Jump to content

Macgroupie

Members
  • Content Count

    31
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Macgroupie

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

1,075 profile views
  1. No, this concerns a part of the case during which both defendant and I attended. Nothing was stricken by the judge and to our recollection, the original transcript is accurate and the current Appellate record is not. Now, could there have been off-the-record discussions about this. Sure, but, if so, they took place after the end of the appearance and after the defendant was removed from the courtroom and I and the rest of the parties had left. At that time, the judge or one of the parties could have recalled the attorneys and they met to discuss the matter. If so, the defendant's attorney never later advised him or I of this discussion. Hypothetically and in the abstract, virtually anything is possible. That said, I've never heard of a judge keeping a "case record" in his/her possession. Records relating to cases pending before a court are typically maintained in files in the court clerk's office. My reply: I tried several times after the trial and before sentencing, and then a couple of times after sentencing to physically review the case record at the Clerk's office. Each time the file was physically absent and when the clerks looked it up on the computer system they told me that the file was unavailable "because the judge has it". This is not my appeal. I am not going pro se on it. I am just a friend of the defendant who has been down the appeal road before in another matter. Both he and I are familiar with the preparation of the appeal record by the court prior to it being sent to the office of the state appellate defender. So, I am merely trying to ensure that the record compilation is complete. That is how I became aware of a couple of differences in the record. This one which I describe here is the larger situation, and I am only aware of it from having obtained a prior transcript. I will thoroughly review the copy of the case transcripts which the court provides to IL defendants once my friend gets his copy and can send me one. I suspect there may be other omissions or discrepancies, and I'll raise these to his appellate defender and discuss their relevance. Obviously neither my friend nor I have much credibility before the court to address this matter ourselves. My friend and I are at this point just surprised and dismayed to find these discrepancies and wanted to sound your opinions as to whether this situation is commonplace in experience or permissible in practice.
  2. I'm very troubled. Who can do this? Could the court reporter do this on their own or would they need permission from the judge? If one of the parties or even the judge did this, would they have to all first involve calling together all the parties to advise them that it is being done??? Or, could the judge just do this on their own without the parties knowing????
  3. It's unwise for me to disclose specifics. The best I can say is that wording in Appellate record transcript for example now omits mention of an argument raised by one party which was objected to by the other and the ruling made on it. The issue was raised only this once during the case and while not a primary appeal issue, it is supportive of one and should be included on appeal. Your response indicates to me a lack of surprise that one might find an Appellate record transcript either altered or omitting information?
  4. After the Appellate record is prepared for criminal appeal, what happens if one finds in reviewing it that a court transcript for the case reads differently than the original court transcript of that appearance that one ordered and got back during the course of the case? What if one finds that an argument presented back then is now subtly altered in the Appellate record? What can be done about this? Is it possible that the judge (who kept the case record after trial and sentencing) either altered or had someone else alter it? If so, can the judge do that?
  5. What is the protocol for contacting jurors after trial to try to find out why they made the decision they did? Are there rules for who can contact them and how it is supposed to be done? And, how soon after trial can one do this?
  6. Trying to understand. What you say then suggests another risk too.Tolling then means the statute of limitations is stopped during the 5 years till when acquitted? Then, no matter what, the State can keep you on the hook like this in any murder investigation you become a suspect in for any felony offense? Then too, if so, if the original trial for the murder investigation that began 5 years ago starts tomorrow because a different defendant was charged with that murder, and if you appear and testify in some way that is obstructive to the State's murder prosecution, then one could be charged with OJ for testifying in this manner too at the murder trial?
  7. If in murder investigation 5 yrs ago u were charged with Obstruction of justice and later acquitted, can you be re-charged with OJ if they now claim you did something else 5 yrs ago?
  8. I will be a witness at another persons criminal trial. I was arrested, my house was searched and thoroughly trashed by police, I lost my job and am still unemployed after 5 years, etc. I was entirely, unrelated, collateral damage during the incident. In other words my life as I knew it was completely destroyed because of this situation, and even though I am cleared now of all charges, it was the police and then the State who caused the majority of the damage to me. When I testify, my credibility will be attacked. As, part of that, the State will allege that the defendant has harmed me. This is a little true, but, again, it was the police and the State who have harmed me the most and affected the rest of my life. And, I want to speak this truth in court. I want to say straight out to the jury: It was the police and it was this woman and that guy standing there who by causing me to go through the last 5 years of stress, turmoil, and loss have harmed me far more than this defendant ever has. Problem is, the judge has ruled that my prior charges and acquittals cannot be entered as evidence at trial. So, then, can I still allude to my harm then indirectly as I indicate above? Appreciate your advice here on what is regarded as permissible by a witness and what is not.
  9. Maybe this is stupid, but here goes: I had two prior County burglary cases prosecuted against me in 1993. Now, I have a murder case pending in same County. My murder charge arises now not because of actual evidence of my involvement in it, but because of the allegation that the physical description of the murder suspect is applicable to me. Of course, that same physical description also fits a large number of other people in the general public. It just so happens however, that the person directing the murder investigation happens to be a police officer who was involved in my two prior burglary cases and who testified against me in them at the time. It also happens that the prosecutor in my murder case is also now the same prosecutor who prosecuted me in those two cases back in 1993. One defense I am raising now is the argument is that the police officer was not impartial in his murder investigation, and if that police officer had not been in charge of the murder investigation, then I would not have been charged today based on the lack of actual evidence of my involvement. Back in '93, the prosecutor was also first-hand privy to a lot of background info about me from my PD regarding things such as my mental health. Now, this prosecutor is calling this prior PD as a witness against me in some manner in my murder case. So, all this old info is being dredged up in an attempt to probably use it out of context against me in some way, because the State's murder case is otherwise very weak. My questions are: what privilege do I now retain with respect to what was said or known between myself and my old PD, and then, is there any sort of conflict-of-interest issue with respect to the prosecutor now handling my murder case?
  10. All the frustration in this thread tells me that it seems impossible to get counsel to communicate with defendants when they just don't want to do so for one reason or the other. If I were in the situation of coming to trial with no input on my defense and maybe no witnesses, I think I'd put something in writing to the attorney about at least calling all the witnesses the police encountered in a investigation who said something contrary even if it was not directly related to me. I hate to see the State walk all over a defendant who just sits there without witnesses or experts and just relies upon his attorney to pick at the state witnesses. That is no defense in my opinion when the jury sees no one talking on your behalf. People always differ when the speak to police and at least you can get that in front of them to show that the case investigation was not as tidy as the state later says. Police reports have all the contact info for these witnesses so it should be easy for the attorney to supoena them. And if he doesn't, then you got something on record for appeal that shows he did not do something he could have done to represent you better. Supervisors seldom do anything and you can especially tell that when their response is to tell you you are wrong and that the case has no problems. They'll feed you a line about how communication is fine and how you can write them or call them anytime without any problem and that that is what you should do. But, try it and they cut you off quick when you raise issues about the performance of their office or staff. I guess what I'm saying is that poor representation and unwillingness to communicate by the attorney puts you in the corner such that you get to expect to lose at trial and are faced with thinking about appeal and whether it will be better for you to have as lousy a record for that appeal as possible or worth spinning your wheels and banging your head against concrete just to get anything better in terms of representation at trial only later for the appeal to use that against you and claim it was "adequate".
  11. Then, please, what am I missing here? If it is general knowledge that any judge can be used to issue search warrants, then can anyone suggest why the State would have gone through the exercise of motioning this judge for permission and, by doing so, unnecessarily revealing their course of action??? I am convinced that the State felt compelled to ask permission for some reason...
  12. So, if the officers detained the person before the bond revocation order was issued, how does one challenge that and is there a timeline for doing so?
  13. It seems to me that denial of the right to counsel raises a constitutional issue and that this is what is happening here. IndiaFoodie's friend here is not getting conflict-free representation from the office. The issue may be so clear or severe that it will be reviewed later if the friend is convicted. But, why does he have to spend years waiting for review of something structurally amiss that will determine the whole defense? It seems stupid to have to wait when something this large looms over everything. Because it is constitutional, as IndiaFoodie asks, is there not some federal action or appeal he can take to straighten things out in the meantime?
  14. I suggest the defendant write his counsel often and repetitively each week a summary of his contact or lack of contact with counsel. Just short: no contact at all this week, 5 minutes before court this date, etc. Send copies of these to someone else too.
  15. In IL Once a person is indicted and the case has been rolling for a couple of years, if the State wants new search warrants, is it required to apply for them to the judge in charge of the case? In this situation, the judge has basically told the State that it didn't have to apply to him for permission in the first place but could have instead gone to any other judge. I thought that once a judge is assigned a case, that the State is required to use that judge? Apparently the State thought the same too. I think it would have gone to another judge and not even have noticed the parties that it is seeking new search warrants if it did not have to do so in any way. Going to a new judge unfamiliar with the case now certainly makes it easier for the State, and it can only be challenged with a later motion to suppress. The State is requesting new search warrants to allow it to re-examine seized property it has had in possession these past two years. Does that make any difference either?
×
×
  • Create New...