Pretrial Fairness Act invoked as Illinois Supreme Court hears detention case

By Jim Talamonti | The Center Square
The Center Square

(The Center Square) – A case involving the continued detention of defendants under the Pretrial Fairness Act portion of the SAFE-T Act has been taken under advisement by the Illinois Supreme Court.

Justices heard arguments Tuesday in People of the State of Illinois v. Jesse Post, a case involving a man charged with sexually assaulting children and his argument against a circuit court’s decision to keep him detained.

Post was charged with three counts of predatory criminal sexual assault of a child in November 2023 and remained detained even after he said his circumstances had changed.

James Wozniak of the Office of the State Appellate Defender said the Pretrial Fairness Act mandates that a circuit court must address a defendant’s detention every time there is a motion or status hearing.

“Every single time the defendant comes before the circuit court, the court must find that continued detention is necessary,” Wozniak said.

Wozniak outlined the defendant Post’s argument, saying he should be released because he would be under constant supervision by his parents, because he agreed to electronic monitoring and because of his inability to secure information that would help in the preparation of his defense if he were to remain detained.

This, Wozniak said, was a change from the “original agreement.”

Illinois Assistant Attorney General Elizabeth Bays said the case is not meant to be relitigated with every hearing.

“There’s no indication that the legislature indicated that there is supposed to be an entire new hearing at every status hearing having to do with detention,” Bays said.

Wozniak said an appellate court was mistaken when it found that Post had not demonstrated a change of circumstances to revisit his detention, as mandated by the Pretrial Fairness Act.

Bays said the defendant alleged a change in circumstances, but the court said it was not enough to change its mind.

“Because there was no material change in circumstances in this case, because defendant presented such a danger to the community, this court should affirm the appellate court’s judgment and the circuit court’s judgment,” Bays said.

Wozniak asked that the case be returned to circuit court.

Justices said they would take the case under advisement.