Victims’ Rights Case Hearing in Rockford Friday

From the Alliance Against Intoxicated Motorists:

Following Violation of Marsy’s Law Rights Victim’s Mother to Seek Remedy in Court for First Time in Illinois

Hearing on the Case will Take Place Friday, September 10 at 10:00 am Winnebago County Criminal Justice Center, 650 W. State Street, Rockford, IL 61102

Schaumburg IL, September 8, 2021 – For the first time since Illinois voters ratified the constitutional
amendment strengthening the rights of crime victims known as Marsy’s Law, a victim is seeking remedy in
court for violating her rights.

Elizabeth Alvarado, the mother of a victim of a fatal DUI crash in 2016, has requested a Winnebago County
Circuit Court order a “re-do” of a hearing to address the violation of her rights as a victim.

The prosecution failed to discuss with Alvarado a plea deal that reduced the charges against the defendant.

They also failed to notify Alvarado of the plea and sentencing hearings that took place without her, depriving her of the opportunity to appear and be heard in the matter.

The omissions violate the Illinois Constitution and several statutory provisions, according to the court filing. Despite the length of the Case, Alvarado has remained an active and committed participant throughout the process.

A hearing on Alvarado’s motion will take place on Friday, September 10, at 10:00 am.

“I just don’t understand why they did this to me,” said Elizabeth Alvarado, the mother of the victim in this Case.

“How could they have just forgotten about me? How could this have happened?”

The Alliance Against Intoxicated Motorists (AAIM) has been helping Alvarado navigate the criminal justice
system since the case was first filed in 2016. AAIM is now helping to seek remedies for the violation of her
Marsy’s Law rights.

“Too many mothers have had to endure the pain that Elizabeth Alvarado has lived through in losing a child
in an impaired driving crash.

“She remained committed to pursuing justice for her son only to have her constitutional rights violated,” said AAIM Executive Director Rita Kreslin.

“Victims need to have the opportunity to have their voices heard. We’re proud to stand by Elizabeth in this landmark case to ensure that all victims receive the rights that they are entitled to.”

To learn more about the Alliance Against Intoxicated Motorists, visit www.aaim1.org For more information
on the rights guaranteed to victims in Illinois through Marsy’s Law, learn more here.


Comments

Victims’ Rights Case Hearing in Rockford Friday — 3 Comments

  1. In McHenry County they often violate the crime victims rights by not notifying the victim of the time, date and courtroom of a Defendants case in which they are seeking a plea bargain even in cases where the crime victim has been in constant contact with the States’ Attorney who is their counsel in these violations.

    I myself was a victim in a case where I was stalked for 3 1/2 years, lost jobs, etc and the perpetrator had another case on DWLR in another courtroom on the same day my case against them was up next door.

    The perpetrators attorney came into my courtroom asking the Judge to continue to the case to the following Monday as he believed all these cases could be resolved on Monday.

    My Judge told the attorney no she was not available on Monday and set the courtdate two weeks out.

    Afterwards I asked my States’ Attorney what the perpetrators attorney meant “all these cases could be resolved” and she said “sometimes we combine the cases to have the perpetrator go to jail for the more serious offense.”

    In this case the perpetrator was there on her 17th charge of DWLR and I told the States’ Attorney I did not want my case which in Illinois is a violent crime (violation of OP/Stalking) combined with a non-violent traffic case (DWLR) and I wanted my day in court.

    She said that I would have my day in court on the date my Judge set it for.

    Keep in mind I was in constant contact via telephone, email and court appearances on my case against the perpetrator, i.e. States’ Attorney and Crime Victims Witness Advocate were in constant contact with me also.

    They knew how to reach me.

    On the following Monday, the perpetrator’s Attorney transferred the case into the courtroom where perpetrator was having DWLR heard without informing me or my Judge, not informing the DWlR Judge that what he was dismissing was a violation of OP (as required by Marsy’s Law), not informing the Judge that the Crime Victim was not notified of the time, date and place change (also required under Marsy’s Law) and that the Crime Victim was not informed about the plea bargain details, but did not agree to any plea deal at the last hearing (Also required under Marsy’s Law) and the Judge dismissed the case (against the Marsy’s Law when the crime victim has not be notified of the date time and place change the Judge is not supposed to accept any plea deal and continue the case for the Crime Victim to have the opportunity to be present).

    The Marsy’s Law gives the Crime Victim standing before the court and Mar”whenever ANY of the Crime Victims rights have been violated”.

    So I brought a Motion to Vacate the Plea Deal as it pertained to my case.

    Despite my asserting Illinois Crime Victims and Marsy’s Law violations, the State and Defense teamed up stating “the Crime Victim does not have standing to bring this motion before the court” and the Judge agreed and dismissed my Motion to Vacate (again against the Marsy’s Law and Crime Victims Rights).

    I found it incredible that the State’s Attorneys even got bullied into stating “she does not have standing” (I heard defense attorney telling the State in the courtroom foyer area “say she doesnt have standing and I will back you up and the Judge will go along with us.”

    The States Attorney’s response was “I dont want to get into trouble,” and thedefense again said “the Judge will back us up.”

    I told the Judge that this perpetrator is crazy and wont stop, I only brought forth 2 violations I was able to get the police to submit for prosecution, but I had 32 call reports of violations in my town, 2 times of harassment in the courthouse, and harassment out of state when she was on parole and not supposed to be out of state among other violations that were never formally charged.

    I warned the Judge that someone is going to be killed by this perpetrator and that they needed to be stopped and get counseling.

    Thw perpetrator was out of prison in 9 months and then while still on parole drove again without a license, tried to run someone over “several times” and then got out of their car “swinging two hammers”.

    The perpetrator was charged with aggravated assaults for the vehicle and the hammers and another DWLR.

    Of course the aggravated assaults should have been charged as attempted murders and they were both dismissed in a plea deal for her to go to jail on the DWLR.

    I am unsure as to that victim’s rights and/or denials thereof.

    In Spring of 2016, Donna Kelly a States Attorney wrote a review in the States Attorney news called “Justice for All” which outlined States Attorneys and Judges obligations to Crime Victims under the Marsy’s Law which most importantly “gives the Crime Victim standing whenever any of their Crime Victims Rights have been violated.”

    In my case about 5 of my rights were violated!

    I filed an Appeal for writ of Mandamus in the wrong venue it should have gone to the Supreme Court of Illinois not the Appellate Court.

    It will be interesting to see how this mother fairs in Winnebago County.

    I know in Cook County the police were tired of the Order of Protection cases being dismissed because the Crime Victim would back down on prosecutions (makes sense since most women are going through Battered Women Syndrome and therefore lack the mental capacity to continue with the prosecution) and talked with the States Attorneys there to pick up cases that the victim does not show up to prosecute.

    Additionally, in Chicago domestic violence calls were the most dangerous calls police were ever called to in the 1970’s – 1980’s.

  2. The court system needs to be reimagined.

    It slowly turned into a revenue generating entity in the mid 80s and lost the respect of the community.

    Now most Judges are bleeding heart Liberals who were indoctrinated in law school.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.