Had her organic chemistry class not taken a toll on her, Judge Creswell, who was a pre-med major at the time, might now be known as Dr. Creswell. Two of Judge Creswell’s professors urged and persuaded her to pursue law school, however, and she heeded that encouragement and applied to DePaul University College of Law in Chicago. Then, while in law school, Judge Creswell held a part-time position at the American Bar Association, where she was involved with the Model Rules of Professional Conduct. She also worked in the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office, under a Rule 711 license handling criminal matters at 26th and California in Chicago.
In 1985, then DuPage County State’s Attorney Jim Ryan offered Judge Creswell a job in the State’s Attorney’s Office. There, she found what she loved about the practice of law – the opportunity to work in the courtroom every day. Like almost all Assistant State’s Attorneys, Judge Creswell began in traffic and then moved to misdemeanors. She was later named head of the Domestic Violence Unit. Her appetite for the courtroom growing, she offered to work on any trial in the office. The result was Judge Creswell’s handling more criminal trials than any other attorney in the office at that time. Eventually named Chief of the Special Prosecutions Division, her voracious trial appetite continued with her handling several capital cases.
After almost ten years with the State’s Attorney’s Office, Judge Creswell decided to pursue a career on the bench. In February 1995, she was appointed as an associate judge in the Eighteenth Judicial Circuit. In 2001, she was appointed by the Illinois Supreme Court to fill the circuit judge vacancy that occurred when the Honorable Thomas E. Callum was appointed to the Second District Appellate Court. She subsequently won the election for that seat.
Though she practiced criminal law and later presided over criminal matters as a judge, Judge Creswell did serve as a judge in the Domestic Relations Division for a period of time. She said she recalled sitting at her bench when she first started, noticing a calculator and wondering why it was there. She learned soon thereafter how often it would get used in that division. Judge Creswell returned to the felony division, where she currently presides for a second time.
She told us that, as a judge, “one of the biggest challenges is to keep educating oneself.” She noted that “judges only know what the parties are going to tell the court.” When asked if she finds it difficult to separate that challenge from dealing with what is not presented to the Court, Judge Creswell said, “no, the judge’s job is to deal with the case as it is presented, not how the judge thinks it should be presented or argued.” Felony judges, along with arraignments and trials, also review search warrants, set bonds, and address post-conviction relief petitions. Judge Creswell said, “these petitions are time-consuming and difficult to handle. An inmate may file a post-conviction petition while his or her case is on appeal. The Court file has to be retrieved from the Appellate Court and the Judge has 90 days to address the petition. Inmates are not entitled to counsel on a post-conviction petition, so they often file one or more petitions. No matter how lacking the argument may be, the Court must still address the petition.”
Judge Creswell said that she presiding over the Felony Division is not particularly difficult because “all of the judges in the division are great and hardworking and very few complaints are received.” In addition to her own case load in Courtroom 4014, however, there are a number of other obligations she must attend to as Presiding Judge. She told us that the meetings she holds for the felony division judges focus on “communication and idea sharing, discussing legal arguments and case issues.” She also has meetings with the ancillary departments of the criminal justice system, including regular meetings with the State’s Attorney’s and Public Defender’s Offices, and with jail personnel. Monthly meetings with the Department of Probation and Court Services are also part of the package, as are communicating problems and suggestions from the judges and discussing concerns and suggestions from probation officers. She also meets from time to time with the Clerk of the Circuit Court regarding such issues as restitution and computerization of court orders and presides over the Grand Jury.
During this interview, Judge Creswell expressed high regard for the DuPage County Bar Association. “Early in my career,” she said, “I was active in the DCBA, serving on the Publication Board of the DCBA Brief and on the Judiciary Committee. The work of the DCBA, particularly on the Judiciary Committee, is very valuable in the judicial candidate selection process.” About the attorneys she sees everyday in court, she said, “The caliber of lawyers handling felony cases is excellent,” she said. “They are prepared, professional, and are appropriately respectful to the Court.”
Despite her caseload, her presiding judge obligations, and her personal schedule, Judge Creswell still manages to maintain her involvement in the advancement of the legal profession. A member of the Illinois Supreme Court Committee on Capital Cases, she is also a faculty member at the semiannual Capital Litigation Series seminars, a biannually required seminar for all Illinois judges hearing capital cases. She has previously served on the Illinois Courts Commission and presently sits as a Commissioner on the Illinois Supreme Court Commission on Professionalism, as she has since its inception.
One issue which Judge Creswell had concern with, finally, is the availability of cell phones with cameras. The nature of cases in the Felony Division causes Judge Creswell “serious concern” about any plans to permit the general public to bring camera phones into the courthouse. There is a dilemma, she said, between denying the public access to telephone communication and protecting undercover officers and witnesses, whose photographs should be avoided. Police officers regularly come before the Court regarding warrants or to provide testimony, she pointed out. As courtrooms are open to the public, there is very little that could be done if a defendant or their cohort were to click a camera phone picture of an officer or witness and send it to others. She pointed out that other judges in the criminal courts are likely to agree with her. “The potential for intimidation of witnesses,” she pointed out, “or of compromising investigations strikes a chord with many of the felony division judges. I believe that the Sheriff, who is responsible for the safety of the occupants of the building, should have the last word on the issue.” □
|