Opinion ID: 2219951
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Ruling Regarding the Admission of Experts' Reports

Text: Defendant next claims that the trial court deprived him of his right to present relevant mitigating evidence to the sentencing jury when the court denied defense counsel's request to provide the jury with the defense experts' written reports. Quoting People v. Davis, 185 Ill.2d 317, 344, 235 Ill.Dec. 918, 706 N.E.2d 473 (1998), defendant observes that the State cannot place any limitation on the admission of relevant and reliable evidence offered in mitigation at a death penalty hearing and the sentencing authority, whether judge or jury, may not refuse to consider such mitigating evidence as a matter of law. As the State points out, the trial court's ruling was a limitation only on the method defendant could use to present evidence, not on the admission of evidence itself. When defense counsel stated his intention of introducing psychiatrists' reports into evidence, and asked that the reports go back to the jury, the State objected, arguing that the experts should testify in person and be subject to cross-examination. The court expressed concern, noting that the reports in question were extremely voluminous and that Dr. Killian's report alone was 75 pages long. The trial judge then advised the parties: I'm not limiting either the direct or cross-examination of a particular expert. So you want to have an expert on the stand for two days, that's fine with me. You can go over his entire report if you like.    [I]f all those questions are then asked of a witness, then the opposite side knows what to cross on.    So the only point I'm making is that there is an unlimited opportunity to inquire of these experts. The trial court subsequently ruled that the reports would not go to the jury, noting, inter alia, that's why we have the experts testifying because we are in a realm beyond the normal knowledge of the jurors. The court's statement evinces its concern that, in the absence of explanatory expert testimony, psychiatric reports in the hands of the jurors could have been a source of misunderstanding, confusion, and unchallenged opinion evidence. We find no error in the circuit court's ruling. No restrictions were placed on defendant's right to present relevant evidence. The court made clear that defendant could call an expert and go over his entire report if defendant chose to do so. The limitation the court placed on the method for introducing that evidence appears, in part, to have been for the purpose of safeguarding the opposing party's right of confrontation and cross-examination, and in part to ensure that the jury received adequate explanatory testimony. We find that the court's ruling was reasonable and entirely proper. Defendant could have called any of his experts he deemed necessary. Presumably, he called those whom he believed were important to his defense. Moreover, defendant could have questioned the experts he did call about specific information contained in a nontestifying expert's report, so long as the former relied upon information contained in the report of the latter. In that way, he could have elicited some of the information contained in the reports of nontestifying experts. We conclude there was no error, and defendant was accorded the rights he was due.