Varianna Parsons was jailed for 170 days while awaiting trial only to be found not guilty. Unfortunately, she is not alone. While the Pretrial Fairness Act ended Illinois’ use of money bond in pretrial release decisions, it did not eliminate all pretrial detention. Although judges are receiving more information and taking more time to make pretrial release decisions, many judges continue to detain people who could safely return to the community while awaiting trial. Varianna’s story should serve as warning to judges about the harm they cause when they are overly cautious about who they will allow to return to the community while awaiting trial.

In October 2025, a Winnebago County judge presided over a hearing to determine whether Varianna Parsons, a 20-year-old Black woman who was charged with the murder of a white homeless man and obstruction of justice, should be detained pretrial. After hearing evidence, including the fact that Ms. Parsons herself was not the person alleged to have actually killed the man, the judge denied the State’s request for detention, finding that there were sufficient conditions to mitigate any safety risk she might pose. 

Two days later, State’s Attorney J. Hanley took to Facebook to report on the unsuccessful detention petition and announced his intention to file a motion arguing that the judge’s decision was wrong and again seek Ms. Parsons’ detention. A number of people responded to the post, decrying the judge and the Pretrial Fairness Act. Rockford Mayor Tom McNamara also weighed in, calling the judge’s decision “at best, disheartening and, at worse, negligent” and “unacceptable”. The judge who presided over the original detention hearing was then subjected to escalated harassment and threats, placing her and her family’s safety at risk, according to the Chief Judge of the 17^th Circuit. Chief Judge John Lowry even took the unusual step of admonishing public officials like the Mayor for their attacks on the judge, stating that such statements constitute “an attack on her judicial competence and integrity.” He went on to caution:

The current political climate includes all-time high threats, harassment and violence against judges. Inflammatory rhetoric toward judges is a contributing factor. Fair criticism of a judge’s ruling should focus on the evidence presented at court and the applicable law. Motions to reconsider and the appellate process are the appropriate venues to address disagreement. Judges should be allowed to make impartial decisions free from outside influence in order to preserve judicial independence – a cornerstone of our democracy.

It was against the backdrop of this outcry that a second judge who was asked to reconsider the original judge’s decision reversed it and ordered Ms. Parsons, who was presumed innocent, to be jailed pending trial. One cannot help but wonder if the second judge, whether intentionally or subconsciously, was thinking about the attacks on her colleague when she issued her ruling.

The Pretrial Fairness Act is intended to ensure that people who do not pose credible safety risks are allowed to remain in community while their cases proceed and the evidence against them is ultimately evaluated. In normal times, prosecutors who disagree with a judge’s decision would request that the judge reconsider it by filing a motion in court or filing an appeal. Now, when a prosecutor or other elected official—especially those hostile to the Pretrial Fairness Act—disagrees with a decision of a judge, they issue public pronouncements decrying the decision. 

Perhaps emboldened by President Trump, who routinely lashes out against judges who issue rulings counter to his interests, attacks on judges have become more frequent and more aggressive. Like Trump, irresponsible elected officials are trying to inflame public opinion to intimidate judges into issuing rulings that are based not on the law, but on fear. We must continue to resist efforts to undermine the Pretrial Fairness Act and judges who are faithfully applying it so that the next Varianna Parsons is not unjustly forced to spend a single day, much less 170 days, in jail before acquittal.