Ezel / Ethics Opinions / JUDICIAL-IL

Should a sentencing judge testify at the sentenced prisoner’s parole hearing?

Short answer The Committee suggested declining the Prisoner Review Board’s request, while saying the public-comment rule’s application to such testimony was arguable.
Bar
JUDICIAL-IL
Issued
January 19, 1994

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 1994. Ask about yours and see what the current rules of professional conduct in your state say for your facts, with citations.

Disclaimer: Advisory only. Not binding precedent.
About this page: The plain-English summary, reader guidance, and Q&A below were written by Ezel based on the official ethics opinion. The original opinion (linked on this page) is the authoritative source for any reliance.

Plain-English summary

The Prisoner Review Board asked the judge who sentenced a prisoner to testify when the prisoner came up for parole.

The Committee suggested that the judge respectfully decline, saying review of the sentencing decision should occur through the appellate process.

It considered former Rule 63A(6)’s prohibition on public comment about pending or impending court proceedings. The opinion described its application to parole testimony as arguable, noting the possibility of future court challenges to incarceration. The archive also publishes the same analysis under Opinion 94-13.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1994 under the 1993 Illinois Code of Judicial Conduct. The Committee’s archive says that Code was superseded on January 1, 2023, and does not assess the effect of the 2023 Code. Treat this page as historical context and verify the current Code before relying on its analysis.

Common questions

Q: Did the Committee suggest that the judge testify?

A: No. It suggested respectfully declining.

Q: Did it decide testimony definitely violated Rule 63A(6)?

A: No. It called the rule’s application arguable.

Q: Does the archive contain another opinion with this analysis?

A: Yes. Opinion 94-13 reproduces the same substantive text under a different opinion number and date.

Background and rules framework

The opinion considered former Illinois Supreme Court Rule 63A(6)’s restriction on judges’ public comments about pending or impending proceedings and its possible application to a parole hearing.

Citations and references

  • Illinois Supreme Court Rule 63A(6).

See also

Source

What do the rules say today, for your facts?

This opinion is from 1994. Ezel checks the current rules of professional conduct in your state against your situation and cites the rules it relies on.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace