Kane County States Attorneys: Fill & Download for Free

In my state, yes and no. There state attorney general can take over a case if the local DA were to abuse his discretion. You could technically sue to require that to happen.There is a case where this has happened: Centre County, PA - Official Website - Media InformationSpinelli vs. Kane, Et. Al.

I was a federal, state and county prosecutor for almost 20 years. I worked in a DA’s office in a major American City and for the Attorney General’s office in a large eastern state. In answer to the first question, exciting was not a word I would use to describe the work in general. There were moments I was excited, when for instance the jury came back guilty on a particularly bad person after evidence was suppressed, making the case difficult to approve or when I was successful in a case where the burden of knowing if I lost, a dangerous person would be released.But for the most part, I would describe it as extremely satisfying since I was fortunate to work for elected and appointed prosecutors who took the job seriously and preached doing the right thing. The only exception was a two year period when the person in the front office had higher office on his mind and his view of cases was based on the politics and optics so we had a difficult time working around that.As for investigating crimes, except for the mundane case, I and most prosecutors I worked with always got involved in at least some investigative work if the case was going to trial. There’s a difference between what it takes to arrest someone and what it takes to convict and I always found there was a lot of work left to be done even after the defendant was charged. Most prosecutors look for witnesses or other evidence which could add something to the case. Sometimes, we used investigators who were employed by, or assigned to the DA’s office by the police department. Many times, in a big case, I would work with the lead detective to do the additional investigative work. This was particularly true in the US Attorney’s Office.Beyond investigating for trial preparation, there are some cases where the prosecutor acts as the lead investigator. If the case is investigated using the Grand Jury, the prosecutor not only presents the case to the grand jury but usually maps out the investigation and directs the detectives or agent. Depending on the initiative of the detective(s), I’d either be telling them what to do, or taking direction from them.In the DA’s office, we rotated being “on call” and did everything from answering questions to heading downtown at 3:00 a.m. to respond to a homicide scene or put together a probable cause affidavit for a search or arrest warrant. Often, once the DA was on the scene, the investigation became a cooperative effort.Bottom line, I’ve been a lawyer for almost 40 years and can truthfully say that nothing I”ve done compares to the satisfaction I got when I was representing the government.

Reasons for Filibuster:Neil Gorsuch is not considered “mainstream” regarding his beliefs:Discrimination: In the National Review, Judge Gorsuch wrote:“American liberals have become addicted to the courtroom, relying on judges and lawyers rather than elected leaders and the ballot box, as the primary means of effecting their social agenda on everything from gay marriage to assisted suicide to the use of vouchers for private-school education. This overweening addiction to the courtroom as the place to debate social policy is bad for the country and bad for the judiciary.”Neil Gorsuch“Judge Gorsuch’s hostility to the use of courts by discrimination victims to enforce their rights under the Constitution and federal law demonstrates his ideological agenda and has been reflected in his judicial decisions, particularly dissents and concurrences, during his decade on the bench.”Judge Gorsuch“Strickland v. UPS. In this case, the majority held that Carole Strickland, a UPS account executive, could proceed with a sex discrimination claim under Title VII based on evidence that she was treated worse than male colleagues despite her outperforming them in sales. Judge Gorsuch dismissed the evidentiary record and dissented; he voted to throw the victim’s discrimination claim out of court.”Judge Gorsuch“Weeks v. Kansas, writing for a conservative panel, Judge Gorsuch threw out another Title VII case where the plaintiff, Rebecca Weeks, was fired in retaliation for her advocating on behalf of two colleagues who had been discriminated against. In his opinion, Judge Gorsuch declined to consider a superseding Supreme Court decision that might have benefitted the plaintiff simply because she did not raise it in her briefs, a troubling approach because judges have a duty to consider relevant case law regardless of whether the parties have cited it.”Judge GorsuchImmigration:“In the closely-divided en banc decision in Zamora v. Elite Logistics, Inc., Judge Gorsuch voted to affirm the district court’s granting of summary judgment which blocked a Title VII national origin discrimination case from going to trial despite evidence of animus, unlawful reverification, and document abuse by the employer. The lead concurrence in this case, which Judge Gorsuch joined, reflects an approach that insulates employers from liability for discrimination against immigrant workers so long as they claim that they were unaware of the law or took their actions due to a fear of sanction by federal immigration authorities – even where those actions themselves violated immigration law. Judge Gorsuch’s record suggests that if he were confirmed as a Supreme Court justice, he would give great leeway to immigration enforcement strategies that use the fear of sanction against employers as a principal mechanism, and would condone employers hiding behind federal immigration laws to justify unlawful workplace practices.”Judge GorsuchWomen’s Health: “Judge Gorsuch has written or joined opinions that would restrict women’s health care, including allowing religious beliefs to override women’s access to birth control and defunding Planned Parenthood.”“Judge Gorsuch has supported religious institutions which objected to requirements for employers to provide access to contraception. In one of his most high-profile cases, he defended the religious owners of retailer Hobby Lobby who refused to fund birth control via staff health insurance.”Trump picks Neil Gorsuch as nominee for Supreme Court - BBC News“Planned Parenthood Association of Utah v. Herbert, Judge Gorsuch dissented from the majority’s decision to keep in place a preliminary injunction that stopped the state of Utah from blocking access to health care and education for thousands of Planned Parenthood's patients. If the policy had gone into effect, it would have cut off access to an after-school sex education program for teens and STD testing and treatment for at-risk communities.”Judge GorsuchGorsuch_Case_Analyses.pdf“Little Sisters of the Poor Home for the Aged v. Burwell, Judge Gorsuch dissented from the majority’s decision approving the accommodation in the birth control benefit that allows non-profit employers to opt out of the benefit but makes sure the employees get birth control coverage. Judge Gorsuch joined a dissent that argued the simple act of filling out an opt-out form constitutes a substantial burden on religious exercise.”Judge GorsuchGorsuch_Case_Analyses.pdf“Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Sebelius, he signed on to an opinion allowing certain for-profit employers to refuse to comply with the birth control benefit in the Affordable Care Act. Citing to Citizens United v. FEC, the decision held that corporations can be “persons” with religious beliefs and that employers can use those religious beliefs to block employees’ insurance coverage of birth control.”Judge GorsuchGorsuch_Case_Analyses.pdfLGBT Rights: “2005 National Review article Judge Gorsuch expressed disdain for those seeking to use the courts to enforce their rights under the law, and he specifically criticized LGBT Americans who have relied on federal courts in their quest for equality.”Gorsuch’s rationale he employed in the Hobby Lobby case – a license to discriminate for private corporations – has also been used by several states to justify discrimination against LGBT Americans.Judge GorsuchGorsuch_Case_Analyses.pdfDruley v. Patton, Gorsuch “voted to reject a claim by a transgender woman incarcerated in Oklahoma who alleged that her constitutional rights were violated when she was denied medically necessary hormone treatment and the right to wear feminine clothing. Other federal courts have reached the opposite conclusion in such cases.”Judge GorsuchPolice Misconduct:In the case Wilson v. City of Lafayette, a 22-year-old man possessing marijuana was fleeing arrest, and a police officer shot him in the head with a stun gun from a distance of 10-15 feet away, which was contrary to the police department’s training manual. The young man, Ryan Wilson, died. Judge Gorsuch held that the officer was entitled to qualified immunity from an excessive force claim, reasoning that the use of force was reasonable because the young man was fleeing arrest. The dissent in this case criticized Judge Gorsuch’s analysis and stated:‘In the present case, it would be unreasonable for an officer to fire a taser probe at Ryan Wilson’s head when he could have just as easily fired the probe into his back. The taser training materials note that officers should not aim at the head or throat unless the situation dictates a higher level of injury risk. Nothing about the situation here required an elevated level of force.’”Judge GorsuchStudents with Disabilities: “Judge Gorsuch has consistently ruled against students with disabilities seeking educational services to which they were entitled under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).”Judge Gorsuch“In A.F. v. Española Public Schools, he dismissed a claim brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act because the school district had previously settled a lawsuit with the student for IDEA violations. A dissenting judge in this case criticized Judge Gorsuch’s reasoning and observed: “This was clearly not the intent of Congress and, ironically enough, harms the interests of the children that IDEA was intended to protect.””Judge Gorsuch“In Garcia v. Board of Education of Albuquerque Public Schools, Judge Gorsuch held that a student who left the school out of frustration with the school’s failure to follow the IDEA was entitled to no remedy. “Judge GorsuchIn Thompson R2-J School District v. Luke P.,he held that a student with autism did not have a right under the IDEA to attend a private residential program, even though the district court and a Colorado Department of Education hearing officer determined that such a placement was necessary for Luke and that public schools had been unsuccessful in addressing his educational needs.”Judge GorsuchGorsuch’s Decisions Against Worker’s Rights:“opinions favor corporations over workers and he's shown ‘a stunning lack of humanity’ in some of those decisions” - Trump Supreme Court pick Gorsuch“Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. The Chevron doctrine requires deference to federal agencies’ interpretation of ambiguous laws as long as the interpretation is reasonable, which has resulted in the safeguarding of workers’ rights, environmental protection, consumer protections, food safety, and many other protections for people’s health and well-being. Judge Gorsuch believes that judges should make these decisions instead of agencies with the relevant expertise, which would lead to a dramatic expansion of the power and role of the judiciary. He would relegate this vital precedent to the dustbin of history because it disfavors the corporate interests he championed as a lawyer and as a judge. As several commentators have noted, Judge Gorsuch’s cramped view of the Chevron doctrine is even more extreme than the views of Justice Antonin Scalia.”Judge GorsuchCorporate Bias:“Judge Gorsuch’s judicial activism was on display last year in the case Gutierrez-Brizuela v. Lynch, where he issued a lengthy concurrence to an opinion he himself had written – a signal that his colleagues refused to sign on to his ideological agenda.”Judge Gorsuch“In his concurrence, he questioned the constitutional legitimacy of a decades-old binding precedent, Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. The Chevron doctrine requires deference to federal agencies’ interpretation of ambiguous laws as long as the interpretation is reasonable, which has resulted in the safeguarding of workers’ rights, environmental protection, consumer protections, food safety, and many other protections for people’s health and well-being. Judge Gorsuch believes that judges should make these decisions instead of agencies with the relevant expertise, which would lead to a dramatic expansion of the power and role of the judiciary. He would relegate this vital precedent to the dustbin of history because it disfavors the corporate interests he championed as a lawyer and as a judge. As several commentators have noted, Judge Gorsuch’s cramped view of the Chevron doctrine is even more extreme than the views of Justice Antonin Scalia.”Judge GorsuchMoney in Politics: “Judge Gorsuch expressed openness to providing a higher level of constitutional protection to a donor’s right to make political contributions than the Court at times has provided the right to vote.”Judge Gorsuch“In Riddle v. Hickenlooper, he wrote a separate concurrence that suggested courts should afford strict scrutiny, the highest constitutional protection, to political contribution limits. That view puts Gorsuch among the ranks of judges who are extremely hostile to campaign finance reform measures and would essentially gut the ability of Congress and the states to set any reasonable limits on money in our elections.””Judge GorsuchEnvironmental Protection: “Judge Gorsuch’s rejection of the binding Chevron decision, which prevents judges from substituting their judgment for that of federal agencies with expertise, betrays a general hostility to regulatory agencies and regulatory safeguards that protect our air, water, lands, and wildlife.”Judge Gorsuch“In United States v. Nichols, he wrote a lengthy dissent that tried to revive an obscure legal doctrine that could strike down many significant environmental laws.”Judge Gorsuch“In Wilderness Society v. Kane County, he concurred with a decision to dismiss a claim brought by several environmental organizations asserting that a county ordinance that opened a large stretch of federal land to off-highway vehicles was preempted by federal law. The dissent in this case observed that the majority holding “will have long-term deleterious effects on the use and management of federal public lands.””GorsuchRight to a Fair Trial:In the case United States v. Benally, Judge Gorsuch voted to deny a petition for rehearing en banc by a Native American defendant who was convicted by a racially biased jury. The foreman of the jury “told the other jurors that he used to live on or near an Indian Reservation, that ‘[w]hen Indians get alcohol, they all get drunk,’ and that when they get drunk, they get violent.” A second juror said she agreed with the foreman. In light of these troubling statements, the district court threw out the jury verdict, concluding that the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial had been violated. The Tenth Circuit disagreed and upheld the conviction. Although Judge Gorsuch was not a member of the original panel, his vote to deny rehearing en banc was a vote of support.”Judge Gorsuch“Judge Gorsuch’s approach to this issue was recently rejected by the Supreme Court in Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado, where the Court ruled that anti-Hispanic statements during jury deliberations constituted a Sixth Amendment violation.”Judge GorsuchVoting Rights:“In 2006, when he was nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, Judge Gorsuch stated in his Senate questionnaire that between June 2005 and July 2006, he served as the Principal Deputy to the Associate Attorney General, a job in which he managed several litigating components at the Justice Department, including the Civil Rights Division. On Gorsuch’s watch, political appointees ran roughshod over career attorneys who sought to lodge Section 5 objections under the Voting Rights Act to Georgia’s photo ID law.”“This disgraceful practice was exposed in a November 2005 Washington Post article: “A team of Justice Department lawyers and analysts who reviewed a Georgia voter-identification law recommended rejecting it because it was likely to discriminate against black voters, but they were overruled the next day by higher-ranking officials at Justice, according to department documents…. The plan was blocked on constitutional grounds in October by a U.S. District Court judge, who compared the measure to a Jim Crow-era poll tax.””Judge GorsuchGorsuch should be questioned about his role in supervising the Georgia photo ID litigation and the extent to which he was involved in supporting the use of photo ID laws by Georgia and other states, and about his role in overturning the recommendations of career attorneys to object to such laws.Judge GorsuchGorsuch’s support of Spakovsky: “Few people in the Republican Party have done more to limit voting rights than Hans von Spakovsky. He’s been instrumental in spreading the myth of widespread voter fraud and backing new restrictions to make it harder to vote. But it appears that von Spakovsky had an admirer in Neil Gorsuch, Donald Trump’s nominee for the Supreme Court, according to e-mails released to the Senate Judiciary Committee covering Gorsuch’s time working in the George W. Bush Administration.”In E-mails, Neil Gorsuch Praised a Leading Republican Activist Behind Voter Suppression Efforts“In another e-mail, when von Spakovksy said he was participating in a “Ballot Access and Voter Integrity Conference” at the Justice Department, Gorsuch wrote, “Sounds interesting. Glad to see you’re doing this. I may try to attend some of it.” Though the Justice Department was supposed to investigate both voting discrimination and voter fraud, the latter cause took priority and eventually led to Republican US Attorneys’ being wrongly fired from their jobs for refusing to prosecute fraud cases.”In E-mails, Neil Gorsuch Praised a Leading Republican Activist Behind Voter Suppression EffortsPoliticized Hiring in Civil Rights Division:“The year in which Gorsuch helped manage the Civil Rights Division, political appointees there engaged in unlawful hiring discrimination against lawyers with liberal affiliations, and this became the subject of a 2008 Inspector General report entitled “An Investigation of Allegations of Politicized Hiring and Other Improper Personnel Actions in the Civil Rights Division.””“Gorsuch should be questioned by Senators about his knowledge of and role in these activities, which constituted an unlawful attempt to exclude lawyers from the Department of Justice who had a civil rights background and who would have aggressively enforced federal civil rights laws. He should also be questioned about his role in the 2005 appointment of Bradley Schlozman – whom the Inspector General concluded committed the most infractions – to be the Acting Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights.”Possibility of a Successful filibuster:“There are now at least 36 Senate Democrats who oppose Gorsuch and have pledged to block him with a filibuster, just five shy of the number that would be required to mount a successful filibuster.” - Dem opposition to Trump Supreme Court pick Gorsuch grows; Schumer warns GOPThe Federalist Society and The Heritage foundation wanted Gorsuch to be selectedThe Federalist Society & The Heritage Foundation are “immensely influential but largely unseen network of conservative organizations, donors and lawyers who all share a common goal: Fill the federal courts with scores of judges who are committed to the narrow interpretation of the Constitution that they believe the founders intended.” - In Gorsuch, Conservative Activist Sees Test Case for Reshaping the Judiciary“Federalist Society’s supporters include well-known industry-oriented and libertarian-minded business leaders like Charles G. and David H. Koch; the family foundation of Richard Mellon Scaife; and the Mercer family, which gave significantly to Mr. Trump’s presidential campaign and helped start Breitbart News.” - In Gorsuch, Conservative Activist Sees Test Case for Reshaping the JudiciaryThese groups are also motivated by extreme religious beliefs.Gerrymandering:“Since 1812, gerrymandering has been increasingly used as a tool to divide and distort the electorate. More often than not, state legislatures are tasked with drawing district maps, allowing the electoral foxes to draw and defend their henhouse districts. While no party is innocent when it comes to gerrymandering, a Washington Post analysis in 2014 found that eight of the 10 most gerrymandered districts in the United States were drawn by Republicans…Gerrymandering also disempowers and distorts citizen votes — which leads to decreased turnout and a sense of powerlessness. In 2010, droves of Tea Party activists eager to have their voices heard quickly realized that their own representative was either a solidly liberal Democrat in an overwhelmingly blue district or a solidly conservative Republican in an overwhelmingly red district. Those representatives would not listen because the electoral map meant that they didn’t need to. Those who now oppose President Donald Trump are quickly learning the same lesson about the electoral calculations made by their representatives as they make calls or write letters to congressional representatives who seem about as likely to be swayed as granite. This helps to explain why 2014 turnout sagged to just 36.4 percent, the lowest turnout rate since World War II. Why bother showing up when the result already seems preordained?”Gerrymandering is the biggest obstacle to American democracy“The Supreme Court will rule on partisan gerrymandering in 2017, and it’s a case that could transform — and reinvigorate — American democracy at a time when a positive shock is sorely needed.”Gerrymandering is the biggest obstacle to American democracy“Next term, the Supreme Court is poised to hear the most promising challenge to partisan gerrymandering in more than a decade. Gorsuch is overwhelmingly likely to vote to allow such gerrymandering to continue.”Memo to Democratic senators: If you like your job, filibuster GorsuchThis isn’t just about being bitter over Merrick Garland.The Nuclear Option:“If Democrats amass enough support to block a confirmation vote…Republican Senate leaders to try to change the chamber's long-standing rules and allow confirmation by a simple majority, a move backed by Trump that is sometimes called the "nuclear option." - More Democratic senators oppose Trump's U.S. Supreme Court pick“unilaterally changing Senate rules to lower the threshold for Supreme Court justices from 60 votes to a simple majority in the 100-member Senate…it would amount to a dramatic departure from Senate norms of bipartisanship and collegiality.”Dem opposition to Trump Supreme Court pick Gorsuch grows; Schumer warns GOPThe Nuclear option is dangerous:“White House expects between 70 to 90 appeals court positions to open up over the next four years. That would give Mr. Trump the opportunity to fill anywhere from one-third to half of all appellate seats — a profound impact considering that those courts are often the final word on thousands of cases that never reach the Supreme Court.In Gorsuch, Conservative Activist Sees Test Case for Reshaping the JudiciaryFilibustering was the strategy of the GOP to fight Obama on everything and, like McConnell said, to try and make Obama a one term President.Democratic politicians have historically been much more willing to compromise because that is what their constitutes expected of them. Republican politicians, on the other hand, were much less willing to compromise because that is what their constitutes expected of them:Republicans in Congress have very little incentive to come to the middle on the big issues before the country.And a new poll from the Pew Research Center says it all: Quite simply, it's because the GOP base demands principles over compromise.According to the new national Pew survey, 50 percent of Americans would rather that their elected officials "make compromises with people they disagree with" rather than "stick to their positions" (44 percent).But when you break it down by party, you see the reason we have gridlock.While 59 percent of Democrats prefer compromise to principled stands, just 36 percent of Republicans say the same (compared to 55 percent who want principled stands).For Republicans, that's actually up slightly from the 32 percent who wanted compromise two years ago, after the 2010 election in which the GOP reaped huge gains by standing resolutely against Obama's agenda. But over the same span, the percentage of Democrats calling for compromise has risen significantly -- from 46 percent to 59 percent. And independents have also moved by double digits toward favoring compromise.Whether or not you agree with the idea that Republicans are more unwilling to compromise than Obama and the Democrats, that's certainly the perception that exists today.For Republicans, it seems, they are caught between a rock and a hard place. Their base demands that they resist compromise, but doing so causes the party as a whole to fall out of favor with the American public.The Post-ABC poll shows 71 percent of Americans disapprove of the GOP, while 59 percent disapprove of the Democratic Party and 41 percent disapprove of Obama.Under this set-up, there are really no easy answers for the GOP. If the party's lawmakers compromise more, they may gain favor with the political middle, but their base will resist -- and has resisted -- and they will risk their political careers. If they continue to make principled stands, they will likely win reelection, but their party's brand may remain, as GOP former congressman Tom Davis (Va.) famously said, the political equivalent of "dog food."How and whether Republicans solve this riddle will say a lot about how they progress as a force in American politics.Why Republicans have no incentive to compromiseMore Democrats Than Republicans Prefer Candidate Who CompromisesAmericans Again Call for Compromise in WashingtonThe reality is, there is a lot at stake in the Supreme Court and many of the Democratic politician’s constitutes don’t want Gorsuch to be confirmed:Democrats could be putting up more of a fight than they have so far, and have faced criticism from left-leaning advocacy groups as a result…An overwhelming majority of Democrats and Republicans, at 92 percent and 90 percent respectively, believe that “decisions made by the U.S. Supreme Court have an impact on my everyday life as a citizen,” according a C-SPAN poll released on Friday.There are plenty of Democrats who don’t want Gorsuch confirmed. It’s just that in the end, liberals may care slightly less about this particular Supreme Court appointment than conservatives. Pew data indicates that although a full 50 percent of Democrats believe Gorsuch shouldn’t be confirmed, an even higher percentage of Republicans, at 55 percent, didn’t want Garland to be confirmed.There are also indications that the Supreme Court appointment was a more decisive issue for Trump voters than Clinton voters. Seventy-five percent of Trump voters told pollsters that Supreme Court appointments were either the most important factor or an important factor in how they decided to vote, compared to 68 percent of Clinton voters, according to NBC News…Liberal advocacy groups have expressed disappointment in the collective Democratic response to the nomination…wrote in a letter to Democratic Senators earlier this month, arguing that congressional Democrats had “failed to demonstrate a strong, unified resistance to this nominee” and urging “Democratic senators to immediately make clear your opposition.”…Another challenge for liberal activists who want Senate Democrats to oppose the nomination is that the Supreme Court fight has so far flown relatively under the radar in the midst of congressional battles over the Affordable Care Act, and protest from activists to the Trump administration’s early moves in office…Why Are Democrats Holding Back on Gorsuch?