pretrial detention hearing in Illinois

2026The State must prove by clear and convincing evidence that (1) the proof is evident or presumption great that the defendant committed a detainable offense; (2) the defendant poses a real and present threat to the safety of any person, persons, or the community, based on the specific, articulable facts of the case; and (3) no condition or combination of conditions can mitigate the real and present threat to the safety of any person or the community based on the specific facts of the case. 725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(e)(1)- (3) (West 2024). ¶ 15 Pursuant to a recent decision from the Illinois Supreme Cou

2026The Morgan court set forth two separate standards of review, the applicability of which turned on the manner in which the evidence was presented at the pretrial detention hearing: “(1) [W]hen live witness testimony is presented at a pretrial detention hearing, the circuit court’s ultimate detention decision under section 110-6.1, in addition to any underlying factual findings supporting the decision, will not be disturbed on review unless found to be contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence and (2) when the parties to a pretrial detention hearing proceed solely by proffer, the reviewing

2025This court has recognized that “the trial court may hear new evidence when considering whether continued detention is necessary under section 110-6.1(i-5) of the Code.” People v. Davis, 2025 IL App (1st) 242306-U, ¶ 43 (citing Harris, 2024 IL App (2d) 240070, ¶ 51 ).

2025No witnesses testified at any of the detention hearings in this case. “[W]hen the parties to a pretrial detention hearing proceed solely by proffer, the reviewing court is not bound by the circuit court’s factual findings and may therefore conduct its own independent de novo review of the proffered evidence and evidence otherwise documentary in nature.” Morgan, 2025 IL 130626, ¶ 54 . ¶ 25 “[A] court ordering continued pretrial detention must make certain findings based on specific, articulable facts, just as at an initial detention hearing. [Citation.] However, [these] subsequent determination

2026Horne, 2023 IL App (2d) 230382, ¶ 18 (citing 725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(h)(1) (West 2022)). 12 ¶ 40 Our standard of review on appeal depends on the nature of the evidence presented at the pretrial detention hearing.

2025Horne, 2023 IL App (2d) 230382, ¶ 18 (citing 725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(h)(1) (West 2022)). ¶ 36 Our standard of review on appeal depends on the nature of the evidence presented at the pretrial detention hearing.

2026People v. Morgan, 2025 IL 130626, ¶ 44 ; Addison Insurance Co. v. Fay, 232 Ill. 2d 446, 453 (2009). ¶ 19 A. Detention pursuant to sections 110-6.1(a)(6)–(6.5) of the Code ¶ 20 Perry argues the State did not show by clear and convincing evidence that he committed an eligible offense under sections 110-6.1(a)(6)–(6.5) (725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(a)(6)-(6.5) (West Supp. 2025)).

2025Addison Insurance Co. v. Fay, 232 Ill. 2d 446, 453 (2009). ¶9 We have thoroughly reviewed the record on appeal in this matter.

2025“In reaching its determination, the trial court must consider (1) the nature and circumstances of the offense charged, (2) the weight of the evidence against the defendant, (3) the history and characteristics of the defendant, (4) the nature and seriousness of the real and present threat to the safety of any person or the community that would be posed by the defendant’s release, and (5) the nature and seriousness of the risk of obstructing or attempting to obstruct the criminal justice process.” Id. ¶ 24 Although the State asserts in its memorandum of law that the trial court abused its discre

2024At a pretrial detention hearing, the State is explicitly permitted to present evidence “by way of proffer based upon reliable information.” 725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(f)(2) (West 2022); see also id. § 110-6.1(f)(5) (exempting detention hearings from the rules of evidence).

2026“The trial court shall promptly hear and decide the motion for relief.” Ill. S. Ct. R. 604(h)(2). “[A] proper Rule 604(h)(2) hearing *** would consist of an examination of the State's evidence at the initial detention hearing and a determination of whether the State had met its burden of proof.” People v. Williams, 2024 IL App (1st) 241013, ¶ 29 ; see People v. Badie, 2025 IL App (3d) 250033, ¶ 27 . ¶ 32 Pursuant to our supreme court’s recent decision in People v. Morgan, 2025 IL 130626, ¶¶ 51-54 , when the parties to a pretrial detention hearing proceed solely on the basis of proffer and no l

2025Where our review of the detention proceeding is de novo, People v. Morgan, 2025 IL 130626, ¶ 51 , this omission does not affect our review. 10 “the error was harmless because our determination would be the same even if we exclude the content of that second hearing.” Williams, 2024 IL App (1st) 241013, ¶ 29 . ¶ 27 Pursuant to our supreme court’s recent decision in People v. Morgan, 2025 IL 130626, ¶¶ 51-54 , when the parties to a pretrial detention hearing proceed solely on the basis of proffer and no live testimony is presented, “ ‘the reviewing court is not bound by the circuit court’s factua

2026Outside of the case law introducing the pretrial detention standard of review applicable on appeal, the motion for relief does not provide any citations to relevant authorities that would be pertinent to defendant’s case. ¶ 22 These “[b]are contentions in the absence of argument or citation of authority do not merit consideration on appeal ***.” Obert v. Saville, 253 Ill. App. 3d 677, 682 (1993).

2026Outside of the case law introducing the pretrial detention standard of review applicable on appeal, the motion for relief does not provide any citations to relevant authorities that would be pertinent to the defendant’s case. ¶ 35 These “[b]are contentions in the absence of argument or citation of authority do not merit consideration on appeal.” Obert v. Saville, 253 Ill.

2025See People v. Reimolds, 92 Ill. 2d 101, 106 (1982). ¶ 35 Schwedler’s next claim is that the circuit court failed to conduct a proper pretrial detention hearing.

2025See People v. Reimolds, 92 Ill. 2d 101, 106 (1982). ¶ 34 Schwedler’s next claim is that the circuit court failed to conduct a proper pretrial detention hearing.

2024See Kurzeja, 2023 IL App (3d) 230434, ¶ 14 . ¶ 15 Turning to the pretrial detention hearing under section 110-6.1 of the Code, before conducting such a hearing, all defendants begin with the presumption that they are eligible for pretrial release. 725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(e) (West 2022).

2024See Kurzeja, 2023 IL App (3d) 230434, ¶ 14 . -6- ¶ 17 Turning to the pretrial detention hearing under section 110-6.1 of the Code, before conducting such a hearing, all defendants begin with the presumption that they are eligible for pretrial release. 725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(e) (West 2022).

2024An abuse of discretion occurs “when the circuit court’s decision is ‘arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable,’ or where ‘no reasonable person would agree with the position adopted by the trial court.’ ” People v. Simmons, 2019 IL App (1st) 191253 , ¶ 9 (quoting People v. Becker, 239 Ill. 2d 215, 234 (2010)). ¶ 22 Shaw first argues that Judge Ryan’s finding that his continued detention was necessary to avoid a real and present threat constituted an abuse of discretion because the Act requires the circuit court to base this determination on the specific articulable facts of the case. ¶ 23 The recor

2024The Pretrial Fairness Act provides that although a “defendant may not move to suppress evidence or a confession” at a pretrial detention hearing, “evidence that proof of the charged crime may have been the result of an unlawful search or seizure, or both, or [obtained] through improper interrogation, is relevant in assessing the weight of the evidence against the defendant.” 725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(f)(6) (West 2022); see also id. § 110-5(2) (a court “may consider the admissibility of any evidence sought to be excluded”). ¶ 36 While it is necessary to consider the circumstances under which Mr. McMur

2025The finding, as required by section 110-6.1(i- 5), is “a less demanding standard than what is required at the detention hearing, though both are concerned with fundamentally the same question.” Id. ¶ 22 Under the recent Supreme Court decision in People v. Morgan, 2025 IL 130626 , “when the parties to a pretrial detention hearing proceed solely by proffer, the reviewing court is not bound by the circuit court’s factual findings and may therefore conduct its own independent de novo review of the proffered evidence and evidence otherwise documentary in nature.” People v. -5- No. 1-24-2240B Morgan

2025People v. Thomas, 2024 IL App (1st) 240479, ¶ 12 (citing 725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(e)(1)-(3), 110-10). ¶ 40 When parties to a pretrial detention hearing proceed solely by proffer, a reviewing court “stands in the same position as the circuit court and may therefore conduct its own independent review of the proffered evidence and evidence otherwise documentary in nature.” People v. Morgan, 2025 IL 130626, ¶ 51 .

2025Id. § 110-2(b). ¶ 15 Under the recent supreme court decision in People v. Morgan, 2025 IL 130626, ¶ 54 , when the parties to a pretrial detention hearing proceed solely by proffer, as they did here, “the reviewing court is not bound by the circuit court’s factual findings and may therefore conduct its own independent de novo review of the proffered evidence and evidence otherwise documentary in nature.” Under the de novo standard, a reviewing court performs the same analysis that the trial court would perform.

2025The petition asserted that defendant posed a real and present Act, or the “Pretrial Fairness Act.” See Rowe v. Raoul, 2023 IL 129248 , ¶ 4 n. 1.

2025Id. § 110-6.1(e)(1)-(3).

2024See Hongo, 2024 IL App (1st) 232482, ¶¶ 24-31 ; Casey, 2024 IL App 3d 230568, ¶¶ 11-13. ¶ 22 We acknowledge that the circuit court may have confused McCaleb by not explicitly making the “continued detention” finding required by the Code (see 725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(i-5) (West 2022)) on February 20, 2024, and instead conducting that hearing as if it were an initial pretrial detention hearing.

2026“The trial court shall promptly hear and decide the motion for relief.” Ill. S. Ct. R. 604(h)(2). “[A] proper Rule 604(h)(2) hearing *** would consist of an examination of the State's evidence at the initial detention hearing and a determination of whether the State had met its burden of proof.” People v. Williams, 2024 IL App (1st) 241013, ¶ 29 ; see People v. Badie, 2025 IL App (3d) 250033, ¶ 27 . ¶ 32 Pursuant to our supreme court’s recent decision in People v. Morgan, 2025 IL 130626, ¶¶ 51-54 , when the parties to a pretrial detention hearing proceed solely on the basis of proffer and no l

2026Id. § 110-6.1(e)(1)-(3). “ ‘If the State fails to carry its burden on any of these three facts, the presumption remains, and detention is unlawful.’ ” People v. Cousins, 2025 IL 130866, ¶ 25 (quoting People v. Sorrentino, 2024 IL App (1st) 232363, ¶ 32 , citing 725 ILCS 5/110-6.1(e) (West 2022)). ¶ 30 Where the State proceeds solely by proffer at the pretrial detention hearing, we are not bound by the trial court’s factual findings and review the record de novo.

2026See id. § 110-6.1(i-5) (if the initial hearing results in pretrial detention, at subsequent hearings, the court may decide only whether continued detention is necessary); People v. Miller, 2025 IL App (1st) 250438, ¶¶ 37-38 .