 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. McMillin9/1/2004
nt's sundry crimes. Here is an excerpt of defense counsel's somewhat remarkable questioning of his client.
"Q. [DANIEL GOGGIN (defense counsel):] Prior to the charges you're facing today you've had two prior DUIs; is that correct?
A. [THE DEFENDANT:] Yes, sir.
Q. The first one was when?
A. December '90.
Q. And your second one was?
A. In '91, I think.
* * *
Q. Then sometime later you ended up pleading guilty to an aggravated battery charge?
*342 A. Yes, sir.
* * *
Q. What year was that, do you recall?
A. It was around '94, I believe.
* * *
Q. As a part of your sentence on that you were to do so many weekends in the county jail?
A. Yeah, I had-if I recall, I think it was like 20 weekends, or something like that.
* * *
Q. Then you had occasion in '96 to be charged[-]felony charge[-]driving on revoked?
A. In '96? Yeah.
* * *
Q. What was your sentence on that '96 charge?
A. Three years [D]epartment of [C]orrections."
Thus, the jury learned about the defendant's life of crime, a past that defense counsel declared relevant to the jury's decisionmaking**16 ***505 and important to reaching a proper outcome on the case. The defendant's jury was assisted in deciding whether the defendant drove drunk, and drove on a revoked license, by knowing that the defendant had been caught and convicted of driving drunk on two separate prior occasions. The jury was also helped in its decisionmaking by knowing that the defendant had no qualms about driving after his license had been revoked. It learned through defense counsel's questioning that the defendant had done it before and had been sent to prison for it. Clearly, counsel aptly established the relevant, albeit highly prejudicial fact that this defendant had an absolute penchant for committing the crimes with which he was charged. Beyond that, jurors learned that they were dealing with an individual who had been in and out of prisons and jails throughout the preceding decade, due to a decade's disdain for the law.
This rather convincing proof of the defendant's propensity for committing the crimes with which he was charged, in addition to a violent felony offense, was not good enough for the prosecutor. Since defense counsel had opened the door to the defendant's criminal history, the prosecutor felt at liberty to explore the topic during cross-examination. The following is an excerpt of that examination. Defense counsel was silent throughout the questioning.
"Q. [ROBERT MATOUSH (State's Attorney):] You told us about your aggravated battery conviction. You didn't tell us about an escape conviction, did you?
*343 A. [THE DEFENDANT:] I wasn't asked.
Q. Well, did you--after you pled guilty to aggravated battery[,] were you supposed to show up at the jail?
A. I had a bum lawyer named Huey Craig that said I was done with my weekends and I only had like a couple--about three weekends left and he said I was done, because they changed it from every weekend to every other weekend, and then about six months later down the road I get arrested for escape charge [sic ] from Clinton County.
Q. And then you pled guilty to that charge, didn't you?
A. I didn't have much to stand on. They done had me guilty right that day in the courtroom. Right there in Clinton County.
Q. So you got two DUIs and you've got an aggravated battery that [sic ] you've been convicted of an escape, and what else, felony driving while license revoked?
A. From the DUIs.
Q. When did you get the felony driving while license revoked?
A. It was in '96.
Q. You went to prison, right?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How much prison did you do? You told us you did three years.
A. I did two years out of a three[-]year sentence.
Q. So you did two years, not three.
A. I got a three[-]year sent
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Illinois DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|