Opinion ID: 2995876
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Brown’s Trial

Text: On January 30, 1992, the day of the defendant’s trial before Judge Morissey in the Cook County Circuit Court, Kozlowski was ill. At trial he was represented by a substitute public defender, Lafonzo Palmer, who met Brown for the first time that morning. Kozlowski neglected to inform Palmer of Brown’s questionable conduct with her and her law clerk as well as the fact that she had been informed that Brown had suffered recently from mental problems, that he had been confined in a psychiatric unit while receiving treatment at Menard, and furthermore that she had as of that date been unable to obtain Brown’s medical records. As a result of these problems in No. 01-2326 11 the Cook County, Illinois justice system and state prison system, attorney Palmer conducted Brown’s defense totally unaware of the fact that Brown had been previously diagnosed as suffering from chronic schizophrenia and had been treated for the same. The only knowledge that Palmer had regarding Brown’s mental condition was the November 21, 1991, report in Brown’s file from Dr. Kaplan stating that Brown was competent to stand trial and was also sane at the time of the offense. Brown waived his right to a jury trial and entered a plea of not guilty, although the transcript of Brown’s colloquy with the judge reveals Brown’s confused re- sponses to the judge’s questions about the waiver of his constitutional rights. A 30-minute bench trial ensued, during which time only three witnesses (the victim, the arresting officer, and Brown) testified. During Brown’s short time on the witness stand, the judge’s own frustra- tion with Brown is evident, as the judge had to instruct Brown repeatedly to speak so that he could be understood. The essence of Brown’s testimony was (like his statement to the police) that he believed the victim was following him, that he was going to attack him, and that his use of the knife was designed to scare the victim away. Shortly after the defense rested, the judge mentioned that he thought he had observed Brown laughing at an inappropriate time during the trial and asked Brown if “there was something funny?” At that point, Brown engaged in an outburst of random obscenities and insults directed at the court as follows: MR. BROWN: F you, Jack. Hear what I am saying? THE COURT: Take it easy, Mr. Brown. MR. PALMER: Be quiet, Johnnie. MR. BROWN: I am grown. I am locked up, mother fer. That is my mother fing ass. 12 No. 01-2326 MR. PALMER: I know that, Johnnie. I know. I know. I know. MR. BROWN: You are a lying mother fer. MR. PALMER: Just relax. It is okay. MR. BROWN: Can I go to the washroom? THE COURT: We are waiting on opening argument. MR. PALMER: Just a second. You can go to the wash- room. Tell the Judge you are sorry. MR. BROWN: Excuse me. After the oral exchange between the defendant, the court, and the defense attorney, Brown’s attorney waived closing argument and the trial judge proceeded to find Brown guilty of armed robbery. His counsel, Palmer, at this time moved for a psychiatric examination prior to sentencing in light of Brown’s in-court, uncontrolled and irrational outburst at the conclusion of the trial. The trial judge took the motion under advisement but never ruled on it, for reasons unexplained.