EAST ST. LOUIS — A man found guilty of theft for allegedly obtaining control of a Granite City property by deception is suing the State Appellate Public Defender's office, alleging "literally decades" of delays in securing representation has affected his appeal of the verdict.
Jerry Yeager, Jr., individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, filed a complaint March 3 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois against Office of the State Appellate Defender, Thomas Breen, Carol Brook, James Brusatte and others in their official capacities as commissioners of the Board of the State Appellate Defender, alleging violation of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Yeager is represented by Thomas Maag of The Maag Law Firm LLC in Wood River.
According to the complaint, Yeager was charged with criminal felonies and tried in Madison County Circuit Court. During that trial, Yeager had private counsel. He states in his complaint that at his trial, he was acquitted of all charges "actually contained in the charging document" and was convicted of only one "alleged lesser" offense.
According to the criminal complaint, Yeager was arrested by the Granite City Police Department in December 2016 for allegedly deceiving a elderly Granite City couple between April 2014 and December 2014. Trial was held in May 2019. Yeager was found guilty of theft for obtaining control of the victims' property by deception with intent to deprive them of the use or value of it. He was found not guilty of aggravated home repair fraud.
Yeager claims in his complaint that he made a "timely appeal" on Sept. 2, 2020, but did not have enough funds for private counsel. His appeal was sent to the Illinois State Appellate Public Defender. Yeager alleges that he was told by the public defender's office that it would "be months" before he would be assigned an attorney. After six months, he claims he still has no representation.
"As of the date of this case plaintiff has not yet actually meet (sic) with, or speak with, any actual attorney with the public defender's office, but instead, has been told by support staff at that office that an attorney will contact him, when that attorney is actually assigned his file and actually begins work on his file, anticipated to be several months from now, despite plaintiff filling his notice of appeal about six months ago," Maag wrote.
Yeager further alleges that lack of funding has caused "literally decades" of delays and failures of the State Appellate Defender. He claims he has suffered impact on his retrial and his ability to "reconstruct his defense" as well as possible incarceration because of the delay.
"[J]ustice delayed is justice denied," Maag wrote.
Yeager claims his appeal is "non-frivolous" and argues that the jury verdict was "legally inconsistent."
"If plaintiff wins his appeal, which is substantially likely, he will not have to serve any jail time, or be a convicted felon," Maag wrote.
The complaint states that in 2008, the appellate court noted that the state relies upon the Office of the State Appellate Defender filing briefs in a timely fashion and discourages motions for continuance.
The suit states that there was a reported 29 percent decrease in the backlog of cases in February 2020.
"A 29% reduction from '20 months' to begin working on a file, translates, into plain English, as a 14.2 months delay for the Public Defender to even look at a file, not conclude it, or well over a year," Maag wrote.
Yeager alleges the backlog was created by years of inadequate funding.
Yeager seeks class certification, including "all persons, who has pending criminal appeals in the Illinois Appellate Court on the date that this case was filed, or who, while this case is pending come to have a pending case in the Illinois Appellate court, and, who are represented by the Illinois State Appellate Public Defender while their case is on appeal."
The plaintiff seeks an order directing the defendants to hire sufficient attorneys and staff or to provide funding for private counsel of the each class member's choice. He also seeks an order enjoining the defendants from accepting or working on any additional cases until sufficient funding and attorneys are hired.
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois case number 3:21-CV-00245-RJD