IL: Appellate court reverses sex offender registration conviction

An Illinois appeals court reversed a man’s conviction after he was accused of failing to register as a sex offender.

The Fifth District Appellate Court, in reversing former judge John Baricevic, found the state did not provide enough evidence that ____ had to continually register as a sexual offender on the date of his offense. Prosecutors conceded there was no indication if Kitterman’s imprisonment or subsequent conviction changed the required registration date.

The three-judge panel ruled ____, who represented himself, proved the the Sexual Offender Registration Act (SORA) requires the offender to meet the registration responsibilities on the date of the incident. Full Article

Decision

Related posts

Subscribe
Notify of

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...

 

  1. Submissions must be in English
  2. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  3. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  4. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t and a**
  5. Please avoid the use of derogatory labels.  Always use person-first language.
  6. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  7. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  8. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  9. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  10. We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address that are not personally identifiable.
  11. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  12. Please do not post in all Caps.
  13. If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  14. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  15. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  16. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people.  Do not use your real name.
  17. Please do not solicit funds
  18. No discussions about weapons
  19. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), Person Forced to Register (PFR) or any others, the first time you use it in a thread, please expand it for new people to better understand.
  20. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  21. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  22. We no longer post articles about arrests or accusations, only selected convictions. If your comment contains a link to an arrest or accusation article we will not approve your comment.
  23. If addressing another commenter, please address them by exactly their full display name, do not modify their name. 
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  
 

6 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Imagine that, another pro se……

I love this, a perfect example of the power of the Pro Se litigant who is not afraid to take it upon themselves to fight their own battle. This should be inspirational for all and strengthens my argument that we as individual citizens have to, and are required to as Americans, to take back “OUR” courts………….

Thanks E, I appreciate your support….We should be having a decision on the AGs partial motion to dismiss any day now. Like I stated I am thinking about filing a motion for summary judgement in state court as well. I still believe it is a slam dunk in CA with the Taylor decision setting the bar for rational basis review….