 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Thornton8/16/2002
police to be allowed to call his lawyer several times but they refused. When the assistant State's Attorney questioned the defendant, the defendant lied because he was afraid. Eventually, the assistant State's Attorney told defendant that nothing would come of this incident and he could go home if he signed a statement. Defendant testified that the assistant State's Attorney made up everything in the statement. Defendant admitted that he signed all seven pages of the written statement. The defense rested.
The jury found defendant guilty of two counts of aggravating kidnaping. Defendant's motion for new trial was denied. After a hearing in aggravation and mitigation, the trial court sentenced defendant to 10 years in prison on one count of aggravated kidnaping. This appeal followed.
ANALYSIS
Juror Separation
Defendant first argues that his convictions must be reversed because during jury deliberations, a juror who complained of being ill was brought to the judge's chambers. There, she was questioned by the court on the record in the presence of counsel for both sides but not in the presence of defendant. The record reflects that the following took place:
"THE COURT: Come on in.
THE JUROR: I don't know if it's something I ate.
THE COURT: The food here, that could be true. Which jury are you on?
THE JUROR: The Tyrone Thornton.
THE COURT: Thornton jury. You are on the jury on deliberating. Do you think that if we stopped deliberations at this time that you would be able to continue deliberating tomorrow?
THE JUROR: I don't know that's possible.
THE COURT: Do you feel like you could continue to deliberate now?
THE JUROR: Oh, God no. I have been getting real nauseous.
THE COURT: Does either attorney have any questions for [the juror]?
THE STATE: No.
THE COURT: You want to go back with your fellow jurors. We will be with you in a minute, okay?
THE JUROR: Thank you.
DEFENSE COUNSEL: Did he say that they have verdict?
THE COURT: He said one of the jurors knocked on the door.
DEFENSE COUNSEL: That was at the same time this woman is sitting here. You asked her if she could continue deliberating she said God no. Does she need a doctor? I am very worried about the unanimity of the verdict at this point in time.
THE COURT: Well, at this point in time we don't have a unanimous verdict.
DEFENSE COUNSEL: I wouldn't think so.
THE SHERIFF: They say they reached a verdict. They were signing one of the forms.
THE STATE: Should we give them a few minutes?
THE COURT: Yes. The jury indicated they had reached a verdict. In conjunction based on what transpired in my chambers, I think that it would be prudent to bring them out and question them about the chronology of their reaching a verdict and then see what they have together.
DEFENSE COUNSEL: I agree judge."
Apparently, during the discussions with the ill juror regarding her medical status and possible ability to continue, unbeknownst to the trial court, the remaining jurors continued to deliberate, ultimately reaching a verdict. Once back in open court, the following exchange took place on the record:
"THE COURT: You may be seated. Mr. Foreman, has the jury reached verdicts in this case?
THE JURY FOREMAN: We have.
THE COURT: Would you give the verdict forms to the sheriff, please. Mr. Foreman, during the deliberations, one of the jurors, * * *who is a member of this jury, kno
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Illinois DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|