Opinion ID: 2122024
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: waiver of jury for sentencing

Text: Defendant claims he waived the jury for the sentencing phase without knowing that if even one juror voted to spare his life a death penalty was impossible. (See Ill.Rev. Stat.1989, ch. 38, par. 9-1(h).) But, in fact, defendant answered affirmatively when the trial judge asked if he understood that, like the finding of guilt, death had to be the jury's unanimous choice, meaning that all 12 jurors had to agree on the penalty. Nevertheless, defendant states that had he better understood the unanimity requirement, he would not have waived the jury for sentencing. Defendant concedes that on direct appeal he argued, without success, that the judge's admonishment was insufficient. (See Erickson, 117 Ill.2d at 295-96, 111 Ill.Dec. 924, 513 N.E.2d 367.) However, he insists a different issue is raised here: whether an evidentiary hearing is required because he generated a sworn statement revealing he did not truly understand the unanimity requirement. It is difficult to see how that different characterization of the issue might change the nature of the claim. The underlying question remains whether there was a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver of the right to a jury for sentencing purposes. That question was answered positively on direct appeal. See Erickson, 117 Ill.2d at 295-96, 111 Ill.Dec. 924, 513 N.E.2d 367; see also People v. Ramey (1992), 152 Ill.2d 41, 59-60, 178 Ill.Dec. 19, 604 N.E.2d 275 (holding that knowledge of the unanimity requirement is immaterial to assessment of whether a defendant's waiver of a jury for sentencing is valid). Presumably, defendant's argument is that the waiver could not have been knowing or intelligent if, despite understanding that all 12 jurors had to agree on death, he stood unenlightened of the implication that a lone juror could block it. But if the admonishment was sufficient, and it was, and defendant understood its meaning, and he said he did, it can matter little that he now swears he was ignorant of a nuance he now realizes. Defendant's answer for the record that he understood the admonishment belies the assertion that he did not really understand the workings of the unanimity rule. There is no need for an evidentiary hearing on the issue.