Opinion ID: 2315619
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: the night trial sessions

Text: Both appellants assert prejudice allegedly resulting from the continuance of the trial sessions of December 10, 11 and 12 through the evening, after a dinner recess, until 9 o'clock. The trial judge ordered the evening sessions after securing the authorization of the Chief Justice as required by Rule A1. The basis of the asserted prejudice is stated on Brown's brief: The placing of such a burden upon counsel is a denial of the constitutional guarantee of the right of representation by counsel. The trial judge first announced his intention to have evening sessions on Friday, December 7, and no objection was interposed. Again, on Monday, December 10, after selection of the jury was completed and before the opening statements by counsel, the judge announced: Incidentally, I am going to work until nine o'clock to-night, so guide yourselves accordingly. Again no objection was interposed. It was not until shortly before the close of the afternoon session on that day that all defense counsel requested a reconsideration, asserting reasons of health and that the burden of a murder trial is sufficiently grave without sitting beyond reasonable hours. This was the extent of any objection made. The gist of the contention is that counsel's representation of their clients' interests was not what it should be under the strain of evening sessions after the protracted period required to select the jury. We think that counsel show understandable but undue modesty. Both were assigned by the court to the defense of their respective clients. The record exhibits that they were unstinting in their efforts and unsparing of their energies and gave fully of their experience and ability in the protection of their clients' rights to a fair trial. They richly earned the commendation expressed by the trial judge at the conclusion of the trial. Their performance is another vindication of the policy of the bench and bar of this State which assures the indigent accused of proper representation on his day in court. We do not find the slightest evidence that the rights of Vaszorich or Brown in anywise suffered from any added strain upon their counsel incident to the night sessions.