A number of appellate court decisions have found a certain provision of the retail theft statute to be unconstitutional, as it creates a mandatory presumption that relieves the state of its burden to prove the element of intent. In other words, the presumption denies the trier of fact the discretion to determine if merchandise from a retail store has been removed intentionally or inadvertently.
DePaul College of Law Criminal Appeals Clinic student Thomas Volgelhuber is working on a case in which a judge explicitly relied on this unconstitutional presumption in finding the state met its burden of proof, convicting a defendant of retail theft and sentencing him to two and a half years in prison. “There is little case law regarding the application of [this] unconstitutional mandatory presumption by a bench judge,” says Vogelhuber. “This was not, however, disconcerting because the error by the judge was obvious and warrants a reversal of the conviction.”
“The significance of this case is that in none of the other published decisions has the trier of fact actually relied on this bad presumption,” says Scott Main, an adjunct professor who teaches the clinic in a rotation with attorneys Laura Weiler, Patrick Cassidy and Maria Harrigan from the Office of the State Appellate Defender.
“A reversal of [the client’s] conviction based on this unconstitutional statute can send a signal to the legislature to change this law. This case provides a great example of how appellate advocacy is focused on the individual rights of your client, but can also lead to changes in the law that can benefit others similarly situated.”
Like Vogelhuber, each student in the Criminal Appeals Clinic handles their own case: scouring the trial record for anything that strikes them as odd or unfair; performing research to provide support for their theories; and ultimately drafting a brief for their client that will be filed in the Illinois Appellate Court at the end of the semester.
“So much of a student’s legal writing experience in law school is learning the technical aspects of drafting and providing a balanced understanding of the law,” says Professor Main. “With the appeals clinic, we emphasize that you always begin with the rule and then expand outward. We encourage students to find their voice as an advocate, learning how to persuasively take a point of view on behalf of their client.”