skip navigation


Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.


NCJ Number: 77496 Find in a Library
Title: Change of Venue for Judicial Prejudice
Journal: Chicago Bar Record  Volume:60  Issue:2  Dated:(September/October 1978)  Pages:112-116,118-119
Author(s): M J Polelle
Date Published: 1978
Page Count: 7
Format: Article
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: This article describes the provisions under Illinois law for change of venue in civil and criminal cases for judicial prejudice; problems with case classification are highlighted.
Abstract: At common law, no provision existed for change of venue for judicial prejudice. However, separate statutory provisions now provide for such change in both civil and criminal cases. In civil cases, the Illinois Venue Act provides that a change in judicial venue may be made when any party or the individual's attorney fears that a fair trial will not be received because of judicial prejudice. No party may have more than one change of venue, and the motion for change must be verified by affidavit of the petitioner. If the motion is filed in a timely manner, it need only state a general allegation of prejudice on the part of the judge. A common practical problem for attorneys and judges is whether the venue act can be invoked against a pretrial judge. The Illinois Code of Criminal Procedure, in criminal cases, provides for a substitution of judge procedure that is basically similar to the civil venue act. A substitution motion in the criminal law area is timely if made before the trial judge has ruled on any substantive issues. Due to differences of timing and formalities between the civil venue act and the criminal substitution of judge provisions, the legal problem must be classified as either civil or criminal to determine which statute governs. The major classification problem occurs in contempt cases. The article includes 48 footnotes.
Index Term(s): Change of venue; Criminal proceedings; Discrimination; Illinois; Judges; Judicial conduct and ethics; Judicial discretion; Law reform; Pretrial procedures; Right to fair trial; State laws
To cite this abstract, use the following link:

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.