![]() ![]() ![]() Cook County’s new court rule is also in line with the American Bar Association’s Criminal Justice Section Standards on Pretrial Release, which state, “The judicial officer should not impose a financial condition that results in the pretrial detention of the defendant solely due to an inability to pay.”Ĭook County Jail is overwhelming filled with people incarcerated pretrial, and most are there because they cannot post a monetary bond. Between January 1 and May 31, 2017, judges in New Jersey imposed monetary bail only nine times. Likewise, it conforms to Attorney General directives in place as part of the recent overhaul of pretrial justice in New Jersey, which has seen a 36% decrease in jail population this year compared to 2015 numbers. Importantly, this re-hearing provision applies to everyone incarcerated solely due to inability to pay bond and not only people charged with some crimes, as under SB 2034.Įvans’s announcement follows the lead of recent court rule changes in Maryland, New Mexico, and Arizona, each of which requires that judges set monetary bonds based on an accused person’s ability to pay. People who do not pay their bonds and remain detained in Cook County Jail after seven days will be granted re-hearings. The new order attempts to limit de facto pretrial detention caused only by someone’s lack of access to money and will require various concrete findings before detention is ordered. Under General Order Number 18.8A, “Procedures for bail hearings and pretrial release,” judges presiding over bond hearings will be required to conduct inquiries on the record about each defendant’s ability to pay before imposing a secured monetary bond in that amount or less. This move brings Cook County in line with a recent federal court decision in Harris County (Houston), Texas that found incarcerating people pretrial solely because they cannot afford to pay bond violates the both the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the United States Constitution. Evans, Chief Judge of the Circuit Court of Cook County, that his office will direct judges to set monetary bonds only in amounts that people can pay. Any disagreement by the parties regarding a proposed HIPAA Protective Order will now go before the parties’ assigned Law Division Judge for individual review.The Coalition to End Money Bond applauds today’s announcement by Timothy C. The ApOrder to Vacate also contains a newly drafted sample HIPAA Protective Order which may be used and modified by agreement of the parties. Even during its short period of time, the NovemLaw Division General Order placed a burden and significant limitation on defendants seeking discovery of a plaintiff’s relevant medical history necessary to defend their case. For example, all subpoenas restricted requests for medical records to a period of five years prior to the incident, required 14-day notice to Plaintiff before subpoenas could be issued, prevented Defendants from using “any and all” language when seeking medical records, and further restricted subpoena requests to identifiable “condition(s) and portion(s) of the Plaintiff’s body” complained of. Under the HIPAA Protective Order, heavy restrictions were imposed on the utilization of subpoenas. ![]() The laundry list of requirements addressed in the November 5, 2021, HIPAA Protective Order imposed significant hurdles for Defendants in cases involving bodily injury. Zavala, 2021 IL 125918 to add extra protections for the use, disclosure, and destruction of protected health information. The notorious HIPAA Protective Order followed the Illinois Supreme Court’s recent decision in H aage v. The order to vacate comes only 5 months after its highly controversial entry. On April 12, 2022, the Circuit Court of Cook County vacated the Novem“Law Division General Administrative Order 21-3” as well as its requirement to use its corresponding HIPAA Protective Order. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |