By PETER HANCOCK
Capitol News Illinois
phancock@capitolnewsillinois.com
SPRINGFIELD – The Illinois Supreme Court heard arguments Tuesday in a pair of cases that test the authority of local courts to hold criminal suspects behind bars while they await trial.
The cases come almost one year to the day after the court allowed a new law abolishing the use of cash bail in Illinois to take effect.
That law, known as the Pretrial Fairness Act, was part of the broader SAFE-T Act criminal justice reform package that state lawmakers passed in 2021 amid racial unrest that erupted nationwide following the killing of George Floyd at the hands of Minneapolis police the previous summer.
Under the PFA, most criminal defendants are allowed to remain free pending trial, subject to conditions that courts may impose. But the decision to hold other defendants in jail pending trial is based on factors such as the danger the individual poses to the community and the risk that they will flee justice, rather than their ability to pay a cash bond.
The law was originally supposed to take effect Jan. 1, 2023, but the Supreme Court delayed its implementation while it considered a constitutional challenge filed by state’s attorneys and sheriffs in more than 60 counties.
On July 18, 2023, the court rejected those challenges in a 5-2 decision and cleared the way for the law to take effect 60 days later, on Sept. 18.
The first appeal the court heard Tuesday centered on the new law’s early implementation. It involved a Chicago man who was charged with attempted murder and jailed just before the new law took effect, but who later petitioned for release once cash bail officially ended.
Damarco Watkins-Romaine is accused firing more than a dozen shots into a vehicle on a freeway in November 2022, hitting the female driver five times. According to published reports, he was first arrested in January 2023 and was released pending DNA and fingerprint analysis.
That analysis later tied Watkins-Romaine directly to the vehicle from which the shots were fired. He turned himself in to police on Aug. 31 and a judge set his bond at $350,000. He was also ordered to surrender his Firearm Owner’s Identification card, along with any firearms in his possession. The court also ordered that if he did post bond, he would be subject to electronic monitoring.
Watkins-Romaine did not post bond. But in December 2023, he petitioned for release under the PFA, arguing the evidence against him was weak, that he did not pose a danger to other individuals, and that any threat he did pose could be mitigated by imposing conditions such as electronic monitoring.
Prosecutors argued against his release. Citing standards spelled out in the PFA, they said there was substantial evidence Watkins-Romaine was the shooter, that he posed a real and present danger to other individuals, and no conditions could be attached to his release that would mitigate that threat.
The circuit court judge agreed and ordered Watkins-Romaine to remain in jail. But the 1st District Court of Appeals reversed that decision, saying he should be released.
Arguing before the Supreme Court Tuesday, Watkins-Romaine’s attorney James DiQuattro said the conditions for Watkins-Romaine’s release were decided at the original bail hearing and the only condition his client failed to meet was the posting of a cash bond, a requirement that had since been abolished. Therefore, he said, the only issue at the second hearing in December should have been the other conditions for his release.
But Assistant Attorney General Jeremy Sawyer argued that the PFA put an entirely new process in place. Once Watkins-Romaine petitioned for release under terms of the new law, he said, prosecutors responded properly by demonstrating continued detention was justified under the standards of the new law.
According to Cook County Jail records, Watkins-Romaine remains in custody awaiting trial.
Release with conditions
The second case the court heard Tuesday concerned Christian Mikolaitis, 19, of Elwood, who was arrested in December 2023 and charged with attempted first-degree murder and aggravated battery with a deadly weapon for allegedly stabbing another individual during a drug deal.
Prosecutors filed a petition to hold Mikolaitis pending trial, arguing that he continued to pose a real and present danger to the victim. But they did not make an argument as to why conditions of release could not mitigate the risk he posed.
Mikolaitis’ attorney argued that he should be released on conditions, including electronic monitoring. They also informed the court he had been prescribed antipsychotic medication to treat his depression, anxiety and bipolar disorder.
The lower court ordered Mikolaitis to be held pending trial, finding he posed a threat to the victim and concluding there were no conditions it could attach to his release that would mitigate the threat.
On appeal, David Holland, of the State Appellate Defender’s Office, argued that under the law, the state carries a burden to prove that pretrial release would be unsafe – that there are no conditions of release available to mitigate the threat posed by the defendant. And if the state is allowed to avoid that responsibility by not even addressing the question in court, he said, the new law would be no different than the old bail law.
“Our legislature did not contemplate a detention hearing where the state can stand mute on the very element of proof that differentiates the old bail statute from the new,” he said.
But Assistant Attorney General Mitchell Ness, arguing for the state, said there was plenty of evidence on the record to satisfy all the elements of the new law’s standards for pretrial detention, and it should not matter whether that evidence came from prosecutors or some other source.
“And considering the evidence, the trial court, in its oral ruling and in its written ruling, indicated that it had considered the most stringent condition of release possible – that is home confinement – and said that he simply could not come to the conclusion that the defendant would abide by even the most stringent condition of release possible,” he said.
The court is expected to announce its decision in both cases sometime in the coming months.
Capitol News Illinois is a nonprofit, nonpartisan news service covering state government. It is distributed to hundreds of newspapers, radio and TV stations statewide. It is funded primarily by the Illinois Press Foundation and the Robert R. McCormick Foundation, along with major contributions from the Illinois Broadcasters Foundation and Southern Illinois Editorial Association.
