Corporate Transitional Justice

LESLEY WEXLER, NICOLA SHARPE

Illinois law professor Lesley M. Wexler and Nicola Sharpe discuss various corporate responses to the recent storming of Capitol Hill and consider whether such responses might constitute private transitional justice. Professors Wexler and Sharpe point out, however, that simply vocalizing a commitment to social justice, diversity, and inclusivity is not enough; corporations should diversify boards and leadership representation and take other quantifiable steps that transform corporate culture and processes.

Read More

State v. Griffin

Docket: 120747

Opinion Date: January 29, 2021

Judge: Dan Biles

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction for methamphetamine possession after he pled no contest to that offense, holding that the district court properly denied Defendant's motion to dismiss for violation of the Uniform Mandatory Disposition of Detainers Act (UMDDA), Kan. Stat. Ann. 22-4301 et seq. On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court lost jurisdiction under the UMDDA because he was not timely brought to trial. The court of appeals rejected Defendant's claim. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant's argument that an inmate's substantial compliance always starts the UMDDA's 180-day time limit despite the plain statutory language was unavailing.

State v. Morley

Docket: 120017

Opinion Date: January 29, 2021

Judge: Dan Biles

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals vacating Defendant's sentence, holding that a reasonable person would not find Defendant's acceptance of responsibility to be a compelling reason to override the statutory presumptive sentence of imprisonment. Defendant pled no contest to securities fraud and acting as an unregistered issuer agent. The district court granted a dispositional departure to probation from a presumptive sentence of imprisonment. The court of appeals reversed and remanded the case for resentencing, concluding that there was not a substantial and compelling reason to support departure. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that no reasonable person would find that the limited responsibility Defendant took rendered Defendant's case a compelling deviation from the norm the legislature has established.