia didn’t violate the 2nd amendment as the individual was still allowed to bear arms.So, the question of how much power the state has in regulating firearms. I’m going to stop mentioning the federal government as it’s becoming tedious repeating myself.Miller v. Texas- The first SCOTUS case that touched the 2nd amendment using the 14th amendment of equal protection. And it was waffled by SCOTUS as the case was not presented “in a timely manner.” What the SCOTUS case boiled down to was that since it was not brought forth to the trial and appellate court as a 2nd, 4th, and 14th amendment issue, that the court could only rule that the power lies in the state as the arguments for violations were outside the scope of federal power. So the motion for a rehearing was denied. If it had been granted, it would have been the first case for the 2nd amendment using the standards of the 14th. But it was ruled rightly as the defendant had multiple chances to bring up constitutionality of the laws in question and didn’t until the process was at SCOTUS level. Now, SCOTUS regularly hears cases like this over the last 50 years.So, it still leaves the power of regulation in the states though it was one of the first chances SCOTUS had at determining the protection of the BOR across state lines and punted it.United States v. Miller- One of the most misinterpreted rulings by the pro-control side of the argument. But one easily made if you don’t pay attention to what was presented to the court. Miller claimed that the limitations placed on his shotgun length as well as the modified pistol were overreach by the federal government into his ability to serve in a militia based on the regulations within the NFA and as such, a power relegated to the states. It wasn’t presented to the courts as a freedom to bear arms.United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez- One of the more recent and clearer cases. It is one of the turning points that start defining the line between states and “the people”Casey v. Planned Parenthood- The first case fully heard using the 14th amendment in conjunction with mentioning the 2nd in the court opinion."[T]he full scope of the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause cannot be found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific guarantees elsewhere provided in the Constitution. This `liberty´ is not a series of isolated points pricked out in terms of the taking of property; the freedom of speech, press, and religion; the right to keep and bear arms; the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on. It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints, . . . and which also recognizes, what a reasonable and sensitive judgment must, that certain interests require particularly careful scrutiny of the state needs asserted to justify their abridgment."And this is the beginning of the downfall to the pro-control side’s hopes. They blame it on the next case in line, but the writing was on the wall in 1992. It just took SCOTUS accepting a case (1 case out of 14,000 petitions is the usual ratio) on the 2nd amendment and applying the 14th to it as it had already been doing in regards to the 1st, 4th, 5th, etc…District of Columbia v. Heller- The beginning of the end of the pro-control hopes. The only thing it did not do was incorporate the 14th amendment allowing the same rights across state lines. Simply put, it determined that the right to own firearms was not a right that was given by the government, but it was like other rights and available since birth. Regulations can be placed on that right, but the onus was on the state and local governments to prove that the infringement of the right was actually effective and needed for public protection. And the Washington DC couldn’t bring anything to show that their regulations were effective to the point that an individuals right could be infringed for “the greater good.” In fact, Washington DC had issues presenting anything that showed their bans did any good and the plaintiffs that brought the case showed plenty of evidence that the laws and regulations of Washington DC did nothing to combat what it was supposed to. Frankly, all you had to do was go to court showing the murder rate by individuals not legally able to own a firearm in DC at the time and for years prior, then show the courts the hoops you had to jump through to get a legal firearm. Certain individuals on SCOTUS had to go out of their way to mark it an activist court ruling even though they had set the precedence themselves well before that in 1st, 4th, and 5th amendment rulings saying the government had to prove the “public safety” aspect to justify the infringement of rights.McDonald v. Chicago- The ruling that was foretold by the Casey ruling in 1992. The 14th amendment was applied to where states where more restrictive laws are in place will have to meet a standard and justification on why the law needs to be upheld if other states do not have the same law. It also starts the process where the onus is moving away from the restriction of legal ownership when the law is questionable on it’s affects on unlawful use.I know I’m going to have to go back, edit the hell out of this, and fix areas where I ran out of steam. My keyboard diarrhea on this post is so bad on this one sitting that I think my toes have already come up through my finger tips. So I’ll have to come back later with fresh eyes. But I know I’m going to have to go and put in key phrases from rulings to show that the pro-control argument has many unintentional and intentional falsehoods in them and I’ll have to add the parts they misinterpreted and include the full text as well as notate cases where the pro-control argument wasn’t part of the findings but part of the losing arguments dissenting opinion to add some balance. I also know I’m also going to have to flesh out the rulings and further clarify some of my writing. In this post, I chose some of the 50 cases that SCOTUS has used the 2nd amendment or mentioned aspects of the 2nd amendment in the ruling. It is not just 3 as the pro-control groups claim… There are only 3 direct cases pertaining to the 2nd amendment but multiple mentions and clarifications woven into SCOTUS rulings and the vast majority go against pro-control beliefs. And that isn’t even bringing in the appellate or state court rulings.

Yes the fuck they SHOULD!! Why? Because there’s a huge problem with the death penalty in China! They don’t publish the numbers or reasons or ANYTHING!! Which means that ANYBODY could be sentenced to death for any reason they deem appropriate!! That’s just crazy to me! They can kill political adversaries or political activists and people who protest or disagree with the government on any level, and they ain’t got to tell nobody shit!! Anybody says they are for that shit on any level better get the fuck off that “christian train.” And re-think your position!! To give a government that kind of power. The power to “disappear” people? You gotta be some kind of informant or government controlled rat to think that such a thing would be alright for these militaristic, theocratic thugs. To think that they are using that power equitably or responsibly is fantasy. The problem with the death penalty is that it has a serious flaw which I’ll just call HUMAN ERROR!! Humans are flawed and fallible and in our society our flawed fallible and subjective memories are often used to have people placed on death row. If indeed there were DNA evidence in every case and in every case we could be CERTAIN that a person were 100% guilty, I might not have much of an objection to people like the student eater guy being killed by the state. Having said that, such is NOT the case in over 60% of cases. In 60% of cases there IS NO DNA!! That’s the problem with our system. Aside and apart from the fact that black and brown men who have had mostly less than adequate representation comprise a disproportionate number of cases. And let’s not even talk about corruption. Check this link out. A republican governor who did away with the death penalty and commuted everyone’s sentence to life because of the unbelievable depths of the corruption of their homicide detectives.George RyanFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to navigationJump to searchFor other people named George Ryan, see George Ryan (disambiguation).This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.Find sources: "George Ryan" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR(February 2021)(Learn how and when to remove this template message)George Ryan39th Governor of IllinoisIn officeJanuary 11, 1999 – January 13, 2003LieutenantCorinne WoodPreceded byJim EdgarSucceeded byRod Blagojevich36th Secretary of State of IllinoisIn officeJanuary 14, 1991 – January 11, 1999GovernorJim EdgarPreceded byJim EdgarSucceeded byJesse White42nd Lieutenant Governor of IllinoisIn officeJanuary 10, 1983 – January 14, 1991GovernorJames R. ThompsonPreceded byDave O'NealSucceeded byBob Kustra65th Speaker of the Illinois House of RepresentativesIn officeJanuary 14, 1981 – January 10, 1983GovernorJames R. ThompsonPreceded byWilliam A. RedmondSucceeded byArthur A. TelcserPersonal detailsBornGeorge Homer RyanFebruary 24, 1934 (age 86)Maquoketa, Iowa, U.S.Political partyRepublicanSpouse(s)Lura Lynn Lowe​​(m.1956; died 2011)​Children6EducationFerris State CollegeProfessionPharmarcistbusinessmanMilitary serviceAllegianceUnited StatesBranch/serviceUnited States ArmyYears of service1954–1956[1][2][3][4]George Homer Ryan (born February 24, 1934) is an American former politician who was the Republican 39th Governor of Illinois from 1999 until 2003. Ryan received national attention for his 1999 moratorium on executions in Illinois and for commuting more than 160 death sentences to life sentences in 2003. He was later convicted of federal corruption charges and spent more than five years in federal prison and seven months of home confinement. He was released from federal prison on July 3, 2013.Contents1Early life2Political career3Term as governor3.1Capital punishment4Scandals, trial, and conviction4.1Indictment4.2Defense and appeal4.3Sentencing5Electoral history6References7External linksEarly life[edit]George Homer Ryan was born in Maquoketa, Iowa to Jeannette (née Bowman) and Thomas Ryan, a pharmacist.[5][6] Ryan grew up in Kankakee County, Illinois. After serving in the U.S. Army in Korea, he worked for his father's two drugstores.[7] He attended Ferris State College of Pharmacy (now Ferris State University) in Big Rapids, Michigan. Eventually, he built his father's pair of pharmacies into a successful family-run chain (profiting from lucrative government-contract business selling prescription drugs to nursing homes) which he sold in 1990.[7][8] Ryan was drafted into the U.S. Army in 1954. He served a 13-month tour in Korea, working in a base pharmacy.[9]On June 10, 1956, Ryan married his high school sweetheart, Lura Lynn Lowe (July 5, 1934 – June 27, 2011), whom he had met in a high school English class. She grew up in Aroma Park, where her family (originally from Germany) had lived since 1834. Her father owned one of the first hybrid seed companies in the United States.[10] The couple had five daughters (including a set of triplets);[8] Julie, Joanne, Jeanette, Lynda and Nancy;[11][12] and one son, George Homer Ryan, Jr.[13][14][15][16]Lura Lowe died of lung cancer at Riverside Hospital in Kankakee on June 27, 2011. Ryan's brother, Tom, was a prominent political figure in Kankakee County.[7] In addition, Ryan's sister Kathleen Dean's former son-in-law, Bruce Clark, is the Kankakee County, Illinois Clerk.[17]Political career[edit]Ryan began his political career by serving on the Kankakee County Board from 1968 to 1973 (his brother Tom J. Ryan was Mayor of Kankakee for 20 years from 1965 to 1985). He was then elected to the Illinois House of Representatives, where he served from 1973 to 1983, including two terms as Minority Leader and one term as Speaker. He then spent 20 years in statewide office, as Lieutenant Governor under Governor James R. Thompson (1983–91), Secretary of State from 1991 to 1999, and as governor from 1999 to 2003. During his first term as Secretary of State, then–State Treasurer Pat Quinn was publicly critical of Ryan. Specifically, he drew attention to special vanity license plates that Ryan's office provided for clout-heavy motorists. This rivalry led Quinn in a failed bid to challenge Ryan in the 1994 general election for Secretary of State.[18][19]Term as governor[edit]This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.Find sources: "George Ryan" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR(February 2021)(Learn how and when to remove this template message)Ryan was elected Governor in 1998, defeating his opponent, Glenn Poshard, by a 51–47% margin. Ryan's running mate was first-term state representative Corinne Wood. Ryan outspent Poshard by a 4-to-1 margin. Poshard, a firm believer in campaign finance reform, placed limits on individual donations and refused to accept donations from corporate or special interests.One of Ryan's pet projects as governor was an extensive repair of the Illinois Highway System called "Illinois FIRST". FIRST was an acronym for "Fund for Infrastructure, Roads, Schools, and Transit". Signed into law in May 1999, the law created a $6.3 billion package for use in school and transportation projects. With various matching funds programs, Illinois FIRST provided $2.2 billion for schools, $4.1 billion for public transportation, another $4.1 billion for roads, and $1.6 billion for other projects. He also improved Illinois's technology infrastructure, creating one of the first cabinet-level Offices of Technology in the country and bringing up Illinois's technology ranking in a national magazine from 48th out of the 50 states when he took office to 1st just two years later. Ryan committed record funding to education, including 51% of all new state revenues during his time in office, in addition to the billions spent through Illinois FIRST that built and improved schools and education infrastructure. In 1999, Ryan sparked controversy by becoming the first sitting U.S. Governor to meet with Cuban President Fidel Castro. Ryan's visit led to a $1 million donation of humanitarian aid, but drew criticism from anti-Castro groups.[20] In 2000, Ryan served as a chair of the Midwestern Governors Association.Capital punishment[edit]Ryan helped to renew the national debate on capital punishment when, as governor, he declared a moratorium on his state's death penalty in 2000.[21]This decision was heavily influenced by lawsuits filed by exonerated prisoners who made false confessions as a result of police torture under the direction of a police commander named Jon Burge.[22] "We have now freed more people than we have put to death under our system," he said. "There is a flaw in the system, without question, and it needs to be studied."[23] At the time, Illinois had executed 12 people since the reinstatement of the death penalty in 1977, with one execution, that of Ripper Crew member Andrew Kokoraleis, occurring early during Ryan's term. Ryan refused to meet with religious leaders and others regarding "a stay of execution" in light of the impending 'moratorium' and other facts relative to the 'flawed' capital punishment system in Illinois; in fact, under Ryan's governorship, 13 people were released from jail after appealing their convictions based on new evidence. Ryan called for a commission to study the issue, while noting, "I still believe the death penalty is a proper response to heinous crimes ... But I believe that it has to be where we don't put innocent people to death."[24]The issue had garnered the attention of the public when a death row inmate, Anthony Porter, who had spent 15 years on death row, was within two days of being executed when his lawyers won a stay on the grounds that he may have been mentally disabled. He was ultimately exonerated with the help of a group of student journalists at Northwestern University who had uncovered evidence that was used to prove his innocence. In 1999, Porter was released, charges were subsequently dropped, and another person, Alstory Simon, confessed and pleaded guilty to the crime of which Porter had been erroneously convicted. Simon himself was later released after serving fifteen years for the crime, after it was proven that he, too, was wrongfully accused.[25]On January 11, 2003, just two days before leaving office, Ryan commuted (to "life" terms) the sentences of everyone on or waiting to be sent to Illinois' death row — a total of 167 convicts — due to his belief that the death penalty could not be administered fairly. He also pardoned four inmates, Aaron Patterson, Madison Hobley and Leroy Orange (all of whom were interrogated by Burge and released), and Stanley Howard. However, Patterson is currently serving 30 years in prison after being arrested for drug trafficking he committed after his release from death row. Howard remains in prison for armed robbery.[26] Ryan declared in his pardon speech that he would have freed Howard if only his attorney had filed a clemency petition; Ryan then strongly urged investigators to examine Howard's alleged robbery case, because it appeared to be as tainted as his murder conviction.[27]These were four of ten death row inmates known as the "Death Row 10," due to widely reported claims that the confessions that they had given in their respective cases had been coerced through torture. Ryan is not the first state governor to have granted blanket commutations to death row inmates during his final days in office. Arkansas Governor Winthrop Rockefeller also commuted the sentence of every death row inmate in that state as he left office after losing his 1970 bid for a third two-year term, as did New Mexico Governor Toney Anaya before he left office in 1986 and Ohio Governor Dick Celeste before he left office in 1990.[citation needed]Ryan won praise from death penalty opponents: as early as 2001, he received the Mario Cuomo Act of Courage Award from Death Penalty Focus, in 2003 the Rose Elizabeth Bird Commitment to Justice Award from the same organization, and in 2005 he was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. On the other side of the Atlantic, Robert Badinter, who had successfully introduced the bill abolishing the death penalty in France in 1981 praised Ryan's decision.[28] Many conservatives, though, were opposed to the commutations, some questioning his motives, which came as a federal corruption investigation closed in on the governor and his closest political allies (see below). Conservative columnist Pat Buchanan called Ryan "pathetic", and suggested the governor was attempting to save his public image in hopes of avoiding prison himself. Buchanan noted "Ryan announced his decision to a wildly cheering crowd at the Northwestern University Law School. Families of the victims of the soon-to-be-reprieved killers were not invited."[29]Scandals, trial, and conviction[edit]Ryan's political career was marred by a scandal called "Operation Safe Road", which involved the illegal sale of government licenses, contracts and leases by state employees during his prior service as Secretary of State. In the wake of numerous convictions of his former aides, he chose not to run for reelection in 2002. Seventy-nine former state officials, lobbyists, and others were charged in the investigation, and at least 76 were convicted.[citation needed]The corruption scandal leading to Ryan's downfall began more than a decade earlier during a federal investigation into a deadly crash in Wisconsin. Six children from the Willis family of Chicago, Illinois, were killed; their parents, Rev. Duane and Janet Willis, were severely burned.[30] The investigation revealed a scheme inside Ryan's Secretary of State's office in which unqualified truck drivers obtained licenses through bribes.In March 2003, Scott Fawell, Ryan's former chief of staff and campaign manager, was convicted on federal charges of racketeering and fraud. He was sentenced to six years and six months.[31] Former deputy campaign manager Richard Juliano pleaded guilty to related charges and testified against Fawell at trial. Roger Stanley, a former Republican state representative who was hired by Ryan and testified against Fawell, pleaded guilty to wide-ranging corruption, admitting he paid kickbacks to win state contracts and campaign business, secretly mailed out vicious false attacks on political opponents and helped obtain ghost-payrolling jobs.[32]Indictment[edit]The investigation finally reached the former governor, and in December 2003, Ryan and lobbyist Lawrence Warner were named in a 22-count federal indictment. The charges included racketeering, bribery, extortion, money laundering and tax fraud. The indictment alleged that Ryan steered several state contracts to Warner and other friends; disbursed campaign funds to relatives and to pay personal expenses; and obstructed justice by attempting to end the state investigation of the license-for-bribes scandal. He was charged with lying to investigators and accepting cash, gifts and loans in return for his official actions as governor. On September 19, 2005, the case went to trial.[33]Fawell, under pressure from prosecutors, became a key witness against Ryan and Warner. He agreed to a plea deal that cut the prison time for himself and his fiancée, Andrea Coutretsis. Fawell was a controversial witness, not hiding his disdain for prosecutors from the witness stand. According to CBS Chicago political editor Mike Flannery, insiders claimed that Fawell had been "much like a son" to Ryan throughout their careers. At Ryan's trial, Fawell acknowledged that the prosecution had his "head in a vise", and that he found his cooperation with the government against Ryan "the most distasteful thing I've ever done".[31] Nonetheless, he spent several days on the witness stand testifying against Ryan and Warner. Once a tough-talking political strategist, Fawell wept on the witness stand as he acknowledged that his motivation for testifying was to spare Coutretsis a long prison sentence for her role in the conspiracy. The jury was twice sent out of the courtroom so that he could wipe tears from his eyes and regain his composure.Ryan's daughters and a son-in-law, Michael Fairman, were implicated by testimony during the trial. Stipulations agreed upon by the defense and prosecution and submitted to the court included admissions that all five of Ryan's daughters received illegal payments from the Ryan campaign. In addition to Lynda Fairman, who received funds beyond those her husband Michael testified he had received, the stipulations included admissions from the rest of Ryan's daughters that they did little or no work in return for the payments.[34][35] In addition, Fawell testified that Ryan's mother's housekeeper was illegally paid from campaign funds, and that Ryan's adopted sister, Nancy Ferguson, received campaign funds without performing campaign work.[11][34] The prosecution took nearly four months to present their case, as a parade of other witnesses (including Juliano) followed Fawell.On April 17, 2006, the jury found Ryan and Warner guilty on all counts.[36] However, when ruling on post-trial motions, the judge dismissed two counts against Ryan for lack of proof.[37] Ryan said that he would appeal the verdict, largely due to the issues with the jury.Patrick Fitzgerald, the federal prosecutor, noted, "Mr. Ryan steered contracts worth millions of dollars to friends and took payments and vacations in return. When he was a sitting governor, he lied to the FBI about this conduct and then he went out and did it again." He charged that one of the most egregious aspects of the corruption was Ryan's action after learning that bribes were being paid for licenses. Instead of ending the practice he tried to end the investigation that had uncovered it, Fitzgerald said, calling the moment "a low-water mark for public service".[38]On September 6, 2006, Ryan was sentenced to six and a half years in prison.[39] He was ordered to go to prison on January 4, 2007, but the appellate court granted an appeal bond, allowing him to remain free pending the outcome of the appeal.[40] His conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals of the Seventh Circuit on August 21, 2007,[41] and review by the entire Seventh Circuit was denied on October 25, 2007.[42] The Seventh Circuit then rejected Ryan's bid to remain free while he asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear his case; the opinion called the evidence of Ryan's guilt "overwhelming".[43] The Supreme Court rejected an extension of his bail, and Ryan reported to the Federal Prison Camp in Oxford, Wisconsin, on November 7, 2007.[44][45] He was transferred on February 29, 2008, to a medium security facility in Terre Haute, Indiana, after Oxford changed its level of medical care and stopped housing inmates over 70 years old.[46] He was listed as Federal Inmate Number 16627-424 and was released on July 3, 2013.[47]Defense and appeal[edit]Ryan's defense was provided pro bono by Winston & Strawn, a law firm managed by former governor Jim Thompson. The defense cost the firm $10 million through mid-November 2005.[48] Estimates of the cost to the firm as of September 2006 ranged as high as $20 million. Ryan served as Thompson's lieutenant governor from 1983 to 1991. After the United States Supreme Court declined to hear Ryan's appeal, Thompson indicated that he would ask then President George W. Bush to commute Ryan's sentence to time served.[49] United States Senator Dick Durbin wrote a letter to Bush dated December 1, 2008, asking him to commute Ryan's sentence, citing Ryan's age and his wife's frail health, saying, "This action would not pardon him of his crimes or remove the record of his conviction, but it would allow him to return to his wife and family for their remaining years."[50] Bush did not commute Ryan's sentence.After his conviction Ryan's annual $197,037 state pension was suspended under state law. Ryan's attorneys litigated the pension matter all the way to the Illinois Supreme Court, which ruled on February 19, 2010, that state law "plainly mandates that none of the benefits provided for under the system shall be paid to Ryan".[51] Ryan was paid $635,000 in pension benefits during the three years between his retirement and his political corruption conviction, plus a refund of the $235,500 in personal contributions he made during his 30 years in public office.[52][53]Sentencing[edit]In 2010, Ryan requested early release, partly because his wife had terminal cancer and was given only six months to live, and partly on the grounds that some of his convictions should be vacated in light of a Supreme Court ruling that was alleged to have affected their legitimacy. On December 21, 2010, U.S. District Court Judge Rebecca Pallmeyer denied Ryan's request.[citation needed]On January 5, 2011, Ryan was taken from his prison cell in Terre Haute, Indiana, to a hospital in Kankakee to visit his dying wife. He was present when she died five months after that visit.[4][54] Ryan entered a Salvation Army halfway house in Chicago on January 30, 2013. Less than three hours later, he was released back to his home in Kankakee where he remained on home confinement until July 3, 2013.[55]Electoral history[edit]1998 – Illinois Governor[56]George Ryan (R) 51%Glenn Poshard (D) 47.5%Lawrence Redmond (Reform) 1.5%1994 – Illinois Secretary of State[57]George Ryan (R) 61.5%Patrick Quinn (D) 38.5%1990 – Illinois Secretary of State[58]George Ryan (R) 53.5%Jerome Cosentino (D) 46.5%References[edit]^ "George Ryan". Biography in Context (fee, Fairfax County Public Library). Detroit, MI: Gale. 1999. Gale Document Number: GALE|K1650000189. Retrieved June 27, 2011. Gale Biography in Context.^ "George Homer Ryan". The Complete Marquis Who's Who (fee, Fairfax County Public Library). Marquis Who's Who. 2010. Gale Document Number: GALE|K2013022832. Retrieved June 27, 2011. Gale Biography in Context^ Roberts, Roxanne; Argetsinger, Amy (June 29, 2011). "The Reliable Source: From the mansion to the Big House". Washington Post. p. C2. Retrieved June 29, 2011. Ryan was recently released temporarily to be with his terminally ill wife, who died of lung cancer Monday^ Jump up to:a b Schlikerman, Becky; Annie Sweeney; Rick Pearson; Ray Long (June 28, 2011). "George Ryan, released from prison, at wife's side when she died". Chicago Tribune. Retrieved June 29, 2011.^ Library, CNN. "George Ryan Fast Facts".^ Merriner, James L. (September 8, 2008). The Man Who Emptied Death Row: Governor George Ryan and the Politics of Crime. SIU Press. ISBN 9780809328659 – via Google Books.^ Jump up to:a b c Arden, Patrick (January 16, 2003). "The redemption of Gov. Ryan". Salon magazine online. Archived from the original on June 6, 2011. Retrieved June 27, 2011.^ Jump up to:a b "The Nobel Peace Prize For Governor George H. Ryan of Illinois". Stop Capital Punishment Now!. Archived from the original on July 28, 2011. Retrieved June 27, 2011.^ Goudie, Chuck (November 12, 2007). "On Veterans Day, George Ryan again is taking orders". Daily Herald. Arlington Heights, IL: Paddock Publications, Inc. Archived from the original on March 25, 2012. Retrieved June 29, 2011.^ "Lura Lynn Lowe Ryan". Legacy.com | Where Life Stories Live On.^ Jump up to:a b "Fawell: Ryan's family, friends got cash". Chicago Sun-Times. October 7, 2005. Retrieved September 6, 2006.^ "Family Members on Payroll". Chicago Tribune. January 19, 2006. Archived from the original on November 15, 2007. Retrieved September 6, 2006.^ Warren, Ellen (September 29, 2005). "Cast of characters stars in drama made in Illinois". Chicago Tribune. Retrieved September 6, 2006.^ "Ryan Guilty". Chicago Sun-Times. April 17, 2006. Retrieved September 6, 2006.^ "Michael Sneed's lunch with George Ryan". Chicago Sun-Times. April 18, 2006. Retrieved September 6, 2006.^ Korecki, Natasha; McKinney, Dave; Janssen, Kim (June 29, 2011). "Lura Lynn dies with husband, ex-Gov. George Ryan, at her side". Chicago Sun-Times. Retrieved June 29,2011.^ "Lobbyist's Ex-Girlfriend Tells of Ryan Junkets". Chicago Sun-Times. January 10, 2006. Retrieved September 6, 2006.^ Hawthorne, Michael (December 10, 2008). "Pat Quinn waiting in the wings". Chicago Tribune. Retrieved January 30, 2009.^ "Biographical information on Quinn". WTOP. Associated Press. January 29, 2009. Retrieved January 30, 2009.[permanent dead link]^ "US governor on Cuba mission". BBC News. October 24, 1999.^ Johnson, Dirk (May 21, 2000). "No Executions in Illinois Until System Is Repaired". The New York Times. Retrieved December 22, 2009.^ Sobol, Rosemary; Gorner, Jeremy; Heinzmann, David (19 September 2018). "Disgraced ex-Chicago police Cmdr. Jon Burge, accused of presiding over decades of brutality and torture, has died". Chicago Tribune. Retrieved 11 January 2019.^ "A Chilling Look at the Death Penalty". Washington Post. July 26, 2004.^ "Campaign 2000: Insurgents Bradley, McCain Target Independents as N.H. Primary Approaches; Bush Expressing High Hopes; Gore Emphasizing High Road". Inside Politics. CNN. January 31, 2000.^ "Alstory Simon, freed from prison after wrongful conviction, spends his time in Greater Cleveland working to free others". Cleveland OH Local News, Breaking News, Sports & Weather. Retrieved January 11, 2019.^ Warden, Rob. "Stanley Howard – The Supreme Court found the evidence "overwhelming", but Governor Ryan found otherwise". Chicago, IL: Northwestern School of Law Bluhm Legal Clinic, Center on Wrongful Convictions. Retrieved June 27, 2011.^ "Free Stanley Howard". Archived from the original on July 11, 2011. Retrieved June 27, 2011.^ "La conscience du gouverneur Ryan", Le Nouvel Observateur, January 16, 2003, p. 39.^ Buchanan, Pat (January 25, 2003). "Moral Corruption in Illinois". The American Cause. Retrieved June 27, 2011.^ Former Illinois Gov. George Ryan Heading to Prison NPR, November 6, 2007.^ Jump up to:a b 'Most distasteful thing I've ever done' nears for Fawell, Chicago Tribune, September 28, 2005.^ http://www.chicagotribune Archived July 19, 2013, at the Wayback Machine, May 9, 2003, Stanley guilty in kickback, payroll scam Former legislator admits mail fraud, money laundering by Matt O'Connor and Ray Gibson, [1]^ Reports, From Times Wire (September 19, 2005). "Corruption Trial of Ex-Governor to Begin". Los Angeles Times. ISSN 0458-3035. Retrieved May 9, 2016.^ Jump up to:a b Election Funds Went to Relatives Chicago Tribune, October 7, 2005, accessed September 6, 2006.^ Korecki, Natasha (January 19, 2006). "Ryan daughter tells of no-work job". Chicago Sun-Times. Archived from the original on December 17, 2008. Retrieved September 6,2006.^ Guilty on all charges.[dead link] Chicago Sun-Times, April 18, 2006.^ "Ryan judge explains why she dismissed 2 charges". Chicago Tribune. September 8, 2006. Archived from the original on November 15, 2007.^ Ex-Governor of Illinois Is Convicted on All Charges New York Times, April 17, 2006, accessed September 6, 2006.^ Ryan gets 6½ years in prison Chicago Sun-Times, September 6, 2006, accessed same date.^ Federal appeals court says Ryan can stay free on bail Archived November 30, 2006, at the Wayback Machine Chicago Sun-Times, November 29, 2006, accessed same date.^ "Ex-Gov. Ryan's guilty verdict stands despite jury controversy". Chicago Tribune. August 21, 2007. Archived from the original on January 19, 2013. Retrieved August 21,2007.^ Higgins, Michael; Coen, Jeff (October 25, 2007). "Ryan loses appeal". Chicago Tribune.^ Higgins, Michael (November 1, 2007). "Ryan down to last appeal". Chicago Tribune. Archived from the original on November 12, 2007.^ "U.S. Supreme Court turns down Ryan request to remain free". Chicago Tribune. November 6, 2007.^ Conlon, Michael (November 7, 2007). "Former Illinois Governor Ryan enters prison". Reuters.^ Jason Meisner, Ex-Gov. Ryan switches prisons, Chicago Tribune, February 29, 2008.^ "Inmate locator: George Ryan". Federal Bureau of Prisons. Retrieved June 27, 2011.^ A Christmas card defense Archived November 15, 2007, at the Wayback MachineChicago Tribune, February 3, 2006, accessed June 24, 2018.^ Ex-Gov. to Bush: Let Ryan go Archived May 31, 2008, at the Wayback MachineChicago Sun-Times, May 28, 2008.^ Durbin, Richard J. (December 1, 2008). "Durbin Releases Letter on Commutation for Governor Ryan". Retrieved December 23, 2008.^ Anonymous. "Ryan-must forfeit State Pension". USA TODAY: Latest World and US News - USATODAY.com. Archived from the original on September 8, 2012. Retrieved February 12, 2012.^ "State Supreme Court denies pension for George Ryan – Chicago Breaking News". http://Archive.chicagobreakingnews.com. February 19, 2010. Archived from the original on January 18, 2012. Retrieved February 12, 2012.^ "Illinois Supreme Court Opinion". Chicago Tribune. Archived from the original on June 29, 2011. Retrieved February 12, 2012.^ Schlikerman, Becky; Sweeney, Annie; Pearson, Rick; Long, Ray (June 28, 2011). "George Ryan, released from prison, at wife's side when she died". Chicago Tribune.^ Leventis, Angie; Sweeney, Annie (January 30, 2013). "George Ryan home after spending just hours at halfway house". Chicago Tribune. Retrieved January 30, 2013.^ "Ballots Cast". http://Elections.illinois.gov. November 3, 1998. Archived from the originalon March 4, 2016. Retrieved April 4, 2015.^ "1994 Secretary of State General Election Results – Illinois". http://Uselectionatlas.org. Retrieved April 4, 2015.^ "1990 Secretary of State General Election Results – Illinois". http://Uselectionatlas.org. Retrieved April 4, 2015.NBC NewsExternal links[edit]CNN.com: "'Blanket commutation' empties Illinois death row", January 11, 2003.Biography from site supporting his nomination for a Nobel Peace PrizeChicago Sun-Times archive on The George Ryan TriangleAnd if that’s not enough for you I have statistics from the Innocence Project for you that have (through new ways of testing evidence…DNA evidence and otherwise) worked to have over 200 people freed from death row.DNA Exonerations in the United StatesFast facts:1989: The first DNA exoneration took place375 DNA exonerees to date37: States where exonerations have been won14: Average number of years served5,284: Total number of years served26.6: Average age at the time of wrongful conviction43: Average age at exoneration21 of 375 people served time on death row44 of 375 pled guilty to crimes they did not commit69%: Involved eyewitness misidentification and of these:34% of these misidentification cases involved an in-person lineup52% involved a misidentification from a photo array7% involved a misidentification from a mugshot book16% involved a misidentification from a show-up procedure5% involved a misidentification from a one-on-one photo procedure27% involved a misidentification through the use of a composite sketch11% involved a voice misidentification2% involved a misidentification through hypnosis54% involved an in-court misidentification29% involved a misidentification through some other procedure (e.g., mistakenly “recognizing” someone on the street and reporting them to law enforcement)77% of the misidentification cases involved multiple procedures84% of the misidentification cases involved a misidentification by a surviving victim42% involved a cross-racial misidentification32% involved multiple misidentifications of the same person by different witnesses18% involved a failure to identify the exoneree in at least one procedure43%: Involved misapplication of forensic science29%: Involved false confessions49% of the false confessors were 21 years old or younger at the time of arrest31% of the false confessors were 18 years old or younger at the time of arrest9% of the false confessors had mental health or mental capacity issues, known at trial17%: Involved informants268: DNA exonerees compensated190: DNA exonerations worked on by the Innocence Project165: Actual assailants identified. Those actual perpetrators went on to be convicted of 154 additional violent crimes, including 83 sexual assaults, 36 murders, and 35 other violent crimes while the innocent sat behind bars for their earlier offenses.Demographics of the 375:225 (60%) African American117 (31%) Caucasian29 (8%) Latinx2 (1%) Asian American1 (<1%) Native American1 (<1%) Self-identified “Other”Other facts:130 DNA exonerees were wrongfully convicted for murders; 40 (31%) of these cases involved eyewitness misidentifications and 81 (62%) involved false confessions [as of July 9, 2018]102 DNA exonerations involved false confessions; the real perp was identified in 76 (75%) of these cases. These 38 real perps went on to commit 48 additional crimes for which they were convicted, including 25 murders, 14 rapes, and 9 other violent crimes [as of July 24, 2018]180 of the DNA exonerees (50%) had the real perpetrator(s) identified in their cases [as of August 22, 2018]137 of the DNA exonerees had the real perpetrator(s) identified through a cold database hit [as of October 19, 2018]At least 43 (52%) of the 83 DNA exonerees who falsely confessed included non-public facts in their confessions [as of July 29, 2020]23 (22%) of the 104 people whose cases involved false confessions had exculpatory DNA evidence available at the time of trial but were still wrongfully convicted [as of July 29, 2020]83 (61%) of the 137 DNA exonerees who were wrongfully convicted for murder had false confessions involved in their cases (33 confessed themselves, 20 had co-defendants who confessed, and another 30 confessed themselves and had co-defendants who confessed) [as of July 29, 2020]How DNA makes a difference in the criminal justice systemSince 1989, there have been tens of thousands of cases where prime suspects were identified and pursued—until DNA testing (prior to conviction) proved that they were wrongly accused.In more than 25% of cases in a National Institute of Justice study, suspects were excluded once DNA testing was conducted during the criminal investigation (the study, conducted in 1995, included 10,060 cases where testing was performed by FBI labs).An Innocence Project review of our closed cases from 2004 – June 2015 revealed that 29% of cases were closed because of lost or destroyed evidence.ContactAboutDonateWays to GiveCareersFinancialsPrivacy PolicyLegalThe Innocence Project is affiliated with Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, Yeshiva University.You really think that they’re doing things any differently in New York than they were in Chicago? Only if you’re so privileged you cannot see the forest for the trees.Lastly, I would add that the death penalty is akin to “gang-banging” on a societal level. This is not what we should teach our children. Correct me if I’m wrong but teaching our children that it’s okay to kill killers…to show that killing is wrong…is like the most asinine, backwards shit you could ever do. Come on man. Bottom line is we can’t be for killing based on the flawed, subjective views of 12 people who you can be sure will not be my “peers,” and who are prone to making these horrible mistakes REGULARLY!! If you’re FOR such a flawed system it not only shows how privileged you are, it shows what raw killers we can all become. Crazy!