Still No Decision on if Speedy Trial Rule Violated in Murder Case

By: Meghan Dwyer Email
By: Meghan Dwyer Email

ROCKFORD (WIFR) -- There’s still no decision today on whether Judge Ronald White will reinstate murder charges against a man accused in the first murder of 2011.

Prosecutors argued today that even though a trial didn't take place within 120 days it was the defense attorney who delayed the case. Prosecutors say they are worried a guilty man will go free and justice won't be served. The defense argued the judge made the right decision to dismiss the charges. That was hard to hear for the family of the victim, charles Spivey, they say they have been coming back to court over and over again without results.

The victim’s aunt Elizabeth Spivey said, "We’ve been coming to court for quite awhile now and it's very confusing and I’ll just be happy when it's over with and we want to see justice done."

There was extra security outside the courtroom today because fights have been breaking out between rival gang members involved in the case. It could be months before the judge rules one way or the other. Maxey is in prison for a separate case and he will be brought back to the Winnebago County Jail to wait out the speedy trial decision.


ROCKFORD (WIFR) -- One of the men accused of committing the first murder of 2011 has been released from the Winnebago County Jail.

Antwan Maxey was one of three men accused of killing Charles Spivey last January, but because his trial didn't happen within 120 days a judge dismissed it; however, prosecutors are fighting back.

Maxey was released today to the Stateville Correctional Center. He’s being held in prison for violating parole on a separate case, but the department of corrections won't say when he could be released. Meanwhile, prosecutors have filed a motion hoping the judge will change his mind on the murder charges.

Prosecutors say Maxey delayed the case and under state law it hadn't been 120 days. Spivey’s family is still holding out hope.

Spivey’s sister Alexandria Spivey said, "It's not fair but. Justice is going to be served. It's not the end of that though just because that ruling went through that day. It’s not the end. An appeal will be made."

Prosecutors also argue that Maxey's defense attorney delayed the trial by filing so many motions in the case because four other people were shot.

In addition to Spivey, there was a lot of evidence that had to be sorted throughl ike photos, videos, 911 calls and statements from witnesses.

Next, a judge will hear the prosecution’s arguments and decide whether or not to reinstate the murder charges. In the meantime Maxey will stay in prison


ROCKFORD (WIFR) -- 25-year-old Charles Spivey was shot to death at a house party on Sherman Avenue in January 2011. It was the first murder of the year.

Antwon Maxey was one of three men charged in the murder. Maxey was arrested in August, 2011 and booked into the Winnebago County Jail.

Last Friday his defense attorney argued that because he had yet to face trial, Illinois' speedy trial rule had been violated. The Speedy Trial Rule says defendants must be tried within 120 days of being arrested and booked into jail unless the case is continued.

Maxey's case was continued more than ten times, but many of those continuances came at the motion of the defense.

On Friday Judge Ronald White said he agreed the speedy trial rule had been violated and dismissed all charges against Maxey.

Maxey is still being held at the Winnebago County Jail because of a hold by the Illinois Department of Corrections. He was on parole for another crime back in 2011 when he was arrested.

He will likely be sent back to prison until his parole is discharged.

The Winnebago County State's Attorney Joe Bruscato says he plans to challenge the judge's ruling. His office does not feel the speedy trial rule was violated.

Spivey's twin sister Alexandria and Alexi want justice to be served. They don't understand how the case could be dismissed on a technicality.

"For someone that's up for a murder? That he could have possibly been the one who actually killed him? It's not fair for him to get off...Just because 120 days went past," said Alexandria Spivey.


You must be logged in to post comments.

Username:
Password (case sensitive):
Remember Me:

Read Comments

Comments are posted from viewers like you and do not always reflect the views of this station.
  • by Cop on Feb 12, 2012 at 09:17 AM
    As law enforcement in this city I hope that the citizens wake up to see how Broscato has let Marilyn Hite Ross destroy our judicial system. She is the worst thing that has ever happened to law enforcement. The entire force is in agreement with me when I say we are praying Broscato isn't reelected. This mistake happened directly because of her. The losses in court have happened because of her horrible decisions. We don't want to work with her, and I hope the voters help make that happen.
  • by wtf Location: rockford on Feb 11, 2012 at 12:18 PM
    20 grams of pot 6 years. murder you get to go free. gotta love the system way to go. what a joke.
  • by Rockford#9 Location: Rockford on Feb 10, 2012 at 09:27 PM
    To all of the Judge White Basher's, He's one of a few Judges that sets very High bonds 150K to 1 million to NO Bond. So don't complain. He's a very good Judge!
    • reply
      by Too Bad on Feb 11, 2012 at 01:26 PM in reply to Rockford#9
      White was a Logli prosecuter. His run as SA (Logli)was nothing but good ol boy paybacks. Look at the DUI's during that time. White is tough on those because the SA let so many go while in office. Poor Mr. White has had to sleep knowing how many drunks Logli let back on the road. You would be a fool to get a DUI now. He will fry you.
  • by Rockford#9 Location: Rockford on Feb 10, 2012 at 09:10 PM
    @dave I agree with you 100%. Joe you need to get rid of Hite-Ross. She's the one that running that office down the drain. Take a look at how many Murder cases the state has lost since Bruscato/Hotmess has taken office in 08. Check it out! BTW they were Found not guilty by a Jury!
  • by kitty Location: rockford on Feb 10, 2012 at 05:33 PM
    A law protecting a murderer? Where is the victim's protection? This has sickened me. We are working hard to get Rockford on the right track again in regards to safety and economy and we have a travesty like this happen. I agree, if there are continuances, then the 120 days should start over with every continuance. I don't want this murderer on the streets of Rockford!! I hope Judge White finds a way to correct this decision....I won't vote for him next election, if he doesn't!!
  • by Reality on Feb 10, 2012 at 03:36 PM
    As I've been there at every court date, read the motions and listened to all legal arguments as well as the Judges decision, I can tell you that the defense never agreed to any continuances. They demanded a speedy trial and continued to demand it at each court date. It sucks that this happened, the family of the victim has been victimized again.
    However, I beg the public to see the real problem. It's Broscato. He is the most losing prosecutor in the State of Illinois. He is unethical and covers up the truth. His only skill is being a politician, Winnebago county wake up at election time!
  • by Adam Location: Rockford, IL on Feb 4, 2012 at 11:50 AM
    Bruscato's office puts more resources into prosecuting cases punished with a fine. Perhaps if he could make the same money off of a murder as he does off of speeding tickets, possession of cannabis or DUIs his office would not have lost track of time on this murder case.
  • by Really? on Feb 4, 2012 at 11:27 AM
    Sum Tymes u must lower your vokabulary to the mentality of those you wish to reach. In your case sir silence should be golden. We will try again: In addition to the constitutional guarantee, various state and federal statutes confer a more specific right to a speedy trial. For example, in New York, the prosecution must be "ready for trial" within six months on all felonies except murder, or the charges are dismissed by action of law without regard to the merits of the case. Most, if not all, statutes defining a speedy trial include various exceptions. Examples of such exceptions are periods of time in which the delay preceding the trial is due to the request of the defense, or if there is good cause. I can't find the Sesame Street version for you.
  • by Dave Location: Rockford on Feb 2, 2012 at 12:31 PM
    The defense can agree if they like. The law is the law and the people that are paid good money by our tax dollars dropped the ball. Period, end of story, open the door and let the person out who's rights you violated.
    • reply
      by Really? on Feb 2, 2012 at 12:45 PM in reply to Dave
      The below is case law from the Supreme Court. Once the defense agrees to a continuance the 120 day law is out. PERIOD.
    • reply
      by Tim on Feb 2, 2012 at 02:02 PM in reply to Dave
      What about the right to life that the victim was denied thanks to this thug?
    • reply
      by Dave on Feb 3, 2012 at 05:33 AM in reply to Dave
      The thought process that because someone commits a crime or is accused of a crime they have no rights is to ridiculous to even comment on. Perhaps you did not read the story of the man in N.M left in a cell for two years with no trial, no medical attention and had to pull his tooth by hand. This just happened and was in the news. This is why these laws and guidelines are in place. Really please go do a better job on onderstanding the speedy trial rule as well as what took place here. BTW the man from N.M. In jail for GDI.
      • reply
        by Really? on Feb 3, 2012 at 01:29 PM in reply to Dave
        OK ONCE MORE. The defendant lost his right to 120 day trial when they either asked for or did not oppose a continuance. How hard is this to comprehend. The case you mention, the man never saw a judge ever! You cannot possibly be this ignorant in your thought process. This man (Antwan) is innocent until proven guilty. Now that this has happened, all lawyers can try this tactic. Dave either you are a defense lawyer or an idiot. The case has been quoted. I do assume you can read. Ron White made an incorrect ruling. He will be reversed upon appeal.
        • reply
          by Dave on Feb 4, 2012 at 05:23 AM in reply to Really?
          I love people that think they know everything all the wall hanging a for rent sign between their ears. The law is the law on both sides of the bars. Check your grammer and sentence structure before you crack on someone elses ability to read.
        • reply
          by @dave on Feb 4, 2012 at 07:39 PM in reply to Really?
          @Dave: How ironic it is for someone to criticize someone else's grammar and sentence structure, while butchering the English language in the process. Now, if you could, please explain to me how "all the wall," "grammer(sic)" and "someone elses(else's) is proper grammar? Since, you are after all, clearly a master of grammatical rules. Who else would brazenly wield such a sharp tongue as yours. ;)
  • by Really? on Feb 2, 2012 at 11:29 AM
    Reality. Please read this and retract your false statements. "According to People v. Hampton, the 120 period begins to toll when the defendant is taken into custody. But at any point the defendant agrees to a continuance or motions for one, the tolling stops. And if you agree to a motion by the State for a trial date outside of the 120 day period, you just lost the right to a trial within 120 days" Gee? Guess you were wrong. There is now way all continuances were opposed by the Defense. Sorry, nice try.
  • Page:
23 WIFR 2523 North Meridian Road Rockford, IL. 61101 Business: 815-987-5300 Fax: 815-965-0981 News: 815-987-5330 Fax: 815-987-5333
Copyright © 2002-2016 - Designed by Gray Digital Media - Powered by Clickability 138179349 - wifr.com/a?a=138179349
Gray Television, Inc.