Supreme Court Rule Changes. Because all three rules become effective May 1, the bench and bar deserve a heads-up on these changes.

     Rule 213. Written Interrogatories to Parties. The duty to supplement written interrogatories to parties that is governed by Rule 213(I) was amended to stop the current confusion in the trial courts on what responses are in compliance with the current rule and what responses are not.

     Two new paragraphs were added that do the following: (1) If a deposition of an opinion witness is taken, the witness' testimony at trial will be limited to the opinion expressed therein, addition to those opinions identified in answers to Rule 213(g) interrogatories. (2) The opinions expressed in a deposition need not be later specifically identified in Rule 213(g) answers but, upon objection at trial, the burden is on the proponent of the witness to prove the opinions were provided in deposition or Rule 213(g) interrogatory.

     Rule 234. Voir Dire Examination in Civil Cases. The amendments to this rule requires the trial court to do two things that previously had been discretionary: (1) The court must permit the parties to supplement the examination by such direct inquiry as the court deems proper for a reasonable period of time depending upon the length of examination by the court, the complexity of the case, and the nature and extent of the damages. (New criteria in italics.) (2) The court must also acquaint prospective jurors with the general duties and responsibilities of jurors.

     Rule 431. Voir Dire Examination in Criminal Cases. The new rule is identical to Rule 234 except for two new paragraphs that do the following: (1) If requested by the defendant, the court shall ask each potential juror, individually or in a group, whether that juror understands and accepts the following principles: (a) the defendant is presumed innocent of the charge(s) against him or her; (b) before a defendant can be convicted the State must prove the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt; (c) the defendant is not required to offer any evidence on his or her own behalf; (d) the defendant's failure to testify cannot be held against him or her; however, no inquiry of a prospective juror shall be made into the defendant's failure to testify when the defendant objects. (2) The court's method of inquiry must provide each juror an opportunity to respond to specific questions concerning the principles set out in this section.

     In the committee comments, the court makes clear that the new language is intended to ensure compliance with the requirements of People v. Zehr, 103 Ill.2d 472 (1984). This rule seeks to end the practice in which the judge makes a broad statement of the applicable law followed by a general question concerning the juror's willingness to follow the law.

     March Madness. With the conclusion of the high school and collegiate basketball tournaments, fans should note that House Bill 1025 (Tim Johnson, R-Urbana) is still alive. It would create the High School Basketball Tournament Act, which would require the Illinois High School Association to make its site selection after consideration of written proposals. It would further require IHSA to create minimum requirements, evaluation criteria, site proposal evaluation forms, and contracting policies and procedures. Basketball fans will recall that there was great consternation in Champaign-Urbana several years ago when the tournament moved from there to Peoria.

     White-Noise Commentary. Former U.S. Senator Alan K. Simpson (R-WY) once compared Congress to the world's biggest sawmill, making tiny toothpicks. I think that he was referring to how laborious the legislative process is. I think that he is absolutely correct. For example, House Judiciary II (Criminal) had 171 criminal law bills posted for a hearing scheduled to go all morning. Despite the best efforts of elected members, capable staff, lobbyists, and the media, it is simply too much too fast. One of the members once referred to the process as trying to take a drink out of a firefighter's high-pressure hose. Everybody is hopeful that when the chambers exchange their bills, some of the bills will either be killed or improved. There is simply no time to fix anything.

     Oops. In an earlier edition of the Bulletin I said that Senate Bill 361 (Geo-Karis, R-Zion) would raise the minimum level from $5,000 to $10,000 at which a creditor or heir may use the Small Estates Article of the Probate Act of 1975. This statement was incorrect. What the bill does is amend Section 25-2 of the Probate Act to make the appointment of a representative of a ward unnecessary unless the personal estate of a ward exceeds $10,000 (now, $5,000). Sorry about that.

     Chicago Crime Commission and Drugs. House Bill 1221 (Art Turner, D-Chicago) would reduce from a Class 4 felony to a Class A misdemeanor the penalty for possession of one gram or less of heroin or cocaine. The Chicago Crime Commission was the proponent of the bill, and Chicago Bar Association President Donald Hubert testified in support of the bill. ISBA also supported the bill. It failed to receive enough votes to be favorably reported to the floor but was debated at length in House Judiciary Committee II. Illinois' sentencing code has become a mess because of years of ad hoc, uncoordinated amendments, but there is no way that elected members are going to pass a bill such as this, regardless of merits. Crime has become one of the third rails of American politics - touch it and you die. Can you imagine what kind of campaign a challenger would run against a member who voted for a bill such as this? Before DOC becomes subject to a consent decree by a federal judge for overcrowding (my own guess is sometime in the year 2001), Sen. Simpson again rides to the rescue. He always maintained the only way Congress could fix social security was for all the members to link their arms and jump off the cliff together. The same is true for sentencing and corrections. They are going to have to put some kind of commission together to provide the political cover to make some changes. Or start building more prisons like crazy. Something has to give.

     Did the Son-of-a-Gun Deserve Killing? House Bill 1155 (Durkin, R-Westchester) would overrule People v. Lynch (1984), 104 Ill.2d 194, 470 N.E.2d 1018. In self-defense cases, this bill would prohibit the admission of evidence of the victim's prior violent acts unless the prior violent acts were actually known to the defendant at the time he or she committed the act being prosecuted. Evidence of the victim's prior violent acts that were unknown to the defendant and that are relevant to the issue of who was the initial aggressor may be introduced only in the form of the victim's reputation for violence in the community and not by specific prior violent acts. Several of the women legislators were very uneasy about this bill; specifically on the issue of battered women. Women legislators have formed their own bipartisan caucus, and they make a difference on any issue they get involved in. On second reading in the House.

     Seat Belts Become Probable Cause. House Bill 1610 (Currie, D-Chicago) deletes current law that states that no motor vehicle, or driver or passenger of a vehicle may be stopped or searched by any law enforcement officer solely on the basis of a violation or suspected violation of the seat belt law. On second reading in the House.

     The General Assembly is in session for the next seven weeks. Our next issue will be on the 11th.