DOCSLIB.ORG

CH 24 Guilty Pleas

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
CH 24 Guilty Pleas GUILTY PLEAS ............................................................................................. 1 §24-1 Generally ...................................................................................................... 1 §24-2 Waiver of Counsel .................................................................................... 11 §24-3 Plea Bargaining ........................................................................................ 12 §24-4 Unfulfilled Promises ................................................................................ 27 §24-5 Voluntary Pleas ........................................................................................ 35 §24-6 Admonishments ........................................................................................ 42 §24-6(a) Generally ......................................................................................... 42 §24-6(b) Nature of Charge ........................................................................... 52 §24-6(c) Rights to Plead Not Guilty, Go to Trial, and Confront Witnesses .................................................................................................... 53 §24-6(d) Possible Sentence .......................................................................... 53 §24-6(e) Right to Appeal .............................................................................. 67 §24-7 Factual Basis ............................................................................................. 70 §24-8 Motion to Vacate Plea or Reconsider Sentence; Appeal ................. 72 §24-8(a) Generally ......................................................................................... 72 §24-8(b) Procedure on Motion .................................................................... 89 §24-8(b)(1) Generally .............................................................................. 89 §24-8(b)(2) Rule 604(d) Certificates ..................................................... 94 §24-9 Guilty Plea as Waiver of Errors .......................................................... 106 §24-10 Stipulated Bench Trial .................................................................... 111 §24-11 Juvenile Proceedings ....................................................................... 114 i GUILTY PLEAS §24-1 Generally United States Supreme Court U.S. v. Ruiz, 536 U.S. 622, 122 S.Ct. 2450, 153 L.Ed.2d 586 (2002) The Federal Constitution does not require that before pleading guilty, a criminal defendant must receive "impeachment information relating to any informants or other witnesses" or information supporting affirmative defenses. Thus, the constitution does not prohibit use of a "fast track" plea bargaining process which requires the defendant to waive the right to receive such information. The court stressed that the right to receive exculpatory or impeachment information concerns the fairness of the defendant's trial, not the voluntariness of a guilty plea. In addition, the "fast track" plea bargaining process used here required the State to provide any evidence of actual innocence. Godinez v. Moran, 509 U.S. 389, 113 S.Ct. 2680, 125 L.Ed.2d 321 (1993) Pleading guilty does not require a "higher" standard of competency than that used to determine fitness to stand trial. North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 91 S.Ct. 160, 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970) A defendant may plead guilty while proclaiming his innocence, if he intelligently concludes that his interests require entry of a guilty plea and the record before the judge contains strong evidence of guilt. Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969) A guilty plea record must show a waiver of the rights against compulsory self-incrimination, to trial by jury and to confront one's accusers. A waiver of these rights cannot be presumed from a silent record. U.S. v. Jackson, 390 U.S. 570, 88 S.Ct. 1209, 20 L.Ed.2d 138 (1968) A defendant does not have a constitutional right to have his guilty plea accepted by a court. Illinois Supreme Court People v. Shinaul, 2017 IL 120162 As part of a negotiated guilty plea agreement, defendant pled guilty to one count of aggravated unlawful use of weapons and in exchange the State nol-prossed the eight remaining counts. Years later defendant filed a 2-1401 petition for relief from judgment (735 ILCS 5/2-1401) seeking to vacate his conviction since it was void under Aguilar, 2013 IL 112116. The State conceded that Aguilar voided defendant’s conviction and filed a motion to reinstate some of the charges it had nol-prossed. The circuit court vacated defendant’s conviction and allowed him to withdraw his guilty plea, but denied the State’s motion to reinstate the charges. The Supreme Court, with one justice dissenting, held that the statute of limitations barred the State from reinstating the nol-prossed charges. When a circuit court vacates a judgment and allows a defendant to withdraw his guilty plea, the case returns to its status before the judgment was made. And generally the State may in this situation ask the court to reinstate nol-prossed charges. But here the statute of limitations constituted an absolute bar against reinstating the charges since the three-year limitations period had already run. 1 720 ILCS 5/3-5. Although a statute of limitations period may be tolled, the court found no authority for the State’s argument that it is tolled when a defendant successfully vacates his conviction after the period of limitations has expired on charges that were dismissed as part of a plea agreement. The court specifically rejected the State’s argument that the “prosecution” against defendant was still pending and had not expired because defendant’s case never had a final disposition on appeal. The court refused to read into the statute “exceptions, limitations, or conditions” that were not plainly spelled out. The State was barred from reinstating the nol-prossed charges. People v. Hughes, 2012 IL 112817 Jurisdiction stems from the Illinois Constitution, which assigns original jurisdiction to the circuit court in all “justiciable matters” except where the Supreme Court has original and exclusive jurisdiction. The court rejected the argument that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to accept a guilty plea on a count on which a nolle prosequi order had been entered on the State’s motion and which had not been refiled or reinstated. To nolle prosequi a charge means simply that the State indicates an unwillingness to prosecute. Once the charge is nol prossed, the proceedings are terminated with respect to that particular charge, but the defendant is not acquitted. If a nolle prosequi is entered before jeopardy attaches, the State may reprosecute the defendant subject to other relevant statutory or constitutional defenses and so long as there is no harassment, bad faith, or fundamental unfairness. Because jeopardy had not yet attached, the State’s termination of the criminal prosecution by a nolle prosequi gave the State the right to either file a new charge or ask to vacate the dismissal and reinstate the original charge. The failure to do either did not deprive the trial court of jurisdiction, however, because an aggravated criminal sexual abuse indictment is a “justiciable matter” involving an offense created by the Criminal Code. Thus, even if the indictment was legally defective due to the nolle prosequi, the trial court had jurisdiction over the cause and could accept the guilty plea. In dissent, Justices Freeman and Burke found that unless the State took steps to reinstate the nol prossed charge, there was no “justiciable matter” on which a guilty plea could have been entered. People v. Absher, 242 Ill.2d 77, 950 N.E.2d 659 (2011) Generally, contract law principles apply to negotiated guilty pleas. Thus, neither party can unilaterally abrogate its obligations under the plea agreement. By entering a fully negotiated plea and accepting an intensive probation sentence which required him to submit to searches by the probation department and agree that any evidence discovered in such searches was admissible at trial, defendant waived any Fourth Amendment issues concerning such evidence. The court acknowledged, however, that the waiver would not extend to searches that had no possible law enforcement objective or which so far exceeded any legitimate objective as to justify an inference that the officers’ purpose was mere harassment. The court also stressed that it expressed no opinion concerning the validity of a similar condition where the defendant enters an open plea or is involuntarily placed on probation. People v. Urdiales, 225 Ill.2d 354, 871 N.E.2d 669 (2007) Defendant offered to plead guilty but mentally ill, but the State objected. The parties agreed to allow the trial judge to hear evidence before determining whether to accept the plea. The Supreme Court found that the preponderance of the evidence standard applied at the evidentiary hearing. The court also 2 found the trial court did not abuse its discretion by rejecting the plea of guilty but mentally ill. People v. Hall, 217 Ill.2d 324, 841 N.E.2d 913 (2005) A defendant challenging a guilty plea based on ineffective assistance of counsel must show that counsel's performance was objectively unreasonable and that defendant was prejudiced. Where defense counsel repeatedly stated that lack of knowledge of a child's presence inside a stolen vehicle was not a defense to aggravated kidnapping, and that advice was clearly erroneous, there was a substantial showing that counsel's
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Reversible Errors and Errores Juris
    FEDERAL CONVICTIONS REVERSED The following is a publication of the Office of the Federal Public Defender for the Northern District of New York. The cases are from United States Courts of Appeal and the United States Supreme Court. The opinions contain at least one point favorable to criminal defendants. The purpose is to give CJA Panel Attorneys a shortcut to case law favoring their clients. All cases should be researched to see if they are still viable. A precedent in one jurisdiction is not necessarily the law elsewhere. None of the cases should be cited without first reviewing the entire opinion. This warning is especially for prisoners and defendants who wish to rely on the cases herein. A one-line summary cannot possibly be sufficient to cite these cases without first reading each. These materials may be duplicated for any lawyer providing legal services to indigent defendants. Duplication is encouraged. These materials may be reprinted by other free publications or free on-line providers serving the criminal defense bar. Attribution to this office is requested. This collection has previously existed as Reversible Errors and Errores Juris. The new name reflects that coverage is now limited to errors overturning federal criminal convictions, not sentences, nor are other aspects of the criminal justice system addressed. There are two reasons. First, it has been difficult to update so many areas of law on a regular basis. Second, federal sentencing law has changed drastically in recent years and it will take time to determine the common bases for reversal among federal jurisdictions. Updates can be found at www .nynd-fpd.org The publications will be distributed by e-mail in Acrobat 8.0.
    [Show full text]
  • Solving the Problem of Innocent People Pleading Guilty
    NYCLA JUSTICE CENTER TASK FORCE: SOLVING THE PROBLEM OF INNOCENT PEOPLE PLEADING GUILTY i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1 A. The Existence and Prevalence of the Problem ....................................................... 3 B. Why do Innocent People Plead Guilty? ................................................................. 5 C. Recent, Relevant Criminal Justice Reform Efforts ................................................ 7 1. Bar Reports ................................................................................................ 7 2. Prosecutorial Reform ................................................................................. 8 3. Recent Legislative Amendments to the Criminal Justice System in New York ................................................................................................... 9 II. NYCLA’S JUSTICE CENTER TASK FORCE .............................................................. 11 A. Mission & Composition of Task Force ................................................................ 11 B. The Task Force Process ....................................................................................... 11 C. Topics Studied By The Focus Groups ................................................................. 13 1. Charging ................................................................................................... 13 2. Role of Defense Counsel ........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Law and Literature
    Volume 31 Issue 1 Tenth Circuit Judicial Conference (Winter 2001) Winter 2001 Law and Literature Scott Turow Recommended Citation Scott Turow, Law and Literature, 31 N.M. L. Rev. 67 (2001). Available at: https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/nmlr/vol31/iss1/7 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by The University of New Mexico School of Law. For more information, please visit the New Mexico Law Review website: www.lawschool.unm.edu/nmlr LAW AND LITERATURE INTRODUCTORY REMARKS AND PANEL DISCUSSION BY SCOTT TUROW" INTRODUCTORY REMARKS MR. TUROW: The terms "law" and "literature" describe exactly what I've been doing with my life for the last twenty-five years, although the intersection between the two has sometimes been unpredictable for me. Several years ago, before I published Presumed Innocent,' I published a book called One L,2 while I was at Harvard Law School. After that, I went on to become an assistant United States attorney, and near the end of my tenure there I got a phone call from one of the more famous and celebrated members of the criminal defense bar in Chicago -famous and celebrated because his resume included a conviction for subornation of perjury and a term of incarceration at the federal prison at Terre Haute. He had subsequently been readmitted to the bar and one of his convictions had been overturned. The message I got from this lawyer, my frequent opponent, came to me while I was on trial. When I reached him, about a week-and-a-half after he had called me, I asked him what was on his mind.
    [Show full text]
  • Standards of Prejudice on Appeal
    Appellate Advocacy College 2000 Lecture Standards of Prejudice on Appeal Renee Torres FIRST DISTRICT APPELLATE PROJECT STANDARDS OF REVERSAL on APPEAL in CRIMINAL CASES by Renée E. Torres1 [May 2000] INTRODUCTION 1 These materials incorporate and update “Standards of Review and Prejudice for Instructional Error” by J. Bradley O’Connell & Renée E. Torres (January 1995). FDAP gratefully acknowledges the assistance of Christine Kranich in the preparation of this outline. There are three basic standards of reversal for all criminal cases: (1) automatic reversal (per se) for structural defects in the trial mechanism; (2) reversal unless the State can show that federal constitutional error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; and (3) reversal for state law error only if appellant can show a reasonable probability of a better outcome. A fourth category of cases do not fit neatly into one of the first three categories. For some of these, the standard of review – i.e., the standard for determining if error occurred – is also the standard of reversal. That is, if the error occurred, it is reversible without further inquiry into prejudice. For others, once error is demonstrated, prejudice is presumed, but may be rebutted by evidence of harmlessness. This outline sets forth examples of reversible errors in all four categories. Because instructional error can call for reversal under any of the three major standards of reversal, it will be dealt with separately in its own section of this outline rather than as an example under each of the three major headings. I. STRUCTURAL DEFECTS AND REVERSAL PER SE "Structural defect" is a relatively new term for an old concept--error which is reversible per se.
    [Show full text]
  • The Myth of Factual Innocence
    Chicago-Kent Law Review Volume 82 Issue 2 Symposium: The 50th Anniversary of 12 Article 10 Angry Men April 2007 The Myth of Factual Innocence Morris B. Hoffman Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cklawreview Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Morris B. Hoffman, The Myth of Factual Innocence, 82 Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 663 (2007). Available at: https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cklawreview/vol82/iss2/10 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarly Commons @ IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Chicago-Kent Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholarly Commons @ IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. THE MYTH OF FACTUAL INNOCENCE MORRIS B. HOFFMAN* INTRODUCTION Almost all criminal defendants plead guilty, and almost all of them do so because they are guilty. The ones who take their cases to trial are also overwhelmingly guilty, at least in the sense that there is no issue about whether they committed the charged acts. The relatively few felony cases that actually go to trial in America are typically about moral guilt, not fac- tual guilt. That is, they are about the level of the defendant's culpability and therefore the level of the crime of which he will be convicted. I Yet the picture of the American criminal justice system painted in 12 Angry Men is of a truth-finding system so feeble that it must depend, in the end, on the instincts of a single courageous dissenting juror-in this case Juror #8, played by Henry Fonda.
    [Show full text]
  • Presuming Innocence: Alan Pakula and Scott Turow Take on the Great American Legal Fiction
    Louisiana State University Law Center LSU Law Digital Commons Journal Articles Faculty Scholarship 1997 Presuming Innocence: Alan Pakula and Scott Turow Take on the Great American Legal Fiction Christine Corcos Louisiana State University Law Center, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/faculty_scholarship Part of the Law Commons Repository Citation Corcos, Christine, "Presuming Innocence: Alan Pakula and Scott Turow Take on the Great American Legal Fiction" (1997). Journal Articles. 248. https://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/faculty_scholarship/248 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at LSU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal Articles by an authorized administrator of LSU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. PRESUMING INNOCENCE: ALAN PAKULA AND SCOTT TuRow TAKE ON THE GREAT AMERICAN LEGAL FICTION CHRISTINE ALICE CoRcos*t The fi lm Presumed In nocent is the subject of this Article by Prof essor Corcos. She explores the fi lm' s model,s of relationship between law and justice and be­ tween the attorney and layperson. In the film, the pre­ sumption of innocencefo rmally re leases a truly inno­ cent person from legal proceedings, but is unable to release him from informal susp icion by laypersons who seek substantive justice. Using this theme, Prof es­ sor Corcos as sesses the irony and tension present in the fi lm. FORMER PROSECUTOR SET FREE CHARGES AGAINST RUSTY SABICH DISMISSED Spectators were stunned today when Judge Leon Lyttle dismissed murder charges against former D.A.
    [Show full text]
  • Reversible Error Issue New York and Vermont
    The BACK BENCHER Seventh Circuit Federal Defenders Vol. No. 21 Reversible Error Issue New York and Vermont. His column is evidence that, even in the harsh environment of today’s federal courts, DEFENDER’S MESSAGE zealous advocates are ensuring the rights of their clients through the engine of reversible error. We should strive to Reversible error is the sword and shield of every criminal do the same. defense lawyer. At trial, the criminal defense lawyer can preemptively protect his client from prejudice by bringing As part of our continuing effort to help fulfill this the potential for reversible error to the attention of the trial exhortation, a number of continuing legal education judge, thereby preventing an error before it occurs. On opportunities are on the horizon for our panel attorneys. appeal, knowledge of what constitutes reversible error Three national CJA training programs are scheduled for allows the defense lawyer to retroactively shield his client this year at the following locations and dates: Kansas City, from the effects of impermissible prosecutorial blows MO on May 18-20; Boston, MA on July 6-8; and San already suffered. But reversible error is more than a Antonio, TX on September 21-23. An application for weapon in the arsenal of the criminal defense lawyer; it is these programs is attached to the back of this issue of The also an engine for change. Landmark decisions such as Back Bencher. Incidentally, I have preliminarily accepted Gideon v. Wainwright Brady v. , 372 U.S. 335 (1963) and an offer to speak at each of these programs.
    [Show full text]
  • Ordinary Heroes
    FARRAR, STRAUS AND GIROUX READING GROUP GUIDE ORDINARY HEROES by Scott Turow “Ordinary Heroes is a beautifully wrought, finely achieved reconstruction of an elusive, clandestine life—a World War II life, as it happens—by Scott Turow at the very top of 384 pages • 0-374-18421-6 his form. So, be warned: a book to start on a Friday night.” —Alan Furst, author of Dark Voyage ABOUT THIS GUIDE The questions and discussion topics that follow are designed to enhance your read- ing of Scott Turow’s Ordinary Heroes. We hope they will enrich your experience of this mesmerizing novel and the frontlines it brings to life. Greg Martin INTRODUCTION Courts of law have set the stage in each of Scott Turow’s bestselling books. With Ordinary Heroes, Turow introduces an attorney who is operating in a new setting and period—on the killing fields of World War II’s European theater, under highly unusual circumstances. A JAG lawyer assigned to a case in which the enemy may prove to be his own government, with no law office and no research library, David Dubin is ordered to bring a fellow soldier to justice. Ordinary Heroes is narrated by Kindle County journalist Stewart Dubinsky (whom readers may recognize from some of Turow’s previous novels) and by Stewart’s father. Stewart discovers an unexpected chapter of family lore after the death of his father, David Dubin, who Americanized the surname that Stewart later reclaimed. Through wartime letters, military archives, and eventually the notes for a memoir that Dubin wrote in prison, Stewart pieces together the secret history of his father’s clandestine actions, which led to his court-martial.
    [Show full text]
  • 2002 Reversible Errors
    REVERSIBLE ERRORS 2002 The following is a project of the Office of the Federal Public Defender for the Districts of Northern New York & Vermont. The cases listed are those in which a criminal defendant received relief from an United States Court of Appeals or the United States Supreme Court. The precedents were reviewed shortly before this publication was released to assure they had not be overruled. The purpose of this project is to try to give CJA Panel Attorneys a shortcut to case law that favor their clients. The editor does not promise that cases are precedent in all jurisdictions. If a case is preceded by an asterisk (*), that means the case may have been distinguished by another panel of that circuit or by another circuit. It should be researched to see if it is authority in your jurisdiction. These materials may be duplicated for any lawyer providing legal services to indigent defendants. The editor encourages duplication. It saves us time and money. These materials may be reprinted by other free publications or free on-line providers serving the criminal defense bar. Attribution to this office is requested. THE DEFENDER is a newsletter published by this same office. In addition, to updating REVERSIBLE ERRORS, the newsletter contains articles that are intended to be helpful to CJA Panel Lawyers. Although it is primarily focused at lawyers in Northern New York and Vermont, most features have relevance to federal criminal practice generally. Lawyers wishing to receive future publications should forward an e-mail address, name and phone number to the location below.
    [Show full text]
  • Prose and Cons Fiction and Movie List
    Prose & Cons books and movies Fiction Total Control, 1997 The Winner, 1997 Airth, Rennie Wish You Well, 2007 The Blood-Dimmed Tide, 2006 Barnes, Linda Albert, Susan Wittig Cold Case, 1997 Bleeding Hearts, 2006 Spanish Dagger, 2007 Barrett, Kathleen Anne Milwaukee Summers Can Be Deadly, 2001 Ali, Monica In the Kitchen: A novel, 2010 Barton, Beverly The Murder Game, 2008 Amis, Martin Battin, B.W. Night Train: A noel, 1997 The Boogeyman, 1984 Archer, Jeffrey Bell, James Scott False Impression, 2005 Honor Among Thieves, 1993 A Certain Truth, 2004 A Matter Of Honor, 1986 A Greater Glory, 2003 A Twist in the Tale, 1988. A Higher Justice, 2003 Asimov, Isaac Bernhardt, William Murder At The ABA, 1976 Blind Justice, 1992 Cruel Justice, 1996 Auchincloss, Louis Deadly Justice, 1993 The Great World and Timothy Colt, 1958 Double Jeopardy, 1995 I Come As a Thief, 1973 Tales of Manhattan, 1967 Billingham, Mark Lifeless, 2005 Bailey, F. Lee The Defense Never Rests, 1972 Black, Cara Baldacci, David Murder in the Marais, 1999 Absolute Power, 1996 Blauner, Peter Hour Game: A Novel, 2004 Last Man Standing, 2001 The Intruder, 1996 Saving Faith, 2000 Bochco, Steven Simple Genius, 2007 The Simple Truth, 1998 Death by Hollywood: A Novel, 1996 Split Second, 2003 Wisconsin State Law Library wilawlibrary.gov updated February 4, 2016 Prose & Cons books and movies Braun, Lillian Jackson Carr, Caleb The Cat Who Blew the Whistle, 1995 The Angel of Darkness, 1997 Brightwell, Emily Carstens, Douglas Mrs. Jeffries Pinches the Post, 2001 Welsh Rabbit, 2004 Brown, Dale Caudwell, Sarah Hammer Heads, 1990 The Sirens Sang Of Murder, 1989 Brown, Sandra Child, Lee The Alibi, 1999 Nothing to Lose: A Jack Reacher Novel, 2008 The Switch, 2000 Christie, Agatha Buffa, Dudley The A.
    [Show full text]
  • Defective Punitive Damage Awards Jill Wieber Lens Baylor University School of Law
    Utah Law Review Volume 2017 | Number 5 Article 4 11-2017 Defective Punitive Damage Awards Jill Wieber Lens Baylor University School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://dc.law.utah.edu/ulr Part of the Torts Commons Recommended Citation Lens, Jill Wieber (2017) "Defective Punitive Damage Awards," Utah Law Review: Vol. 2017 : No. 5 , Article 4. Available at: https://dc.law.utah.edu/ulr/vol2017/iss5/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Utah Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Utah Law Review by an authorized editor of Utah Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. DEFECTIVE PUNITIVE DAMAGE AWARDS Jill Wieber Lens* Abstract Private redress theories of punitive damages recognize an individual victim’s right to be punitive. That right exists because the defendant knew its conduct would probably cause the victim a severe injury, yet the defendant still acted, willfully injuring the victim. The injured victim can seek and obtain punitive damages to punish the defendant for disrespecting her rights. This Article is the first to apply private redress theories of punitive damages to claims involving a defective product. This application is unexpectedly difficult because of the importance of evidence of harm to nonparties in establishing defect, and because the defendant’s knowledge of the probable injury was not specific to the injured victim but instead general to all potential victims. Absent special circumstances, the manufacturer disrespected each of the injured victims in the same way. Consistent with private redress theories, each injured plaintiff can seek punishment for that disrespect.
    [Show full text]
  • 2012 Creative Achievement Award
    Mr. Turow has been active in a number of charitable causes, including organizations THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW ASSOCIATION OF CHICAGO that promote literacy, education and legal rights. He is currently President of the Authors Guild, the nation's largest membership organization of professional writers, and is also a Trustee of Amherst College. He has three adult children and lives Proudly Presents outside Chicago. 2012 Creative Achievement Award The IPLAC Creative Achievement Award is given to honor the creative achievements, primarily in the Chicago metropolitan area, which are eligible for any form of intellectual property protection – copyrights, patents, or trademarks. This year IPLAC is proud to recognize Scott Turow, author and practicing lawyer, as the winner of the 2012 IPLAC Creative Achievement Award. Scott F. Turow has received 44 copyright registrations for his works of fine art, including nine best-selling works of fiction and two nonfiction books, and numerous essays and op-ed pieces in publications such as The New York Times, The Washington Post, Vanity Fair, The New Yorker, Playboy and The Atlantic. His novels include Presumed Innocent (1987), Burden of Proof (1990), Pleading Guilty (1993), The Laws of Our Fathers (1996), Personal Injuries (1999), Reversible Errors (2002), Ordinary Heroes (2005), Limitations (2006), and Innocent (2010). His novels Presumed Innocent, Burden of Proof, Reversible Error, and Innocent have been made into films. His works of non-fiction include One L (1977), about his experience as a law student, and Ultimate Punishment (2003), a reflection on the death penalty. Mr. Turow's books have won a number of literary awards, including the Heartland Prize in 2003 for Reversible Errors, the Robert F.
    [Show full text]