MADD’s Court Monitoring Program enlists court monitors to observe and document what happens in the courtroom during drunk driving case proceedings. Court monitoring enhances transparency and accountability within the criminal justice system and reduces the likelihood of repeat drunk driving offenses. A key component of court monitoring is promoting public interest in the justice system and creating awareness of the outcomes of drunk driving cases. Court monitoring is a proven tool to affect the adjudication process and is an effective countermeasure to reduce drunk driving*. Court monitoring on the local scale can make an impact on the handling of drunk driving cases just by their mere presence in the courtroom. MADD’s team of staff and volunteers track individual cases, compile information about each case and create reports regarding case
disposition. Court monitors let prosecutors and judges know - in a non-adversarial way - that MADD is watching drunk driving cases and looking for trends in how these cases are handled. Through this process, MADD seeks to maintain strong partnerships with members of the judicial system. * Goodwin, A., Thomas, L., Kirley, B., Hall, W., O’Brien, N., & Hill, K. (2015, November). Countermeasures that work: A highway safety countermeasure guide for State highway safety offices, Eighth edition. (Report No. DOT HS 812 202). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
The court monitors track drunk driving cases in the courts of their respective counties. The monitors are physically present for court settings and acquire case information from courtroom observation and, when necessary, from researching online databases in the event a monitor is not able to be present at the proceeding. The data is then entered into the MADD National Court Monitoring Database for reporting purposes.
Guilty
2513
75%
This report is designed to present observations and trends relative to the counties monitored, and are not intended to be a statistical analysis. State Report (reporting period: 9/1/2017 - 9/1/2018)
Not Guilty
150
4%
Mistrial
14
<1%
Dismissed Amended
160 361 163
5%
10%
Open Cases
2,686 3,368
44%
Nolle Prosequi
5%
Total Adjudicated
55%
No Contest
7
<1%
6,159
Total Cases Monitored
3,368
Total Adjudicated
Overall Disposition Detail
Total Adjudicated
Boone
De Kalb
Du Page
Kane
Lee
McHenry
Sangamon
St. Clair
Whiteside
Will
Winnebago
No Contest
0
0 0 0
5
0
0 0 0
0
1
0 0 0
0
1
0 0 0
7
Nolle Pros.
1
71
1
15
0 0
2
17
107
Mistrial
0
8
0
0
0
6
14
Amended
4
7
124
31
8
19 14 14
18 13
4
3
3
10
231
Dismissed
1
8
27
1
0 0
87
1
7
1 1
160 150
Not Guilty
3
10
62
13
0
0
3
44
Guilty
180
136
525
222
91
169
137
294
98
210
136
2,198
Total
189 161
822 268 99 231
169 385 107 288 148 2,867
The chart above reflects a case study of data for the following counties — Boone, De Kalb, Du Page, Kane, Lee, McHenry, Sangamon, St. Clair, Whiteside, Will, Winnebago
Made with FlippingBook Learn more on our blog