 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Thornton8/16/2002
cked on the door and indicated to the sheriff that she wasn't feeling well. I then had her brought into my chambers with the attorneys. While we were speaking to her, the sheriff informed me that there was another knock on the door and someone indicating that the jury had reached a verdict, is that correct?
THE JURY FOREMAN: That's right.
THE COURT: Was [the ill juror] in the room when the jury reached a unanimous verdict?
THE JURY FOREMAN: We have received her at least implicit approval on the verdict. We had unanimously on the first verdict and we were-been working for an hour and a half or two on the second, and we had at least her implicit approval, and there were two other people who had not yet decided on the verdict, but she was not one of those two.
THE COURT: Okay.
THE JURY FOREMAN: So we assumed on their change we were okay to move forward with it, with the verdict.
THE COURT: When [the ill juror] came back into the room, did you verify that with her?
THE JURY FOREMAN: Yes.
THE COURT: [Defense Counsel], would you like to have the verdicts published and the jury polled?
DEFENSE COUNSEL: Yes, Ma'am.
THE COURT: Ask the Clerk to publish the verdicts. I don't want any reaction from the people in the gallery.
THE CLERK: 'We, the jury, find the defendant, Tyrone Thornton, guilty of aggravated kidnaping, great bodily harm. We, the jury, find the defendant, Tyrone Thornton, guilty of aggravated kidnaping with ransom.'
THE COURT: Ladies and gentleman, at this time the clerk is going to be asking each of you individually a question, and that is, 'were these then and are these now your verdicts?'
DEFENSE COUNSEL: Your Honor, so the record is completely clear, could you inquire as to which one of the two was the one that was under discussion towards the end?
THE COURT: Which verdict?
DEFENSE COUNSEL: Yes, Ma'am.
THE COURT: Mr. Ingliss, could you answer that question?
THE JUROR: Great bodily harm.
THE COURT: Anything else?
DEFENSE COUNSEL: Could you perhaps ask the foreman what words were used in the jury room to affirm that verdict due to the absence of the one of the members of the jury when that verdict was apparently reached.
THE COURT: Could you repeat that please?
DEFENSE COUNSEL: Yes, Ma'am. Could you perhaps inquire of the jury what words were used to affirm the verdict that was apparently reached when one of the jury members on that one count, great bodily harm, was in your chambers.
THE COURT: I believe that infringes on the secretiveness of the jury deliberations and I will not ask that question.
DEFENSE COUNSEL: Thank you, judge."
Defendant's initial assertion of error based on these facts is that the separation of the ill juror from the jury during deliberations violated the applicable state statute.
Section 115-4 of the Illinois Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (725 ILCS 5/115-4 (West 1996)) reads, in relevant part, as follows:
"(l) When the jury retires to consider its verdict an officer of the court shall be appointed to keep them together and to prevent conversation between the jurors and others; however, if any juror is deaf, the jury may be accompanied by and may communicate with a court-appointed interpreter during its deliberations. Upon agreement between the State and defendant or his counsel the jury may seal and deliver its verdict to the clerk of the court, separate, and then return such verdict in open court at its next sess
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.
|
|