FIFTH DIVISION Decem ber 4, 2009

1-07-3244

THE PEOPLE OFTHE STATE OFILLINO IS, ) Appe al fro m the ) Ci rcu i t Cou rt of Plai ntif f-A ppelle e, ) Co o k C o un t y.

) v. ) No. 01 CR 19273 ) ALFREDORAMOS, ) T he Ho no r ab le ) James B . Linn, De f en da n t-A pp el l an t. ) Judge Presidin g. PR ESI DI NG JU STI CETO OMIN

de l i v ered th e op i n i on of th e c our t: In th i s ap peal , we de term i ne wh ethe r the tri al court’s i m prom ptu com men ts to the j ury ser ved t o e nco ur age sup er ficial deliberat ions, mini mize the St at e’s bu rd en o f pro of, or hast en t he jury ’s verdict. Al

fredo Ram

os was convi

cted of two co unts of f

irst degree m

urder and sen

tenced to a term of n

atural l if e i n pri son. On appeal, defen dant contends the State’s cl osin g argumen

t as well as t he t rial judg e’s c omment s t o t he jur y denied him a fair t rial. H e do es no t challenge t he suf f i ciency of the ev i den ce or the sen tenc e i m posed . For the

reas ons e xpl ai ne d he rei n, w e af f i rm defen dant’s conv

iction and s entence.1-07-3244

1 Giv en the scope of def

endan t’s appeal , we li

mi t o ur disc ussion to the evi

dence im pli cated by the assi gnm ents of error. Additional

facts rel evan t t o our anal

ys is wil l b e provided
as ne ce ss ar y. W e lik ew ise no t e t ha t Ra mire z is no t a p ar t y t o t he pr es en t ap pe al. 2 BACK GROUND Defend ant and his c od efenda nt , Ma rc os Ramirez , w er e cha rg ed by indict ment w ith t he fi rst degree murders of M arcos Rodriguez and O scar Gutierrez Suarez 1 . Foll owing s eparate, si m ul tan eou s j ury tri als, d ef en da nt wascon

vi cte d a nd su bs eq uentl y sente nc ed to serv e a

term of
n atu ral l i f e i m pri son men t. Th e eve nts gi vi ng ri se to the pros ecution oc cu

rre d on Jul y 10, 200 1, w

he n Marc os Rodri guez and Osc ar Guti

errez Suare z wer

e sh ot in a Bur ger K i ng p arki ng l ot in Ch i cago. Rodriguez an

d Suarez were passen

gers i n a vehi cl e driv en b y J uli o Avi la . Suarez and Av

il a were, at t ha t t ime, na r co t ics de ale r s. E ar lier t ha t we ek , o n Ju ly 7, 20 01 , Su ar ez ap pr o ac he d A vila loo king t o s ell a kilogr am of co caine. Avila knew a n individual by the name o f “Nok ” who might be inte re st ed in pu rc hasing it . N ok agr eed t o p ur chas e t he kilog ra m in exchange for $14 ,0 00 a nd two laptop co mputers. At the tim e of the exchan

ge, Nok did not giv

e Av il a any mone y. Instead, t he t wo men ag r ee d t o mee t t he ne xt da y. T he fo llo win g d ay N o k g av e A vila $ 2, 00 0 a nd t o ld h im he would giv

e hi m a n addi tional $3,000 and the two laptops on July 9, 2001. Suarez, along wi

th Marcos Rodriguez an

d Gla dys Torr es, pic

ked up Av

il a from hi s j ob at abo ut 11: 30 p .m. on J uly 9, 2 001 . Avila had not pr eviou sly m et t he t wo pas seng er s. I n t ur n, Av il a spoke with Nok, who told hi m that som

eone el se would b e deliv

erin g the $3,000. Suarez th en re ce i v ed a c al l on h i s c el l ul ar ph on e f rom a p er son ca l l i n g on b eh al f of Nok . Th ey ag re ed to1-07-3244

3

meet n ea r F ost er an d P ul aski . Suarez

re ce i v ed an oth er ca l l ; A v i l a too k th

e c al l an d agr ee d to
me et the call

er in Chi cago’s Wi

cker Park nei

ghborhood. Avi

la asked f or and receiv

ed a num ber to call on a

rrival in Wi cker Park. Rodriguez wrote t he pager n umb er down on a one-dollar bi ll as Avila repe at ed it fro m the c aller. The y sent a pa ge a nd r ece ived a c all back d irect ing t hem to t he parki ng l ot in the re ar of

a Bur ger K i ng r estau ran t on North Mi l

wauk ee A venue . Once t he ca r w as p ar ked , Avila st epp ed o ut of t he ca r so he co uld be r eco gnized . D ur ing hi s last conversation w

ith the c alle

r about t he m

eetin g, Avi la me ntioned tha

t he was weari

ng an

“ Eck o” T- sh i rt so th e c al l er c oul d i denti f y hi m . A vi l a w al ke d towa rd H onor e Street an

d s tood on the sidewal

k where he saw a person standi ng ne xt to a pay

phone. This person, i dentif ie d as Mar co s Ramire z, walke d pa st Avila, who t hen beg an t o w alk bac k t ow ar d t he Bu rg er King par king lo t . Avila t hen sa w ano t her man app ro aching fr om t he dr ive-t hru lane, who Avila tho ught
wa s th e p er son h e w as meeti n g to g et th

e $ 3,0 00 . Th

i s i n di v i du al, iden

ti f i ed as de f en da n t, increa sed his pac e, dr ew a gun, aimed, and fire d at Avila. De fendant co nt inued t o fire into t he vic t ims’ ve hic le fiv e o rsix t imes
. Avila be ga n t o run aw ay a nd de fen da nt fo llo we d. Whe n Av ila t ur ned he co uld se e t he gu n po inted at him, but he neve r he ar d any ad dit ional sho t s. D efenda nt t hen fled in ano t her dire ct ion. Gl ad y s Tor res cl i m be d i nto th e f ron t se at of the ve hi cl e a nd be ga n to d ri ve to ge t he l p f or Ro dr iguez and S uar ez, who had be en sho t by defenda nt . S he dr ove do wn No rt h Avenue unt il she encountered a poli

ce car. Shortly

thereafter, Av

il a returned to the area i

n a taxi cab. Both Torres and Avi la spoke with detect iv

es on the scene and at Area 5 po li ce headquart ers. Based o n these
con ve rs ati ons an d e vi denc e re covere d a

t the sc en e, dete cti ve s tra ce d the p ag er n

um be r wr i tten on1-07-3244

4

the doll ar bi ll to Ram irez. A fter Ram irez’ s photograph was plac ed i n a ph ot o array, he was ident ifi ed by Avila. I n t ur n, t he de t ect ives loc at ed R amirez a nd t oo k him into cus t od y. Ut ili zing i n f orm ati on ob tai n ed f rom Ra m i re z, detecti

v es b eg an to look f or def en da n t. F oll owi

n g h i s a rre st, defen dant was identif

ie d by both Torr es and A

vi la in a lin eup. Du ri n g th e c our se of cu sto di al qu esti oni n g, d ef en da n t ga v e a n oral sta tem en t to invest igat or s inculpa t ing himself i n t he sho ot ing. Ac co rd ing t o d efenda nt , he and his c ou sin, Ram irez, were goi

ng to set so me one up, take $3,000 from hi m, an d spl it the proceeds. Ram

irez to ld de fen

dant they would m eet the man, who would be we arin g an “Ecko” T-shirt at the Burger Ki ng on Mi lwa ukee Av enue i n W ic ker Park. Rami

rez provided h

im with a loaded .380-cal

ib er ha ndg un. D ef endan t wal ked th rough the d ri ve -thru l ane toward the i

ndi vi dual i n the “ Ecko” shi

rt wh o ha d ju st go t t en o ut o f a c ar , pu lled his p ist o l, an d d ema nd ed mo ne y. H e c laime d t he man in th e “ Ec ko” sh i rt y el l ed to th e p as se

n gersi n th e v eh i cl e, “ oh , s h i t, g et th e c an n on .”A cc ordi

n g to defend ant , he t hen sa w t he male in the pas seng er sea t re ach be neat h t he dr iver’s sea t . D efenda nt bega n t o fire at t he vehicle u nt il he was o ut of bu llets. He d enied e ver see ing t he pa sseng er wit h a gun. Defe

ndan t did not testify. Foll

owing a rgumen ts and i nstructions, the j ury returned a verdict of guil

ty. Thereafter, he was sentenced to a t erm of natural l if e. He now app eals. AN AL YSIS As n o t ed , de fen da nt do es no t ch alle ng e t he su fficie nc y o f t he ev ide nc e. I nst ea d, his argumen ts urging rev

ersal are based upon the c ontention that he was den ie d a fai r trial by vi rtue of the State’ s cl

osi ng a rgum en t and certai n c omm en ts m ade b y the tri al j udge to the j ury .1-07-3244

2 Defend ant ra ised a gene ra l object ion in his po st t rial mot ion t o t he clo sing ar gument s and si ngl ed out an asp ect not rai sed

on ap peal . Howev

er, gen eral obj ections i

n a posttri al motion are not suff ic ie nt to preserve an

is sue f or appeal, even

if a contemporaneous obj ection was m ade at trial . See People v. Robinson , 238 Ill . App. 3d 48, 56, 606 N.E. 2d 122, 128 (1992). As noted, t he r e w as no o bje ct io n int er po se d d ur ing t r ial.

3 Bot h parties discuss the issues presented in terms of “wai ver.” No ting that t hese mat t er s a r e mo r e c o rr ec t ly view ed as “fo r feit ur es ” o r“p r o ce du r al d efa ult s, ” in t ha t t he y co uld have been rais ed, but were not, we ut il ize those terms i

nstead. See People

v. Blair , 215 Ill . 2d 42 7, 44 3- 44 , 44 4 n
. 2, 83 1 N
. E . 2d 60 4, 61 5, 61 5 n . 2 ( 20 05 ) ( ad dr es sing t he pr o pe rus ag e o f t er ms “f orfe i t,” “wai ve ,” an d “ procedu ral l y def aul t”). 5 De fen da nt co nc ed es t he se cla imed er r o r s w er e n o t o bje ct ed t o at t r ial o rsp ec ifica lly ra ise d in his pos ttri al moti on

2 . The State argues t hey

are thereby

forfe ited3 . D efenda nt re spo nds t hat t he “p l ai n-e rror” doctri

ne appl i es a nd p erm i ts rev i ew. It is ax iom atic that a def

endan t must obje ct contemporaneously as wel l as i n a posttrial
m otion i n orde r to preser

ve i ssues f or our revi ew. People

v. Lew is , 234 Ill . 2d 32, 40, 912 N.E .2d 12 20 , 12 25 ( 20 09 ) ; s ee als o 72 5 I LC S 5 /1 16
- 1 ( We st 20 06 )
. Or din ar ily, fa ilur e t o do so wo uld operate to f

orfe i t the cl ai m on ap peal , however, f

orfe i ture i s n ot an ab sol

ute b ar to our revi ew. Est ablished p re ced ent instr uct s t hat t he r ules o f forfe itu re pr ese nt lim itat ions o n t he pa rt ies and not on the rev

i ewi ng c ourt. People

v. Davis , 213 Ill . 2d 459, 470, 821 N.E .2d 1154, 1161 (2004). Mor eover, Supreme Court Rule 615(a), known as the “pl ai n-error” doct rin

e carves out
an ex cepti on to perm

i t revi ew of i ssues othe

rwi se procedur

al l y def aul ted. Lew is , 234 Ill . 2d at 42,1-07-3244

6

912 N. E. 2d a t 122 6- 27; 134 Ill. 2d R. 615 (a ). As o ur sup re me co ur t obs er ved in People v. Piatkow ski : “[T ]he plain-e rr or do ct rine allows a rev ie win g court to consider

unpreserved
err or whe n ( 1) a c lea ro ro bvio us er r o ro cc ur r ed an d t he ev ide nc e is so clo sel y b ala nced t hat t he er ro r a lone t hre at ened t o t ip t he sc ales o f just ice ag ainst t he de f en da n t, regar dless of the se rousn ess of the erro r, or (2 ) a c l ea r or ob vi ouserr or occurs and that error is so seri ous that it aff ectedt he fairne ss o f the defen dant’s trial and ch al l en ge d th e i n teg ri ty of the j udi ci al proc es s, r

eg ard l es s of the cl osene ss of t he
evi den ce.” People

v. Piatkow

ski , 225 Ill . 2d 551, 565, 870 N.E .2d 403, 411 (2007 ), citing People v. Herron , 215 Ill . 2d 167, 186-87, 830 N. E.2d 467, 479 (2 005). Mani fes tly, “An y e rror, defec

t, irregulari

ty, or varian

ce whi ch does not aff

ect substanti al right s shall be disr ega rd ed. ” 13 4 I ll. 2d R . 6 15( a) . “E ssent ially , t he fairne ss o f the t rial must be underm in ed.” People v. Keene , 169 Ill . 2d 1, 17, 660 N.E .2d 901, 910 (1995). Defe ndan ts bear the b urden of p ersuasi

on un der ea ch prong of the doctri

ne . People v. Naylor, 229 Ill . 2d 584, 59 3, 89 3 N
. E . 2d 65 3, 65 9 ( 20 08 )
. Whe r e a de fen da nt is u na ble t o es t ab lish p lain e rr o r , it is i ncum bent upon us to hon or the proc edura

l def aul t. Keene , 169 Ill . 2d at 17, 660 N. E.2d at 910. Nece ssa ri l y , we m ust f i rst determ

i ne whethe r an error actua

l l y occurre d. Lew

is , 23 4 I ll. 2d at 43, 912 N.E .2d at 1227, citing People v. Walker , 232 Ill . 2d 113, 124, 902 N.E .2d 691, 697 (2009 ). We , there f

ore, turn to the

sub stan ce of each issue. Walker, 232 Ill . 2d at 125, 902 N.E .2d at 697 ; Lew

is , 234 Ill . 2d at 43, 912 N. E.2d at 1227. Defend ant ’s first claim of er ro r fo cus es u po n what he pe rc eives as a pr ejudicial co mment1-07-3244

7

mad e b y t he pr o se cu t o rdu r ing t he o pe ning ph as e o f t he St at e’ s c lo sing ar gu men t . While dis cussi ng accountabi

li ty, the prosecuto r to ld the jury that the law recogni zes that someti

me s cri m i na l s w ork tog ether. A cc ordi ng to de f en da nt, i n th e a bs en ceof an y ev i denc e of an y pri or crim in al record, t he appell

ation served to “i

nf lam e the passions and prejudi ce of the jury” agai

nst hi m, an d spoke to hi s propensi

ty to commi

t crim es. The State counter s that the comm ent evi nced nothi ng m ore than a gen eral ex planati on of

the l aw of acc ountab i l i

ty. In People v. Nicholas , our suprem e court expl

ai ned:

“‘The pur pos e of cl osi n g a rgum en ts i s to gi v e th e p ar ti es a f i n al opp ortu n i ty to r ev iew wit h t he jur y t he ad mit t ed e vidence , d iscuss what it means , a pply t he ap plic ab le law t o t ha t ev ide nc e, an d a r gu e w hy t he ev ide nc e a nd law co mpe l a fav o r ab le verdict.’ ” People v. Nicholas , 218 Ill . 2d 104, 121, 842 N.E .2d 674, 685 (2005 ), quoti

ng T. Mau et & W. Wo lfson, Tri al Evi den ce §1 4.1, at 43 9 (2d e d. 2001 ). Ac co r din gly, pr o se cu t o r s a r e a ffo r de d w ide lat it ud e t o co mment o n t he r ele va nt ev ide nc e a s w ell
as a ny f ai r and reas onab l e i

nf eren ces there f rom. Nicholas , 218 Il

l . 2d at 12 1, 842 N .E.2d at 68 5. “However, i

t is i mproper for the prosecutor to suggest that a defen dant has b een en

gaged i n other crim in al activ ity for whi ch h e i s not on tr ia

l.” People v. Fleming, 91 Ill . App. 3d 99, 109, 413 N. E. 2d 1 330 , 1 337 (1 980 ). Reve rsible er ro r may be fo und in a c losing a rg ument wher e t he def endan t can establ i sh that b ut for the parti

cul ar com men t, the verdi

ct would ha

ve be en di f f eren t. People v. Leger , 1 49 I ll. 2d 3 55, 399 , 5 97 N .E .2 d 58 6, 606 (1 992 ). Where co nfro nt ed w ith t he leg al q ue st io n o f wh et he ra p r o se cu t o r ’s co mment s w ar r an t t he gr an t o f a n ew t r ial, o ur r ev iew is de novo
. People v. Wheeler , 226 Il l . 2d 92, 1 21, 871 N.E.2d 7 28, 744 (2007 ).1-07-3244

8

W h en re v i ewi n g c om men ts m ade d uri n g c l osi n g a rgum en ts, we m ust con si der the en ti re ty of the argu

men t, pl aci ng th e com plai ne d-of com men ts i n pr oper con text. Nicholas , 218 Ill . 2d at 122, 842 N.E. 2d at 6 85. Analy tical h in dsigh t demonstr ates t hat stat emen ts made with no purpose other than

to in f l am e the j ury are i m proper a nd c onsti tute error. People v. Tiller , 94 Ill . 2d 303, 32 1, 4 47 N. E.2 d 1 74 , 18 3 ( 19 82 ). Y et, onl y th ose com men ts th at c au se su b sta n ti al pr ej udi ce to the def endan t wi l l resu l t in a rev ersa l
. People v. B uss , 187 Ill . 2d 144, 244, 718 N.E .2d 1, 55 (19 99) ; s eealso People

v. Linscot

t , 142 Il l . 2d 22, 2 8, 566 N .E.2d 135 5, 1358 (1991 ). W e n ow c on si der the p re cise

com men t of th e pros ecutor

com pl ai n ed of b y de f en da n t: “Now, yo u ma y be w o nd er ing if it ma tt ers whose i

dea i t was in the fi rst place to go t her e and t he sho ot ing. Abso lut ely not . And that’s becaus e the l aw recogni zes the concept of teamwork. The law recognizes that sometim es crim in als work tog ether , and t hat it’s
eas i er f or cri m i na l s som eti mes to get a j ob done wh en there ’stwo of the

m .” As a t hr es ho ld ma t t er , we mus t cla r ify t ha t de fen da nt ’s r en dit io n o f t he pr o se cu t o r ’s co mment is inc o mple t e a nd lac kin g a de qu at e c o nt ex t . At t his p o int o f he rar gu men t , t he pr o se cu t o rwa s in the m i dst of di scu ssi ng th e f acts a dduc ed at trial

and m arsh al i ng th e law to be

appl i ed b y the j ury i n str uc ti on s. Her e x

pl an ati on con ti n ue d b ey on d th e p orti on com pl ai n ed of b y de f en da n t: “And you’re goi

ng to get an in struction on this , and the i nstruction i s about
ac co un t ab ilit y, an d w ha t t he inst ruc t io n r ea ds is th at, ‘A p er so n is le ga lly re sp o nsib le f orthe con duc t of an othe r pe rs on w he n, ei the r b ef ore or dur i ng the com m i ss i on of an offense and w ith t he inte nt to prom ote or facilitat e t he co mmi ssio n of a n offense he1-07-3244

9

kn o win gly

solicits, aids, abets, agrees to aid, or at t empt s t o a id t he o t her per so n in the planning or com

m i ssi on of the of f en se. The word conduct incl udes any crim in al act done in further ance of t his pl anned and intended act .’ ” The assi stant Stat e’s A

tt orney then

applie d the la

w of accountabi

li ty to defendan

t’s case, wit hou t objec t ion, event ually weaving it into t he langu age of t he jur y instr uct ions. Afte r g iving these commen

ts pro per co ntext, w e perceive no i mpropriety. They were clearly offered as a gen eral ex pl an ati on of th e rati on al e b eh i n d th e l aw of ac cou n tab i l i ty an d i ts a pp l i ca ti on to th e f acts at ba r . We dis ce rn no t hing fr o m t he ar gu men t su gg es t ing t ha t ge ne r ic u se o f t he wo r d “ cr iminal” referred to defen

dant. Consequentl

y, we f in d that t hi s clai

m of error is wi

thout me rit. Theref

ore, the p l ai n-e rror doctri

ne i s n ot appli cab l e an

d the procedu ral def aul t mu st be hon ored. Keene , 169 Ill . 2d at 17, 660 N. E.2d at 910. Next , d efenda nt maintains t he St at e’s r ebut t al clos ing ar gument impro per ly shi fte d t he burden of proo f. Fun

dam ental precedent di ctates t hat it i s reversi ble error for t he State to attempt to shi f t the b urden of proof to the d

ef endan t. Leger , 149 Il

l . 2d at 39 9, 597 N .E.2d at 60 6. No net heless, dur ing re but t al, p ro sec ut or s ar e ent itled t o r esp ond t o c omment s made by the defen dant “wh ic h cl early in vi te a response.” People v. Kliner , 185 Ill . 2d 81, 154, 705 N.E .2d 85 0, 8 87 (1 99 8) . A s wi

th oth er as pe cts of argu men t, re b utta l m ust b e c on si

dere d i n con tex t wi th the othe r porti ons, i

nc l udi ng d ef endan t’s. Kliner , 185 Il

l . 2d at 15 4, 705 N .E.2d at 88 7. Accor dingl

y, we have carefully

reviewed t he defendant’s ar guments and t he St ate ’s
re sp on se . D ef

en da n t’s cl osi n g a rgum en t i n i ti al l y re v i si ted a th em e f rom h i s op en i n g state men t, namely that “this is p ro bably a case t hat ’s beyo nd a t elevision sho w. ” Fr om t her e, t he ar gument1-07-3244

10

addressed the b elie

vab il ity of Glady s Torres’ account of the day. Couns el fi rst stat es, “A

nd they
wa nt yo u t o be lieve t ha t , wh at is t his, Sn o w W hit e a nd Do c me et t he dr ug de ale r s? T his is prepostero us.” He then des crib ed her account as “ starting to sound corny or preposter ous.” Li kewi se, Torres’ clai

m that sh e would n ever f orget the shooter’s face was li kewi se deem

ed “l udic rous.” Ad di tion al l y , the b el i ev ab i l i ty of Jul i o Av i l a’s testi mony waschal l enged on m ul tip l e f ronts. Sp ecifically, co unse l ques t ioned Avila’s des cr ipt ion o f having sides t epp ed a bullet fired by defen dant. Counsel

then added, “He di dn’t si destep any

bul le t. Yo u want to beli

eve that, then maybe I am t he king o f England , t hat you’ re sidest epp ing bullet s.” He t hen r het or ically po sed t he foll owing, “Wh

at was [Avil

a] tr yi ng to be? A

bullf igh ter w ith a gun?

That do esn’t play. He’s a [li ar]. Ju l i o’s c omi ng i n h ere l y i ng th rough his teeth .” The argum

ent then sh

if ted to the conduct of the in vestigator s. Defe

ndan t questioned pol i ce re cord kee

pi ng a nd c ha l l enged the m

an ner i n w hi ch def endan t’s statem en t was e l i ci ted. Sp ec ifica lly, d efe nd an t ar gu ed it wa s u nbe lieva ble t ha t he co nfe ss ed aft er he wa s g ive n a Bible whi le he was i n custody, i

n part because D etective Bel la testifi ed he h ad nev er seen s omethi

ng l ike t ha t happ en . Co nse qu en t ly, d efe nd an t as se rt ed , “I ca n be t yo u t he y nev er ha nd ed him t his B ible
an d he n ever g ave i

t up. ” D ef

en da nt a l so cri ti ci ze d the f ac t tha t the sta tem en t wa s n ot
memor ialized in any way o t her t han t he no t es a nd r eco llectio ns o f the invest igat or s and t he assi stant Stat e’s A

tt orney. Li

kewi se, defe

ndan t o bserved, “They

alle ge they

have an oral statem en t bas ed on

som e sort of rel i gious ex peri ence.” Giv en the n ature and extent of the def endan t’s accusations , the prosecuto r’s responses1-07-3244

11

werecl ea rl y wi th i n th e rea l m of i n v i ted com men t: “This de fendant ( ind ica t ing ) ga ve a s t at eme nt t o t he po lice
. T his defend ant (in dic ating)chose how thatstatement sh ould be me morializ ed. So how do y

ou kn ow that what he sa

i d w astrue ? W el

l , Detec ti ve Be l l a g ot on

the stand and told y

ou what was sai d. * * * Look to the con ten ts of th i s def en da n t’s sta tem en t. If, i n f act, he didn ’t say those th i n gs , then all thi s other evidence that corrobor ates it m ust have b een ma nuf actured, and you know that’s not the case. * * * You he ard f rom [As si stan

t State’s A

ttorney ] Iri s F erosi

e. Iri s ca me i n h ere and she told y

ou wh at t his defend ant (indica t ing) sa id t o he r w hen she was at t he police station that eveni

ng. Now, either he said tho se things or ther e’s so me gr and conspi racy go ing o n t o p ut a ca se o n for [d efenda nt ], and yo u kno w t hat ’s no t t he case, la die s and gen

tlem en. An d how do you kn

ow that? Be ca us e y ou’ ve gotall t his ot her evi dence that corrobor ates what Iris F erosie a nd Detect ive Bella t old you he (i ndi cati ng)sai d.” Defend ant claims this “amo unt ed t o a n acc usa t ion o f a co nspira cy” and encu mbered him with t he b urden to s h ow th

e “ Sta te’ s wi tn es se s h ad con sp i re d to f ra m e h i m .”Li kewise , i t “ su gg ested to the jury that in order to acquit Ra mos of t he charged o ff enses, t hey m

ust conclude t hat t he St ate ’s wit ne ss es ha d lie d a nd co nsp ire d a ga inst him an d * ** t ha t it wa s his bu r de n t o pr o ve t he fr ame1-07-3244

12

up.” W e d

i sa gr ee . Th e S tate ’s reb utta l cl osi n g w as com pri se d s i gn

i f i ca n tl y of re sp on se s to defend ant ’s ar gument . N eithe r t he po rt ions q uo t ed in t he br ief nor t he co mplet e ar gument dem onstra tes an y i m propriety . Instead, the State res ponde d f ai rl y to the def

endan t’s accus ati ons. See Kliner , 18 5 Ill. 2d at 154 , 70 5 N. E. 2d at 887 ; People v. Evans , 209 Ill . 2d 194, 225, 808 N.E .2d 939 , 95 6 (2 004 ) (p ros ecutor’ s provoke d re sp ons e i n r eb uttal ca nn ot be basis f or cl ai m of a denial of a fair t rial); People v. Hall , 194 Ill . 2d 305, 346, 743 N.E .2d 521, 545 (2000) (at tack on t hor ou ghnes s o f investiga t ion invite d a r esp ons e) . Mo re ove r, defend ant ’s ac co unt of t he argum en t is m i sleadi ng. Review of the o mi

tt ed po rt ions reveals additional suppo rt for t he pro priety of t he St ate ’s
ar gument . T he gist of t he r emaining arg ument was t hat t he as pec t s o f the cas e cha llenged by defen dant did n ot represent the enti

re uni verse of the evi dence agai

nst hi m. Ins tead, t here was addi tion al evi den ce s uf f i cien t to convi ct def endan t. De f en da nt’ s i nte rpreta ti on of the pros ecutor’ s c om

men t ab out the m

an uf ac turi ng of
ev i den ce wa s l i kewise l acki n g i ts prop er con tex t. Th ere, th e pros ecutor

wa s d i re cti n g th e j ur y to t he ev ide nc e c o rr o bo r at ing t he St at e’ s t he o ry o f t he ca se an d e nc o ur ag ing t he jur o r s t o us e t he ir
comm on sens e i n eval uating the testim ony a nd the ev ide nce. See Evans , 209 Ill . 2d at 225, 808 N.E.2d at 956 We disce rn no t hing fro m the S t at e’s a rg ument t hat ser ved t o s hift t he bur den t o d efenda nt to es tab l i sh

a c ons pi rac y ag ai ns t hi m or s how tha t wi tne ss esl i ed . Inste ad , th e p ros ecutor succi nctly dem onstrated why an

d how the State pr oved i

ts case base d on phy

sical and testim

onia l1-07-3244

13

evidenc e. Fur t her mor e, t he co mments w er e invited by the d efense ’s clo sing ar gument t hat t he Stat e’s wi tnesses coul

d not and should not be bel ie ved. See Hall , 194 Ill . 2d at 346, 743 N. E.2d at 5 45. T he argument never appr oac hed the p osition t hat de fendant had t o pr ove t he St ate ’s wi tnes ses were l y i ng or h ad f abri cated e

vi den ce i n orde r f or def endan t to be acq

ui tted. Co nseq uent ly, we find no impro pr iety in any asp ect of t he St at e’s initial and re but t al clos ing argumen ts. Again , havi ng f ound no error, we m

ust honor t he procedural de faul t. See Keene , 169 Ill . 2d at 17 , 660 N .E.2d at 91 0. Next, defen

dant contends the trial

court ’s rem

arks to t he j ury “convey

ed to t he j ury that the Stat e’s b

urden of proof was m

erely a m in or det ai l a nd, as such, they di

d not have to anal

yze t he evide nce ve ry car efully i n or der t o r eac h a ver dict .” Defend ant po ints t o t he du ra t ion o f the jury’s del iberations as sup por t for his argument that the t rial j udge’s co mm ents hast ened t he jury’s
ve r dic t an d d en ied him a f air t r ial. He r e a ga in, it is ins t ruc t ive t o pu t t he jud ge ’s st at eme nt s in the i r proper con

tex t. The c om

men ts a t i ss uehe re were made f ol l owi ng the cou rt’ s i ns tructi ons on the la w: “Ladi

es and gen

tlem en, I’ve been tell in g you repeatedl

y ove r the las t t hree da ys not to talk a bout thi s ca se. That tim

e i s obvi ously now over. It’s expected that yo uwil l tal k to each other w hat eve r len

gth you f eel is necess ary to reach y

our verdicts. As I ha ve told y ou be f ore, I wi l l tel l you agai n, the re a re n o ti me l i m i ts or expe ct at ions as to how much ti me this ought t o t ake. You’ll

take whatever

t ime yo u feel is n ecessary to reach your verdicts.1-07-3244

14 When you d o g o ba ck t o d eliberat e, you’ ll have in y ou r p os sess ions th e i nst ru ct ions of l

aw I’ ve j ust rec i ted to you. I f

you thi nk i t’s h el pf ul to re vi ew an d perus e the l

aw , i t’s avai l ab l e to y outhroughout . Whether y ou do so or how you do so wil l b e up to you. You wil l hav e also so me exhi

bits which wi

ll go bac k as well. If you think it’s he lpfu l in your deli berations to review an

d peruse t he exh

ib its, t he y will be av aila ble to you thro ughout the cou rse of deli berations. W

he the r y ouuse them or how you use them a gai n wi ll be up to you. I wi ll arrange wi

th the deputy to have som e food and dri

nks se rved to you. Wh ether you p ar t ake of t hat or not and ho w you wo rk wit h your deliber at ions w ill be up t o yo u. I t ’s pe r fe ct ly [ sic ] to eat and del i berate at the

sam e ti me.” Mindful o f the for feitu re co nsider at ions d iscuss ed he re in, o ur ear lier o bser vat ions mus t be mod ifi ed g iven the pr act ical pr act ical co nsider at ions o f object ing t o a judg e’s c omment s t o t he jury. See People

v. Sprink le , 27 Ill . 2d 398, 189 N.E. 2d 295 (1963) (recognizi ng the practic al diff iculties o f cont empor aneo us o bjectio ns to a t rial judge’s co nduct ); People v. Sims , 192 Ill . 2d 592 , 7 36 N .E .2 d 10 48 ( 200 0) (sa me, r elying on Sprinkl e anal y si s). Sprinkl

eand Sims guide

us that “ we wi l l not rigidl y appl y the w ai ver rule” un

der these ci rcum stan ces . People v. Woolley , 205 Ill. 2d 2 96, 302 , 79 3 N. E. 2d 5 19, 522 (20 02) ; People v. Vaughn , 354 Ill . App. 3d 917, 926, 821 N.E.2d 746, 754 ( 2004) (less rigi d applic ation of wai

ver rule for clai

ms of potential

judi ci al mi sconduct), citin

g People v. Davis , 1 85 I ll. 2d 3 17, 343 , 7 06 N .E .2 d 47 3, 485 (1 998 ), and People v. Williams , 173 Ill . 2d 48, 85, 670 N.E .2d 638, 656 (1996). Theref ore, we co nsi

der1-07-3244

4 Notably

, the cases ci

ted by defen dant provide ex

am ple s of si tuation where de
novo review i s appropriate (Branson v. Department of Revenue , 168 Ill . 2d 247, 254, 659 N.E .2d 951, 965 (1995) (st atuto ry i nterpretat ion), an

d People v. Sau nders , 288 Ill . App. 3d 523, 525, 680 N.E.2d 790, 791 ( 1997) (appli cation of s

tatut ory pri

vi le ge)), but do not il

lum in ate the proper standard of revi

ew i n the case sub judice
. 15 defendan t’s clai m on i ts merits. Gene ra lly , t rial judg es a re affor ded discr et ion in mat t er s co ncer ning jury manag ement and a tri al court’s cond uct on s uch i ssues a re rev i ewed f or abu ses of d i scre tion
. People

v. Roberts , 214 Ill . 2d 106, 121, 824 N.E .2d 250, 259 (2005). Yet, where an al le ged error im

pli cates defen dant’s ri ght to a fai

r trial , the question i s a legal one whi ch we rev ie w de novo 4
. Vaughn , 354 Ill . App. 3d at 926, 821 N.E .2d at 754 ( de novo revi ew of clai med de ni al of ri ght to testif

y ); People v. Stevens , 338 Il

l . Ap p. 3d 80 6, 810, 7 90 N.E.2 d 52, 55 -56 (20 03) ( de novo rev i ew of cla imed de nia l o f r igh t t o giv e c lo sing ar gu men t )
. Co nse qu en t ly, w e r ev iew t his c laim de novo
. Unqu est ionably, “[ t ]he integ rit y of t he jur y’s verd ict mu st be pr ot ect ed fr om co er cion, duress or in

fl uence.” People v. Patten , 105 Il l . Ap p. 3d 89 2, 894, 4 35 N.E.2 d 171, 1 72 (19 82). Yet , r ever sal is re quir ed o nly “ when, t ake n in cont ext and c ons ider ing all the c ircu msta nces of t he
ca se , [th e tr i al cou rt’ s] su pp l em en tal i n str uc ti on to a jur y h as th e e f f ect of coe rc i n g j urorsi

n to surrenderi ng vi ews consci

entiousl y h el d.” People v. Gregory , 184 Ill . App. 3d 676, 680-81, 540 N.E .2d 854 , 85 7 (1 989 ); People v. Friedman , 144 Ill . App. 3d 895, 904, 494 N.E. 2d 760, 765 (198 6) ( verdict wa s “li

kely *** impermi ssibl

y hastened” co mi

ng fi ve mi nutes a fter t rial j udge’s
rem ark about seque stration).1-07-3244

16

Ha v i n g r ev i ew ed th e transcri

pt in toto , defendant’s port rayal of the remarks is at best in compl ete and at worst bl

atantly mi sl eadi ng. In consi

derin g this cl ai m of error, the words penned by our sup re me co ur t long ago in People v. Golub clearl y resonates: “A ver dict sho uld exp re ss t he de liberat e judg ment o f the jury. T he jur or , a s we ll as the judge , has an

in dependen t dut y to perform, an

d he ought to be lef

t free to pro nounce hi s own convi ction. A v erdict has tened by the action of the judge, how ever wo rt hy t he moti v e, ca n n ot b e th e res ul t o f that d eli beration which the law guarantees. Rem arks by a tri al j udge cal cul ated to ef

f ect the re nd it ion of

a verdi ct without affor ding the jury

an opport uni

ty f or careful consideration are unwa

rranted and often le ad t o g re at abus e. Whet her t he er ro r is har mless o r p re judicial dep ends upo n t he f acts o f t he c as e. Th e t ria l jud ge ’s r ema rk s o f whic h pla int iff in e rr o rco mpla ins d id
n ot, ei ther expressl

y or by im pli cation, i ndicate that t he jur y shou ld re ach a particular concl usi on.” People v. Golub , 333 Il l . 554, 56 1, 165 N .E. 196, 19 9 (192 9). We ar e s imila r ly g ui de d b y People v. Chapman , a mor e r ece nt sup re me co ur t cas e ad dr essing t he tim in g of a Primi

nstructi on. People v. Chapman , 194 Ill . 2d 186, 221-22, 743 N. E.2d 48, 70 (2 000 ). In Chapman , the defen dant cl ai me d error based on the trial court ’s ref

usal to giv e a Prim in struction at the out set of the j ury’ s del ib erations. As

descri bed b y the Chapman cou

rt: “The Primi

n str uc ti on i n f orm s th e j ur y of th e req ui re men t th at t he ve rd ict be unani mous; that the jury

has a duty

to delib erate; that jurors must i mpa rtially consider t he evidenc e; and th at j urorssh oul d n ot h es i tate to reexam

in e thei r views and c

han ge t he ir op inions if the y believe

them to be erroneous, provided the ch angeis no t so lely1-07-3244

17

because of the opi

ni on of f el l ow j urors or f

or t he m er e purpose of returnin

g a verdict.” Chapman , 194 Ill . 2d at 222, 743 N. E.2d at 70. But for t he una nimi

t y and r eexa minatio n co mpo nent s, t he wo rd s o f the t rial judg e in the pr o ce ed ings belo w a re in har mo ny wit h t he r at io nale o f Prim . Not abl y, the Chapman court determ i ne d the gi vi ng of such a n i nstructi on wa s lef

t to t he tria l court’s di scre tion
. Chapman , 194 Ill . 2d at 22 2, 743 N .E.2d at 70
. Having fo und no Illinois cas es d irect ly on po int, and no ne cit ed by t he pa rt ies, w e find t he
ra t io nale o f Chapman app licable to t he pr ese nt cas e. Acco rd ingly, we p er ceive t hat t he to uchstone f

or judgi ng the court’s comm

ents bel ow is to determi

ne wh ether, based on the “ ‘t ot ality o f circu msta nces , t he langu age use d ac t ually coe rc ed o r int er fere d wit h t he de liberat ions of the j ury to the prejudi

ce of the def

endan t.’ ” People v. Love , 377 Ill . App. 3d 306, 316-17, 878 N.E.2d 789, 799 ( 2007), quot in g People v. Branch , 123 Ill . App. 3d 245, 251, 462 N.E. 2d 868, 873 (1 984). View ed ag ai ns t the total i ty of the f ac ts a nd ci rcu m sta nc es , we are unab l e to p erc ei

ve how the judge’s co mm

entar y served to hasten t he jury’s del iberations, t ended t o mini mi ze t he St ate ’s burden, or encouraged superf ic ia l de li berations . Rather, they consti tut ed practical

guida nce an d a
sum mary of the prev

i ousl y gi ven i nstructi ons;ef

f ecti ve l y shorthan d des cri pti ons of what the j ury would ha ve duri ng d el i berati ons a

nd th e f reedom to in corporate those i

tem s dur i ng th e proce ss. No f ewer than three sen tenc es w ere di

rected to the open-ended d

uration of del i berati ons. Ad dit io na lly, t he r ec o r d r ev ea ls t wo inst an ce s, aft er t he jur y wa s s ele ct ed wh er e t he t r ial ju dg e, in
re spo nding t o s ched uling qu est ions fr om t he jur or s, e mphasize d t hat t he jur ies wo uld have all the1-07-3244

18

tim e the y ne eded to deli berate. Speci fi cally addressi ng the i nstructions on the l

aw that would accompan

y the jury when th ey re ti re d, t h e j udge sta ted : “ W h eth er you u se th em or h ow y ou u se th em ag ai n wi l l b e u p to y ou.” De f en da nt a ttac he s p arti

cul ar s i gn i f i ca nc e to th i s c om men t. W e do not p erc ei

ve i t to be of
su ch mo men t . Ra t he r , o ur ex pe r ien ce inst ruc t s t ha t t his s t at eme nt wa s r ea so na ble an d u t t er ly understandab le

to this jury as i t would have been

to any jury. See People v. Lozada , 211 Ill . App. 3d 8 17, 822 , 57 0 N .E.2 d 73 7, 7 40 ( 199 1) ( “ the tes t of the correc tne ss

of an i ns tructi on i s n ot what meaning t he ingenu ity o f co unse l can at t ribut e t o it , bu t how and in wha t sense , u nder t he
ev ide nc e b efo r e t he m, o r din ar y pe r so ns a ct ing as jur o r s w ill und er st an d t he inst ruc t io n” )
. T his ap pe ar s lit t le mo r e t ha n a r ec o gn it io n t ha t , wit hin t he pa r ame t er s o f t he inst ruc t io ns, t he jur y is fr ee t o de libe r at e in it s o wn wa y. Defend ant po ints t o t he du ra t ion o f the deliber at ions t o s upp or t a has t ening influence by t he t rial judg e. Yet , o ne co uld just as r eas ona bly conclud e t hat t he ver dict was hast ened by the si gn i f i ca n t an d c om pe l l i n g ev i den ce

of de f en da n t’s gui l t. We do n ot pe

rc ei v e i t i s ou r p l ac e to det er mine what is the pr op er dur at ion o f time for deliber at ions. Mo re ove r, defend ant ’s ar gument presents a l

ogical fal la cy of the post hoc ergo propter hoc va ri ety we ar e not prepare d to credi

t. In ef fect, def endan t contends, because the del ib erations were – i

n hi s vi ew – short or hasty, they
wer e has t ened by the r emark s o f the t rial judg e. We disag re e wit h t he pr emise and t he
co nclusio n. We f i nd n o error i n the rem arks of the tri al

court prior to del i

berati ons. Th

ey were r ea so na ble , co mmo nse nse gu ide po st s fo rt he jur y. N o t a s ing le s cin t illa o f influ en ce o rco er cio n is1-07-3244

19

evi den t from the j udge ’swords. C onse quen tly , we f i nd n o error. For t he f oreg oing reasons, we affi

rm def endant’s conviction and sentence. We likewi se grant the Stat e’s m

ot ion f or fees, i n the am ount o f $150, f

or defendi ng thi s appeal

and f or o ral
argu men t. Af fi rmed. FITZ GERA

LD SM ITH an d HOW SE, JJ ., conc

ur.1-07-3244

20 REPORT ER OF D ECI SION S – ILLI NOIS APPE LLATE COURT

(Front S heet to b e Attac

hed to Each C ase) THE PEOPLE OFTHE STATE OFILLINO IS, Plai ntif f-A ppelle e, v. ALFREDORAMOS, De f en da n t-A pp el l an t.

No. 1-07- 3244 Appellate Cour t of Illinois Fir st D istr ict, FIF TH Division Dec em ber 4, 2009 (Gi ve m on th , day and ye ar ) JUSTICE TOOMIN

de li ve red the opi ni on of the co urt: FITZGERALD SMITH and HOWSE, JJ. concur [s] dissent[s]

Lo w er C ou rt and Trial J udg e( s) in f

orm indi ca te d in t he m argi n: The Ho norable James

B. Li nn, J udg e P res idi ng .
Indicate if attorney represe nts APPELLANTS o

r APPELLEES and include attorneys o f co

unsel. Indicate the word NONE if not represe nted. Attor neys for Plain

tiff-Appe lle e-Pe opl e o f the

State o f Illin

oi s: Anit a Al va rez St at e’s Att or ney Count y of Cook Ro om 309 -Rich ard J. D ale y C enter, Chic ago, IL 60602 Of counsel: Ja mes E. F itzger ald, Alan Sp ellberg, Sa lly Dilgar t, Ja ckie Thu rs by-El vekrog Atto rne ys fo r Defe nd ant-A ppel lant-Al fred

o Ram os: Mi cha el J. Pel leti er

St at e App ella te D efender Pa tr icia Uns inn Dep ut y Def

ender Plea se Use Following For m: Comple te TIT LE of Case

Dock et N o. COURT Opi ni on Filed

JU STICES

APPE AL from th e Ci rcu it Ct. of Co ok Co un t y, Cha nce ry Di v.

For APPEL LA NTS, Joh n Doe , of Chi cago. For APPEL LEES, Smith and S mith of Chi cago, Joseph Brown, (of Co unsel) Also add at tor ne ys for third- party ap pe ll an ts or appellees.1-07-3244

21 Ka ri K. Fir ebau gh Ass ist an t Ap pell at e Defen der Of fic e of t he St at e App ella te D efender 203 North

LaSalle Stree t - 24 th Fl oo

r Chic ago, IL 60601