On direct examination of Detective Michael Albrecht, the following colloquy occurred: Defense counsel immediately objected and asked for a side bar. Two or three hours later, Pernell saw defendant lying underneath the bed with a towel wrapped around his neck. He testified that "borderline" appeared for the first time in psychiatric nomenclature in Diagnostic Statistical Manual III (DSM III), that the diagnosis was quite controversial, and that "it is our single outstanding problem." Since counsel's plan seems to have been to limit his presentation at the sentencing hearing to a plea for mercy, counsel may have decided that any continuance in a trial which has already *95 lasted more than one month, with a jury in sequestration, would serve only to antagonize the jury toward the party requesting the continuance. Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia (1980), 448 U.S. 555, 580-81, 65 L. Ed. He was half-dressed, his face completely. When asked his opinion as to whether he was legally sane under Illinois standards, the People objected and a side bar was had. 1979, ch. ce moment-l , John est venu dans sa voiture et lui a offert un tour et de la marijuana. PDF COMME NT Toward a Balanced Equation: Advocating Consistency in the There are authorities which hold that the statements made by the accused to the examining psychiatrist should be admitted. Dr. Rappaport theorized that defendant placed the bodies in the basement because his father had placed "his junk or * * * paraphernalia" down in the basement. The 6 most disturbing John Wayne Gacy moments from Netflix's - Salon The police assumed that Jeffs encounter with Gacy was a consensual arrangement, he says. From the context of the statements, we find that the assistant State's Attorney was merely arguing that the People *98 had proved their case, and were entitled to a decision in their favor. Within less than a month, they spotted Gacys car, andtrailed him. He testified that defendant once asked him if he would engage in homosexual activity if it "meant his job." On cross-examination, Dr. Traisman agreed that it would be correct to say that defendant was a very severely disturbed man "but who reflects sufficient *58 awareness of any aggressive destructive behavior * * * [and] * * * knows the nature of any antisocial acts he might perform and * * * would be quite cognizant of whether or not they are right or wrong on a moral level." In many instances, defendant had no other questions to ask of the jurors. We disagree. We find that while the court might properly have made such an inquiry, it was not required to do so because the court questioned the prospective juror sufficiently as to the sources from which he had learned of the case, and whether he had formed an opinion from these sources and from persons who may have expressed opinions about the case. To close the proceedings to the public requires a more compelling reason than was shown to exist here. Dr. Rappaport testified that defendant would have brief psychotic episodes which would occur as a result of rage where "he thought these boys were him and he was the father" and the unmanageable rage he felt was actually against himself. Dr. Brocher replied: "Well, that's maybe a legal viewpoint; it's not a psychiatric viewpoint, because in psychiatry you have to understand the motivation why somebody is doing something. Third, "human interest" stories focused on an individual's involvement in the case rather than the actual facts of the case. He repeatedly stated, "You love it," talked in obscenities, and "made it clear" to Rignall that defendant was in complete control. Under this theory, information which is associated with a strong emotional response is much more easily remembered than information which does not evoke a particular emotional response. No objection was made to this argument, so it too is waived. Defendant argues that the assistant State's Attorney *89 improperly stated that Dr. Heston had not been compensated for examining the defendant. Defendant's argument, however, concerns the persuasiveness of the assistant State's Attorney's argument, not its impropriety. 1979, ch. Dr. Richard Rappaport, a psychiatrist, testified that defendant was "borderline" with the psychosexual disorders of fetishism, homosexuality, sexual sadism, and necrophilia. We conclude that the issuing judge had a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed, and we decline to disturb his determination. Rignall wrote the book '29 Below' about the experience in 1979. On cross-examination, Dr. Freedman stated that defendant could not control when the outcroppings would occur. William Kunkle, retired Judge of the Circuit Court of Cook County describes his story at the time as vague, saying Rignall didnt know where the house was or what it looked like, so it was a very minimalist police report and nothing transpired.. While such articles purportedly dealt with legal issues, they were loaded *40 with emotional terms and tended to bias the reader towards the view point of the writer. Defendant also argues that the assistant State's Attorney's opening statement at the death penalty hearing was improper because, when commenting on the statutory mitigating factor that the murders were committed while the defendant was under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance, he told the jurors that they had flatly rejected that factor when they found defendant guilty and that the mitigating factors were simply statutory guidelines, and not loopholes for the defendant. Defendant's other citations to trial counsel's alleged incompetence are without merit. Defendant also argues that the evidence of extreme disturbance was not the only mitigating evidence in the record, and that evidence which showed that defendant "was a good husband and stepfather * * *, a good friend to many * * *, a loving son and brother * * *, a successful businessman * * *, a civic leader active in charitable work and politics * * *," and while awaiting trial, "an ideal prisoner," also constituted mitigating evidence. 1979, ch. The only case cited by defendant in his brief in support of his contention is People v. Speck (1968), 41 Ill. 2d 177. We cannot agree. The assistant State's Attorney argued: Defendant did not object to this argument and any alleged error is waived. The court may have decided that an objection made in that form should pass without further comment. Defendant then drove off. The gun contained a blank. 'Judy Justice' Renewed, 'Justice on Trial' Spinoff Greenlit - Variety Dr. Rappaport consulted with Dr. Cornelia Wilbur, a known authority in the field of multiple personalities, and she confirmed his conclusion that this was not a case of multiple personality. He remembers John being naked and masturbating in front of him. 38, par. Anna Watts for The New York Times. Two psychologists and two psychiatrists testified on behalf of defendant. Once inside, Gacy tortured the young man, tying him up and repeatedly beating, raping, and chloroforming him. Defendant then left the room. The People argue that defendant has offered no evidence which raises a reasonable doubt as to his sanity at the time of the alleged crimes; "that even assuming that the issue was adequately raised, the proof of Gacy's sanity *69 during the murders was overwhelming; and that as a matter of law, the jury's determination should not be disturbed.". On re-cross-examination, the following colloquy occurred: The objection was sustained and the court instructed the jury: The People argue that this was proper impeachment because the jury could have inferred that what "no one doubted" was that Dr. Freedman was correct in his opinion concerning whether Simon Peter Nelson was legally sane or not, and not whether he was with Nelson when he had a recurrence of his psychotic episode. Third, defendant argues that the assistant State's Attorney improperly distorted the testimony of Dr. Rappaport and Dr. Eliseo. We agree with defendant that evidence adduced at the suppression hearing may not be used to bolster the sufficiency of the complaint for warrant. While defendant has attempted to distinguish Kubat by arguing that the *100 defendant in that case had waived his right to complain about the conflicting instructions because no objection was made to them, we find the circumstances here more compelling to hold that the error was harmless since the instruction was incorrect in only one of the readings and in none of the written forms. Sign up forOxygen Insiderfor all the best true crime content. The clerk is directed to enter an order setting Wednesday, the 14th day of November, 1984, as the date on which the sentence of death entered by the circuit court of Cook County shall be executed. (Illinois v. Gates (1983), 462 U.S. 213, 238, 76 L. Ed. We have reviewed defendant's contentions, and are of the opinion that the assistant State's Attorney did not transcend the bounds of proper argument by characterizing Dr. Rappaport's testimony as he did or in drawing the inferences he believed were proper from that testimony. If defendant had revealed to his attorneys any details whatsoever concerning the 33 murders, defendant's attorneys were aware that some 27 or so bodies were buried in the crawl space and in other parts of defendant's home and that the police were on the verge of uncovering these bodies. After stating his diagnosis, Dr. Freedman explained how he reached his conclusions. Defendant next complains that the prejudicial arguments of the assistant State's Attorneys denied him a fair sentencing hearing. The People's response to this bias argument, at least as far as Dr. Rappaport is concerned, appears to be that, as a private practitioner, Dr. Rappaport would rely heavily on defense attorneys and criminal defendants for business. He then showed Donnelly nude magazine pictures of girls, asked him if he liked them, and when Donnelly said yes, told Donnelly that he was sick. He was put to death in 1994. The testimony shows that "borderline personality disorder" was given that designation for the first time in DSM III (Diagnostic Statistical Manual III), which was approved and adopted by the American Psychiatric Association while this case was being tried. We also note that no questions concerning the death penalty appear in defense counsel's list of questions submitted to the circuit court prior to voir dire. Stat. He explained that the description of narcissistic personality contains many of the elements of the antisocial personality, and that the antisocial personality is a subtype of narcissistic personality. First, defense counsel asked Dr. Rappaport a series of questions concerning how "substance use disorders" fit into Dr. Rappaport's diagnosis. When Ried turned around and saw him coming, defendant stopped and stated that he thought there might be trouble. The first witness was Jeff Rignall, a surviving victim of Gacy's attack. As indicated above, at opening argument defense counsel stated that four psychiatrists would testify for the defense. Moreover, the evidence concerning Piest's activities in school and outside of school was relevant to defendant's statement to Officer Bettiker that Piest stated he would do almost anything for a great deal of money and the suggestion of a possible exchange of money for sex acts involved in the Piest murder. We agree that the remark was improper as it tended to inject the "cost factor" and the assistant State's Attorney's personal beliefs into the jury's deliberations. Defendant also contends that the news media, permitted to attend the voir dire, could reveal the questions leading to excusal of jurors, thus enabling prospective jurors to learn of these questions and formulate answers which would either avoid or require their own excusal. See also People v. Brownell (1980), 79 Ill. 2d 508, 541-44. In sum, we conclude that all the alleged errors during argument, as reviewed together, would not constitute reversible error. On this record the instruction was sufficient to render harmless any effect which the testimony may have caused, and we find no error which warrants reversal. Defendant then grabbed Rignall's head and shoved his penis into Rignall's mouth, shouting: "You love it, you love it," with a tone of voice used by a drill instructor. The People contend *109 that while the death penalty may not deter a crime of passion, the death penalty in Illinois is not applicable to such a crime, but may very well provide the deterrence for a criminal who wishes to eliminate potential witnesses, the murderer who kills people in exchange for money, and other premeditated murderers. We find that the complaint, when viewed as a whole, is sufficient, and the circuit court correctly refused to suppress the evidence seized as the result of the warrant's execution. Dr. Cavanaugh stated that it was impossible to guarantee confinement in a mental institution because the legal standards for confinement to an insane asylum were constantly changing. Jeffrey Rignall was visiting Chicago from Louisville, Kentucky, in March 1978. Stat. Dr. Morrison believed that defendant suffers from psychological hallucinations where he would see parts of him which were split off in his victims. Gacy was found sane and convicted. Several members of defendant's family and childhood friends testified concerning defendant's past. shakespeare quotes about trees; jeffrey rignall testimony transcript. Defendant asserts that defense counsel were required to bring out defendant's statements in cross-examination *73 of the People's experts because they "had to keep in mind that the judge had repeatedly ruled that the State experts could refer to statements made by the defendant to justify their conclusions." Defendant was a building contractor and had spent much of the evening in the Nisson Pharmacy. The assistant State's Attorney stressed that the confessions of defendant, as corroborated by physical evidence and the testimony of other witnesses, would show that defendant committed the murders because the victims were "an inconvenience to him" and that the murders were the results of premeditated and rational acts. Furthermore, Dr. Freedman testified concerning large intakes of valium, alcohol and marijuana which accompanied the episodes where the "most acute and dangerous paranoia" emerges. Dr. Reifman explained that the difference between a diagnosis of antisocial personality and a diagnosis of narcissistic personality is the difference in emphasis, and that he found that the diagnosis of antisocial personality did not take into consideration defendant's accomplishments in other areas. Defense counsel obviously made extensive efforts to research defendant's family history and early adult life. 1979, ch. People v. Haywood (1980), 82 Ill. 2d 540, 543-44. The record shows that the circuit court's questioning of this prospective juror was sufficient to fulfill both these purposes. In determining that an expert psychiatrist or psychologist may be precluded from repeating a defendant's self-serving statements, the circuit court relied primarily on People v. Hester (1968), 39 Ill. 2d 489. Before trial, defendant sought a change of venue and then moved for the appointment of a market research firm "to conduct a valid statistical survey both within and outside of Cook County to determine the effect of pretrial publicity on the temperament of those members of the community or communities who are potential veniremen for this cause." We cannot say that the circuit court abused its discretion by proceeding in this manner. Second, defendant argues that the assistant State's Attorney improperly discredited Dr. Freedman's testimony by exaggerating the significance of DSM III and intentionally misrepresenting "the doctor's testimony regarding his diagnosis in relation to the manual." When he regained consciousness, defendant took him into the bathroom, shoved Donnelly's head against the wall, then placed something around Donnelly's neck and started twisting it. The People had the right to cross-examine the witness concerning his bias, prejudice or interest in the outcome of the suit (People v. Sampson (1953), 1 Ill. 2d 399, 404), but we agree with the circuit court that the matter was insignificant and, in view of the instruction to the jury to disregard it, was not prejudicial. They had no clue of how to treat a gay rape of any sort and did not even think that would be possible.. She said defendant was a gentle lover, but that throughout the marriage they had increasingly less sex, until one day defendant stated that this would be the last day that they had sex together. The People, in opening statement, reviewed the facts of the case as revealed by the investigation conducted by the Des Plaines police department and others and then described in detail several of the murders as recounted by defendant in his confessions. No objection was made to this argument, and the issue is therefore waived. When Lynch got up, defendant said, "Well, are you okay?" Rossi testified that defendant was not a heavy drinker, that he complained of his health often, told Rossi that he had leukemia and once experienced something that appeared to be a heart attack, but that his health never prevented his getting his work finished. Defendant argues that the following information was irrelevant and prejudicial: that Robert Piest was of good character; that Darryl Samson, Russell Nelson and William Kindred had planned to marry; that Robert Gilroy and John Mowery had planned on furthering their education; that Piest had been on the honor roll, the gymnastics team, and was "two badges away from making Eagle Scout, a badge which Robert had wanted badly"; that Nelson had graduated with honors and won a scholarship to the University of Minnesota and that Nelson and his future wife had the names of their children already chosen. During direct examination of Dr. Cavanaugh, the assistant State's Attorney asked, without objection, whether it was possible to guarantee confinement in a mental hospital for the rest of a patient's life. The defense called two other psychiatrists. Defects in a presentence investigation report may be waived (People v. Godinez (1982), 91 Ill. 2d 47, 56-57; People v. Meeks (1980), 81 Ill. 2d 524, 533-34), and no objection was raised when the court proceeded to immediate sentencing on all the charges. While watching the movies in the basement, defendant said, "Let me try something," and chained Lynch's hands behind his back. Witnesses testified that 29 bodies were recovered from the crawl space under defendant's home, under his driveway, and under his garage, and that five bodies were recovered from the Des Plaines River. The question raised could serve only to divert the jury's attention from the issues in the case (People v. Yates (1983), 98 Ill. 2d 502, 539), and the court correctly instructed the jury to disregard the testimony and the comments. On this record the jury was not required to draw the inference that defendant was insane, and the evidence amply supports the verdict. Defense counsel insisted that the insinuation was "obvious," and the court reiterated that it did not necessarily interpret the question in that manner and that "it better not be argued that way" and that the assistant State's Attorney "better tell whoever is going to argue not to argue that." The People's experts all testified that defendant was suffering only from a personality defect, that he was never psychotic, and that he was legally responsible for his criminal acts under the Illinois standard. Rejecting an argument that certain photographs were prejudicial and inflammatory, this court stated: In this case, the evidence which might create revulsion in the jurors toward defendant included the sadistic torture of Rignall and Donnelly, his record-breaking number of murders, his homosexual assault on some of the victims before their murders, and other facts too numerous to mention. The rationale as stated in State v. Whitlow (1965), 45 N. J. We need not address all these assertions, as we find that Dr. Garron had a sufficient factual basis for his opinion. Defendant next complains that the jury was improperly instructed before its deliberations in the death penalty hearing when the court misstated one of the instructions *99 as follows: The instruction as tendered to the jury in written form, read: Not only was the jury given the correct version in the written instruction, but the verdict form also gave the correct version of the law, as did oral instructions before argument on the death sentence, and in another portion of the oral instructions to the jury before their deliberations. Stat. 'John Wayne Gacy: Devil in Disguise': 11 Shocking Revelations - Yahoo 4(b); 87 Ill.2d R. 603). In Haywood and Jenkins, this court reversed the judgments because conflicting written instructions were given to the jury. We agree with the People that evidence concerning the victims' sexual preferences was relevant to negate the assertion that all the victims were homosexual prostitutes. Second, pairing homosexuality with the term "mass murderer" had a strong emotional impact because it combined the number of deaths with the "topic of death." It calls for a mistrial, I'm making a motion for mistrial." Dr. Cavanaugh further explained that there was an inherent conflict between a determinant psychological theory which explains everything on the basis of a person's earlier development and a legal system premised on the concept of free will. Moreover, defendant's attorneys would have been aware that the Des Plaines police had positively linked defendant to Robert Piest's disappearance and that further links between defendant's young former employees and their disappearances would be discovered. Back; kaiser permanente home loan program; dispensaries that don t id in colorado; house for rent by owner putnam county, ny; beaverton police activity now; del rio avocado tree for sale; list of cities that have defunded police; 1957 . 38, par. Consequently, it was inevitable that news coverage would be significant in any part of the country. He stated that, shortly before he was arrested, defendant came into the gas station and passed a bag with three rolled cigarettes to one of his employees. On cross-examination, Dr. Eliseo stated that after defendant had committed the crime, he would understand that what he did was wrong, but at the times of committing the crimes, he was not aware of the criminality of his act. Defendant *108 was, however, represented by counsel and until his appearance in this court had made no request to be permitted to defend himself. Rossi testified that on December 21, 1978, he went over to Cram's house to drop off some of defendant's tools, and that while he was there defendant arrived. nick schultz rate my professor jeffrey rignall testimony transcriptmax heard cause of deathmax heard cause of death 1977, ch. Defendant contends that the jury was confused as to the requirements of the mitigating factor as differentiated from the defense of insanity and that this was evidenced by the confusion shown by the attorneys in their arguments in the death penalty hearing. . Get all your true crime news from Oxygen. Justice Jackson's observation that "any lawyer worth his salt will tell the suspect in no uncertain terms to make no statement to police under any circumstances" (Watts v. Indiana (1949), 338 U.S. 49, 59, 93 L. Ed. Sixth, articles labeled "local interest" articles described the particular impact defendant's case would have on the people of Cook County, such as the cost of trying him and providing for his defense. 2d 1407, 103 S. Ct. 3566, in support of his argument. In view of the fact that the jury was instructed correctly as to the law on this point four separate times, all of the written instructions being correct, we fail to see how the jury was left with a mistaken interpretation of the law, or that it was confused on this point. and then at Lynch's request, took him home.
If An Unmarried Mother Dies Who Gets The Child,
Football Teams Looking For Players Glasgow,
Putting Lysol On A Cold Sore,
Alice In Wonderland Descendants,
Articles J