Janie Miller Jones Website

The "progressives" are but a tiny fraction of the D's. The Piland factor brought many R's to Rietz. Rietz has name recognition which means a lot. Miller-Jones is an unknown. Why would someone vote for an unknown when the known isn't so bad, at least hasn't had bad press or bad things happen? Probably any D could have beaten Piland, but it takes more than just being an R or a D to win against someone even if the opposition has a plan and would do a good job.

Looks to me like she's running really hard .... away from the Republic Party. As would I if I wanted to be elected in Champaign County.

The voters don't/won't care about the civil side, only wonks will care.

It's putting away bad guys that gets votes.

I'd like to see Rietz' numbers of how many she has sent to prison in her tenure these 3 and a half years, and see the racial demographics of all those prisoners and their charges.

Can some lawyer out there tell me if what I heard is true...

Since Jamie Miller Jones is currently in the Public Defender's Office, if she were to get elected as prosecutor the the State's Attorney's Office would be disqualified by virtue of a conflict of interest from prosecuting ANY of the current clients of the Public Defender's Office. The County would have to hire the Illinois Attorney Generals office to prosecute ANY defendant forever into the future who has a case right now in the Public Defender's office.

That's because the defendant can claim that he shared client confidences with the current members of the PD's office, which for purposes of conflicts is deemed to be a single "law firm", and it is presumed that Jamie Miller Jones would have had access to those client confidences and would therefore in the future be prohibited from prosecuting that individual.

Is this analysis correct? What would the cost be?

I’ve never posted to this website before, though I’ve been reading it diligently for some time.  IP, I appreciate the forum you provide for our community to discuss things that actually matter.   This issue in particular matters to me, as a local attorney and as a county resident, because of what I see happening in the courthouse on a daily basis.  Reluctantly, I am posting anonymously because I deal with Julia Rietz and her staff regularly, as well as with Janie Miller-Jones. 

As to the labels:  Yes, Julia is running as a Dem, and Janie is running as a Republican.  Neither Julia nor Janie overly emphasizes their party connections in their websites, and I think that’s fine.  On the local level, I tend to think the labels are not always automatically meaningful.  I have voted for a Republican for the State’s Attorney position before, and I have voted for a Democrat for that same position before.  I suspect both Julia and Janie have done the same.  Though I lean left, I have regretted my past vote for Julia, and I’m looking forward to voting for this particular Republican.    

As to the conflict issue: This issue always comes up when a new prosecutor takes office (or a new Assistant State’s Attorney is hired).  When Julia took office after having worked in private practice, her former clients had the right to ask the judge to appoint a special prosecutor.  I recall local attorneys Tom Koester and Jim Dedman getting appointed as special prosecutor on cases where Julia (or her newly-hired employees) had conflicts.  (I also recall Julia dismissing one case against Patrick Thompson, and then Vujovich was appointed on the other pending case against Patrick Thompson.  If Julia had a conflict in the decision-making on one of those cases, she had a conflict for both and should have handed over both to a special prosecutor.)  The public defender’s office is not actually considered to be “one firm” – the office often handles co-defendant cases.  Half of the attorneys are on one “team” and half on the other.  While there will be some conflicts if Janie is elected, I don’t believe that the cost were be prohibitive or exorbitant.  

Furthermore, Janie’s experience at the Public Defender’s Office is actually one of the reasons she would make a great State’s Attorney.  She hasn’t been able to choose her clients, but she has been honored to fight on their behalf.  Because she has spent so much time talking with criminal defendants, I believe she is uniquely well-suited to advising the community from a prevention standpoint.  Some of the defendants really do not understand what they are getting themselves into by their actions.  Janie plans to address that.  Julia has indicated that preventing crime is not her responsibility.  However, anything the State’s Attorney’s Office can do to cut its own workload, to educate the same people that the Office represents, is absolutely worthwhile. 

If you are familiar with Julia's campaign or her website, you've heard about her accomplishments.  Some of Julia’s "accomplishments" are really the accomplishments of her assistants, and I do not believe she gives her staff enough credit.  Julia (still) does not have extensive trial experience.  Some of her assistants absolutely do.  But instead of giving them credit for the work they do, her campaign is all about her (as opposed to her office’s) accomplishments.  Look to her campaign website for an example.  She lists how she “personally” prosecuted a handful of cases, including Haywood (“for weapons offenses and sex offenses involving teenage girls in Urbana”).  Yes, by the time of trial, Julia stepped in as first-chair for the conviction of John Haywood.  One of her assistants (from what I can tell) did the prep work and second-chaired the trial, but when it comes to campaign time, it’s all about her.  She didn’t even bother to try to convict him of child pimping.   He went to prison on the “easy case” rather than on the hard one.  In terms of the Jon White prosecution, I’m afraid that the prosecution is over and I’m not sure it should be.  Jon White and Jon White alone did what he did to those children.  But there were mandated reporters who looked the other way.  Julia has indicated that there is a strong case against them, but that she’s waiting.  Waiting for what?  For the failed reporters to retire or move away?  Effective punishment (even if only in the form of a misdemeanor) happens swiftly.  Justice delayed is justice denied.  It is simply not acceptable for mandated reporters to ignore warning signs.     

As telling as her website is about the lack of pride in any office teamwork and the lack of personal trial experience, Julia’s website is a bit deceptive on the endorsements page.  She lists “The News-Gazette” and “Champaign County Farm Bureau.”  I believe both endorsed her formally for the primary campaign (against Alfred Ivy), but I do not believe either have yet formally endorsed either candidate for the November election.   

Many of the current assistant attorneys at the State’s Attorney’s Office are hard-working.  Many are conscientious.  Many are excellent trial attorneys.  Though there is not much obvious diversity, they do have a variety of viewpoints about various issues.  What I have observed is that most of them, at some point or another over the past few years, have expressed frustrations with the leadership in that office.  They are told something at an office meeting, they try to abide by that policy, and then later they are questioned as to why they did what they did – as if Julia or Steve (Julia's First Assistant) never raised the issue at the office meeting.  They are told to “accommodate” the private bar, and time and time again, I see former public defender clients getting substantially better deals after having hired a private attorney (without new information, like the defendant receiving drug abuse treatment, or any other relevant facts coming to light).  Why should defendants be rewarded for paying for private attorneys?  Anyone in the courthouse can give you specific examples of times Julia has sold her own attorneys or staff members down the proverbial river.  Sadly, the morale in the State’s Attorney’s Office is not what it should be.  In the time Julia’s been in charge, she has managed to alienate several good attorneys.  Again, ask anyone in the courthouse to give you specifics.  I know Julia would try to have my head if I posted information about “personnel” decisions here publicly, but I think most people in the courthouse know enough to tell you privately if you ask.  Excellent attorneys have moved on because their (legitimate) concerns were not her concerns.  Instead of being a leader who inspires by example, she and her First Assistant seem to try to rule by fear.  Their tactics are not effective and have not inspired much loyalty.

There was a News-Gazette article a little while ago about Julia’s First Assistant, Steve Ziegler.  In the middle of a traffic trial, when he didn’t agree with something a judge did, he went into that judge’s chambers, without the defense attorney, to question the judge about the decision.  Ex parte communication? Absolutely inappropriate.   And given Steve’s years of experience (although his caseload, like Julia’s, is slim-to-none), he should have known better. 

Janie is a very hard-working, efficient attorney, with extensive trial experience.   I have so much more respect for her work ethic than I do for Julia’s.  I think the most important thing is that Janie is her objectivity.  One problem I’ve had with Julia has been the expenses our county has incurred for work done on our county’s behalf by private attorneys (some of the work has been high-quality, some of it has not, but much of it could have been done in-house).  Another problem I’ve had with Julia has been her obvious “accommodation” to the private bar – some private attorneys even brag about contacting Julia at home when they can’t get the offer they want from her Assistant State’s Attorneys.  Another problem I’ve had with Julia is that she fails to provide solid principles and leadership to her employees.  Janie is never afraid to stand up for what she thinks is right.  She takes her working-day very seriously.  She’s not married to a police officer; she’s not likely to kiss the feet of the private bar.  She’s not likely to agree to exorbitant legal fees for outside counsel.  She has worked hard for everything she has ever achieved.  She knows that crime is to be treated harshly, and that no attorney should be afraid to try a case.  She also knows that there is no value for our community in sending addicts who actually would accept/respond to treatment to prison for stealing a can of beer from a convenience store.  She understands that the label of “felon” is not a label to use lightly.  She would treat certain crimes more harshly, and others more leniently.  I trust her judgment. 

Of course, I was wrong before.  I was naïve in thinking that Julia would actually follow-through on her campaign promises.  At that point, I didn’t know Julia as well – I just knew who I was voting against.  This time, I know both candidates, and I’m convinced that if the only people allowed to vote were courthouse regulars, the folks who see what goes on, that Janie would win.  Janie, unlike Julia, has the years of trial experience to lead by example – to actually take tough cases from start to finish.  I’m looking forward to voting for Janie in November.  I’m confident that I will not regret that vote, and I look forward to seeing the State’s Attorney’s Office flourish under Janie’s leadership.

Anonymous 5:59 PM's insider analysis of the Rietz Regime has some very accurate points that the News-Gazette will not divulge to the voting public. However, Anonymous 5:59 does not go far enough to account for the outright official corruption we've seen come out of her office in less than four years. The real problems are not that Rietz is personally abrasive, or her style of leadership is unstable at best, it's the documented fact that her office has actively participated in concealing or minimizing criminal activity, often does not abide by standards of law and ethics, has created a double standard of justice based on racial and socio-economic lines (The Constitution has granted equal protection under the law), and has shielded the criminal justice system from any transparency other than the information it wishes to feed the News-Gazette and WDWS.

To begin with some minor problems with the Rietz Regime that Anonymous 5:59 addresses: she and her First Assistant seem to try to rule by fear,... she does not give her staff enough credit,... her campaign is all about her accomplishments. For whatever the reasons, Rietz' personal problems of arrogance, pride, and defensiveness has translated into her unable to hear constructive criticism. She insists she is always right, even when the statitistics and the prison sentences show her to be mistaken. Her disdain for the public and the legitimate questions the public have about her prosecutions and failure to prosecute have been childish. The debate with Ivy and Miller-Jones at the law school in January of this year, the Urbana Civic Center fiasco on March 13, 2007, and her numerous appearances on black talk radio have revealed Rietz unable to handle any objections to her administration, and show her to possess a superior-than-thou attitude toward "the ignorant public". Rietz has been unwilling to listen and accept wise counsel and questions arise if she ever will. That she inspires no loyalty among some of her staff is no surprise. To cite other examples, Rietz has used prominent members of the black community for her personal political gain and cut off ties when they become no longer needed. In early 2004, she gravitated to Carol and Aaron Ammons, Patrick and Marie Thompson for support against Piland. While willing to use the eavesdropping case to publically bash Piland on the campaign trail, she abandoned the Thompson's when Marie's husband was set up for a crime he didn't commit in retaliation for his video documentary. While attending the Ammons' Unity Marches and talking to WEFT's Rev. West about the need for crime prevention on the campaign trail, she later accused the Ammons' of being, in her words, "...friends of the criminals" during her one-on-one debate with WDWS's Patrick Pinkston before the February Democratic primary. Thinking she was "in" with the black folks after the democratic primary, she attended the induction ceremonies of the new officers for the Ministerial Alliance. She soon stormed out of the church after Pastor Nash accused, from the pulpit even, the criminal justice system of railroading black males into the prisons. It is unlikely Rietz will appear before predominantly black audiences ever again since it's there she faces the tough questions. The debate of race and the criminal justice system is closed from her topics of discussion and she blames the harsh prosecutions of blacks that her staff selects to do as black people's fault- not hers. 

Julia has indicated that preventing crime is not her responsibility. Depends how Julia wants to spin it on what particular day. She will claim that she does do crime prevention by going into the schools and lecturing the black girls to quit their fistfighting over the boys and that everyone 17 and over will be prosecuted as an adult; and then out of the other side of her mouth, will come the gentle reminder that law enforcement is only a "reactive business". Well, which is it?

She didn’t even bother to try to convict [Haywood] of child pimping. [She failed to prosecute]... mandated reporters [in the Jon White case] who looked the other way.  Julia has indicated that there is a strong case against them, but that she’s waiting. Waiting for what? We have to remember that Rietz comes from the school of Tom Difanis and John Piland, in whose offices she worked as an assistant state's attorney. There is a long historical pattern in Champaign County of not prosecuting sex crime offenders nor punishing them. That campus rape continues every semester is a testimony to the police and the prosecutors not willing to apply the law against men enrolled in college. Nor will prosecutors go after men from the white middle class. The only time you will see a vigorous prosecution against someone in this county for sex crimes is when the accused is a minority and they have been accused of attacking a white female. Jon White was a rare exception because the parents of the victims would have torched her office had she prosecuted White like she does police officers who betray the public trust. A classic example of how Champaign County handles sex crimes is Robert Arnette's plea bargain of probation when he was accused of raping his stepdaughter. We all know what may have happened months after his lenient sentence. Miller-Jones would do well to consult with Rape Crisis Services and the Women's Fund to understand the lack of prosecution for sex crimes under Rietz/Piland/Difanis. There should be a long-term study of prosecutions for sex crimes. The legal system here has continuously treated sex crimes with skepticism and light slaps on the wrists.   

They [Rietz' assistant prosecutors] are told to “accommodate” the private bar–... some private attorneys even brag about contacting Julia at home when they can’t get the offer they want from her Assistant State’s Attorneys. This is an absolute Constitutional violation and it is without excuse the Champaign County Bar Association has tolerated this well-known fact. The double standards of justice become clear when we see how the cases of Officer Garrett, Sgt. William Myers, and Urbana police Officer Kurt Hjort were handled. Rietz violated conflict of interest ethics by prosecuting county employees when she is also the county's lawyer- and despite the six-figure settlement with the victim of Kurt Hjort, Rietz allowed Dedman to not prosecute the case criminally when Hjort had used his authority and access to information to perform gross official misconduct to say the least. Rietz may claim there is nothing she can do, but microphones are under her chin every week. Her silence about the Hjort case sends a chilling message to victims of sex crimes. A look at the racial demographics of offenders sent to prison from Champaign County would reveal the sentences to prison are reserved primarily for blacks and always, people of low income. The college students and suburban whites are too often treated very differently when they are actually arrested for crimes. We have a two-tiered system- not unlike lots and lots of other jurisdictions.

married to a police officer- This is extremely relevant and has tainted her perception. When Sgt. Myers falsified a police report against his first victim (Rietz refused to act on the written complaints of three other victims of Myers' use of a taser against inmates), Rietz charged the victim with a crime of aggravated battery to a peace officer and Judge Difanis continued the case 17 times so when the victim's fabricated charges were eventually dropped, there would be little time for the victim to file a civil lawsuit against the county for Myers' actions. She also allowed private counsel for Myers to delay his criminal case so the victims of Myers could not sue the county either. Despite the facts the Myers' case exposed, Rietz continues to allow unresearched police reports to go immediately to the media, does not support any civilian oversight of police practices, overlooks and minimizes police abuses, and has now removed police reports from public scrutiny. Now where do you suppose she gets her ideas of how police officers are to be above the law and their government function is none of the public's damn business?

...no value for our community in sending addicts who actually would accept/respond to treatment to prison for stealing a can of beer from a convenience store... Rietz sees it completely the opposite, and her drug queen, Sarah Carlson, with the help of Judge Ladd, have been laddling out decades of prison time on the poor and minority of our community. Rietz brags about home forteitures and all the prison time drug dealers get, and yet, Rietz has no answer for why drugs and alcohol flow freely at most high school and college parties. Rietz won't even acknowledge the complete failure the prison system is as a response to drug addiction. Drug prosecutions have soared from a mere hundred or so in Difanis' day, to over 1,500 under Rietz' watch.

As for Miller-Jones, I seriously doubt Miller-Jones will upset the apple cart too much like Ivy attempted to do. You will see maybe one debate between the two candidates where Rietz will insist no questions be taken from the audience, and no doubt, the League of Women Voters will politely oblige. If the two do debate in the media, I seriously doubt any real questions will get to be asked as Turpin will do his best to protect Rietz. Miller-Jones will not challenge Rietz to a series of debates. There will be little time to debate and discuss the issues, and analyze what Champaign County's $40 million a year criminal justice system (add the four governments' expenditures for public safety together to arrive at $40 mil) is really accomplishing, aside from the $6.2 million clock-tower decoration. 

Look for Rietz to stomp Miller-Jones by at least a 65-35% margin before a completely ignorant voting electorate who will be charmed by the "golden girl" with the help of the News-Gazette. Those who vote will be kept unaware of the information Anonymous 5:59 knows as someone who works at the courthouse. As for Maloney's concern about anonymous posters skewing facts- I suggest he do his own research into the facts offered beyond a friendly phone call to Julia.

And sadly, the real crook in our criminal justice mess for decades, Presiding Judge Tom Difanis, will be reappointed to the bench because no one even knows he is up for reappointment this election cycle. Like Sheriff Dan Walsh's re-election in 2004 or was it '05?- the most effective political campaigns are secret ones. 

I have read with a great deal of interest the long discussion about the current state of affairs with the S/A office here in Champaign County.   I have been watching the court house abet on a different level than most, for the past 30 years.   For the majority of that time, Judge Difanis was running the S/A office,often times un opposed in either the primary or the general election.  I remember one time when he was S/A that he told me that he knew he was doing his job correctly, when both the defense and the police were angry at him over the way that they treated their cases... the cops want everyone charged, the defense wants people let go.  Its the nature of the beast.  One must strike a balance between what is right for the citizens of Champaign with regards to how their taxes are being spent.  If a case can be disposed of for X, rather than trying for Y and the added cost of trial  ( flying witnesses in from out of state for example-- we are a transiant community after all) then why not try and get something out of the defendant in terms of a conviction, rather than the added cost of trial?    Remember what was the shape of the office that she took over?  Cases that had not been charged.. remember the baby that was killed on N. Randolph in which only the parents were present when the child died?  That case sat over in Mr. Pilands office for nearly a year and it was the FIRST case that Ms. Reitz charged and got a conviction against both parents, getting justice abet delayed justice. for a child who was MURDERED and the killers were never prosecuted.  She took over an office that was in total disarray.  I use to take the court sheets back from the S/A office.  There were cases that her office looked at in which they had been sent over nearly a year before and simply sat in a box at someones desk, not being charged.  Rapists, theives, forgers, domestic batteries, all different types of cases in which the police did their job and sent the information over to Mr. Pilands office.  I had heard one rumor that a  report was sent over to be charged and by the time it came back, the suspect, who wsa to be charged with sexual assault, did it again... So we had one person who should not have been a victim, who was a victim due to the fact that the case was not charged by Mr. Pilands office.    Now it may sound like I have a grudge against Mr. Piland office.  I dont.  I liked the people and Mr. Piland.  For some reason, things just got out of hand and once the landslide started, then it was all down hill from there.

As to her marriage to Al Johnston.  Who cares.  She married to him.  Once she became S/A should she have filed for divorce?  Its a non issue.  Quite frankly Al should be given a medal for I am sure that when a case does not get charged, there is always someone who isnt afraid to say.... hey you know what your wifes office did today???? 

Alfred Ivy?  One of the little known facts was that when he was teaching at parkland, he would use the Part time office as his office to run his business.  Imagine having his secretary using office space  ( that his shared by 5 other part time instructors)  and telling us to be quiet because she was on the phone with a client...

I am not going to refute each and every part of the discourse that the person had about the S/A office.  I have met both women and have had them come to my class at Parkland this spring and I will invite them this fall to speak again.  Champaign County is the only county in the State that has only women on the ballot for the S/A office.   This is a credit to both women for having the fortiutude to go out and campaign.. to go the parades etc.  As someone who is also running for county wide office, I can assure you that its a very humbling experience that everyone of the posters on this web site should have an opportunity to try at least once.  You will get an appreciation for what County wide politicians have to go through.

"So I asked her, and she said that she didn't do that and it would be considered very unethical if anyone did."

I appreciate Wayward's attempt to seek information. Anonymous 5:59, it appears, is a lawyer, and it is assumed, has represented clients against Rietz' prosecution team. So I guess Anonymous 5:59 is lying then about Rietz favoring the private bar, since Rietz told Wayward her prosecutors don't allow money to buy leniency. And since Rietz told Wayward she did not retaliate against Ivy and his clients for Ivy's annoying campaign against her for the democratic nomination to be state's attorney, I guess too, that this matter is settled once and for all, Anon 5:59. Why have you lied to this blog, Anon 5:59?

The process is weighed heavily in favor of the defendant...

Someone seems to have been partaking of one of several substances that remain illegal under Illinois and federal law when they wrote that.

Clearly you are an insider. You profess to know what Ms. Rietz tells her staff and how her first assistant run their office. You claim corruption, but other than a an allegation you offer no specifics. You suggest that John Haywood got off "easy", but he was successfully prosecuted and will probably die in prison as a result of the 45 year sentence he received. You dredge up Robert Arnette's sex case and I guess are saying that her office should have been able to see into the future as to his future criminal acts. There are a number of sex offenders that are spending a substantial part of the rest of their lives for sex offenses committed in this county. I work in the courthouse and see the hard work that the State's Attorney's Office staff puts in on a daily basis. They are a dedicated bunch that, much like the public defenders, are over worked, underpaid and certainly under appreciated. You are so bitter that you even take a parting shot at Judge Difanis with even less particularity, but with the same venom as you spew towards Ms. Rietz.

You're right, Dane. Champaign County is just as bad as the rest of Illinois, but that's nothing to be proud of or to brag about. I don't think that I would describe it as "some totally unexplained statistical and social otherworld" though. It's simply racial disparity at work.

It's really a shame that someone who was elected at least in part on promises to do something about this mess has done little or nothing about it herself.

For plenty of well-explained statistics, see:

http://www.buildingblocksforyouth.org/statebystate/illinois.html

Last night, at the Champaign County Fair, I talked with a number of people who are excited about Janie Miller-Jones. 

One Democrat woman literally crossed the road from the Dem tent to the GOP tent to get Miller-Jones literature.  She said her family has been completely neglected by Reitz.  This lady's nephew was murdered.  Reitz's office was so incompetent that the murderer only got three years.  Rietz and co. tried to get the guy on four years as a misdemeanor.  However, you can serve only three years for midemeanor charges.  So why would you try for four?  Subsequently another family committed suicide because of depression resulting from the young man's murder.  The murder victim's family--who was then victimized by depression and suicide--was told repeatedly by the State's Attorney's Office that they should "get over it."

People like this Democrat woman want to send Julia not a "get over it" message but a "get the hell out" message.  And they plan to do so by their votes.

Shall I dare repeat the old Lefty protest mantra:  "Hey-hey, ho-ho:  Julia Rietz has got to go.  Hey-he, ho-ho"?