Aimee Stewart, a woman who was jailed by a judge after failing to appear in court multiple times for a stolen motor vehicle case, is now seeking relief from the Illinois Supreme Court. Stewart, 38, was arrested on December 29, 2023, and subsequently missed court dates on multiple occasions, including March 21, June 5, September 4, 2024, and October 15 of the same year. Despite turning herself in on November 5, she was charged with possessing a controlled substance at the time of surrender.
Judge Steven Rosenblum ordered Stewart to be detained for her repeated failure to appear in court, even though prosecutors did not file a detention petition as required by the SAFE-T Act. The judge expressed frustration with the limitations imposed by the Act, which restricts the amount of time a defendant can be detained for failure to appear to 30 days.
Stewart’s defense attorneys argued that she was a passenger in a car reported stolen by her grandmother, who alleged that Stewart drove off with the vehicle after being given a ride to a train station. During a hearing on November 5, Stewart assured the judge that she would not miss any future court dates, to which Rosenblum responded by stating that he would not release her.
Rosenblum criticized the SAFE-T Act, claiming that it prevented him from administering justice effectively in Stewart’s case. He contended that the Act was unconstitutional when applied to individuals like Stewart who repeatedly failed to appear in court.
In January, prosecutors filed a detention petition against Stewart under the flight risk provision of the SAFE-T Act. However, her defense attorneys challenged the validity of the petition, arguing that it was not based on any new information.
Rosenblum did not consider the petition and suggested that the Supreme Court should intervene to address the constitutional issues raised by the Act. He emphasized the need for judges to have discretion in handling cases like Stewart’s.
During arguments before the Supreme Court, Assistant Public Defender Rebecca Cohen maintained that judges should not substitute their own policy considerations for those of the legislature. Special Assistant Attorney General Alan Spellberg countered by asserting that judges have the authority to deny pretrial release when there is evidence that the defendant will not appear in court.
The Supreme Court is expected to deliver a decision on Stewart’s case later this year, which will have implications for the interpretation and application of the SAFE-T Act in similar situations. Supporters of Stewart are hopeful that the court will provide clarity on the issue and ensure that justice is served fairly and effectively.
