Opinion ID: 2523730
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 20

Heading: Defendant's Motions on Remand

Text: On remand, defendant argued that the removal of Attorney Granich from the case violated defendant's right to counsel of choice under the sixth amendment and the parallel state right, as well as the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment. Defendant's motion stated that he was discouraged by the loss of his chosen champion to represent him and therefore devised ways to bring about his own demise by pleading guilty. Defendant also argued that he had been denied his right to represent himself after Granich was removed from the case. In a supporting affidavit, defendant stated, when I inquired about pleading guilty on the day my lawyer, Attorney Jeffrey Granich, was removed from my case, I did so out of the idea that without my counsel of choice I could not receive proper, just, and unbiased representation, and while I had considered pleading guilty to some offense in this case prior to Mr. Granich's removal as my lawyer; at the time of his removal as my lawyer it was my understanding that were going to take the case to trial. Defendant also averred, I felt despondent at Attorney Granich's removal from the case and believed that I had no hope in proceeding without him as my lawyer, which is when I expressed my desire to plead guilty. On January 16, 2008, a hearing was held in the circuit court on the motion to withdraw guilty plea. Defense counsel indicated that he wished to call a number of witnesses to which the State objected on relevance grounds, and the court allowed him to make an offer of proof. Counsel indicated that he intended to call James Anderson, administrator of the Cook County portion of the Capital Litigation Trust Fund. Anderson would provide a spreadsheet of disbursements from the Capital Litigation Trust Fund from January 1, 2000, to the date of the hearing in 2008. In particular, the defense would seek to admit the portion of the spreadsheet showing disbursements in 2000 and 2001, before the Capital Litigation Trial Bar had been created. According to counsel, the spreadsheet showed substantial disbursements to appointed counsel, as well as investigators and experts. Counsel would highlight two cases in which payments were made to Jeffrey Granich, and additional cases in which payments were made to Barry Spector, Robert Loeb, and Debra Seaton. Counsel also made an offer of proof with respect to the testimony of Robert Loeb, whom he intended to call for defendant. Loeb would testify that he and Debra Seaton were appointed and paid out of the Capital Litigation Trust Fund in 2000 to represent Andre Crawford, though neither of them was a member of the not-yet-created Capital Litigation Trial Bar. He would also testify that neither he nor Seaton had been retained by Crawford prior to appointment. Finally, counsel made an offer of proof of the related testimony he would elicit from Jeffrey Granich if permitted. Granich would testify that he was appointed in two capital cases in 2000 and 2001, although he was not a member of the Capital Litigation Trial Bar at the time, nor had he become a member since. He would also testify that he was not appointed on the eve of trial, although one of the cases was fairly far along at the time of his appointment. In addition, Granich would testify that one of the cases took at least a year and a half to be tried. The State objected, arguing that the proffered testimony was irrelevant, because its theory was that the court had discretion to appoint and remove Granich. The court responded to the arguments by stating: Counsel, you have made your offer of proof. Your offer of proof will be in the record. You can take your spreadsheets and you and put them in the record. The Supreme Court will be able to see them if you lose this motion to withdraw. I have read the entire conversations that I've had during the course of this case with Mr. Baez. I don't think it's relevant, but that will be for the Supreme Court to see if the case gets back to them. So you can certainlyas I just said, you've made your offer of proof and you can mark your spreadsheets as [an] exhibit. The court then referred to the entries on the spreadsheet showing that it had personally made appointments of private counsel, saying: [THE COURT:] So, yes, I knew the fund was there, I used it and I helped to writeI was on the committee that was initially assigned to write the Capital Trial Litigation Rights, so I know that that requirement didn't come into existence until 2002. So you can certainly put those documents in the record, I will take the offer of proof, and as I said, once we resolve the motion to dismiss [ sic ], if you lose the Supreme Court will have the evidence. It's not contested by the State, is it, that that's what he would say? [Assistant State's Attorney] MR. RICHARDS: No. [Assistant State's Attorney] MR. MURPHY: No. THE COURT: All right. Then the State's not contesting it, it's in. The defense then rested. The State called Granich, although it indicated for the record that it was doing so at the request of the court. Granich testified that he was contacted by defendant's girlfriend and paid $6,500 to represent defendant, which did not represent his total fee. Granich estimated that he would generally charge $20,000 to $50,000 to defend a client charged with a double murder, and that up to the date of his motion to be appointed as counsel, he had billed $3,000. According to the motion, that $3,000 represented 12 hours reviewing the file, 3 hours on court appearances, and 5 hours on client conferences. Granich testified that he spent additional time on the case after the motion was filed, but he would not speculate as to how much time. Granich also agreed that when he was removed from the case it was not even close to being ready for trial. With respect to his vacation, Granich told the court that he left for Israel in late May or early June 2001 and returned to Illinois in October 2001. After three or four months, Granich again left for Israel, where he stayed another three or four months before returning to Illinois. While he was gone, attorney Loren Blumenfeld managed his office to take care of the day-to-day operations. John Theis, whom Granich had sought to have appointed in this case, also took one or two of Granich's cases. According to Granich, Any case that was pending when I left in the early Summer of 2001 an additional attorney would have filed an appearance and we shared responsibility. When asked about his plans in this case, Granich responded, If I would have maintained responsibility on the case I would have communicated with my office and the defendant through letter, by coming back to Chicago, speaking to my clients when necessary, preparing my clients when necessary to testify, and doing anything ordered by this court. Granich explained that he had anticipated communicating with defendant by phone and letter while in Israel, and the court interjected, You didn't tell me you were going to communicate; you told me you were going to be gone and Mr. Theis was going to carry on the case while you were out of town and you'd return to try that case. That's what you said to me. Granich replied, And Judge, that's what I mean, that I would continue my responsibility and do whatever I needed to do to try this case. Later, Granich stated, I didn't know how long I was going to be gone for so I hoped Mr. Theis would come on the case, try it with me, cover any court date that I could not make and work on the case together. My intention if my appointment would have continued would have been to try the case with Mr. Theis. He agreed that he had told the court that he anticipated that Theis would carry on the case while Granich was out of town and that Granich would return to try the case, but he asserted, To me trying a case means to litigate any motion that needs to be litigated. Granich acknowledged that he did not advise the court in his motion for appointment that he planned to leave the country. He further acknowledged that, after he informed the court of his plans, the court asked him to submit in writing the dates he intended to be out of the country and he did not do so. Granich maintained that he did not know how long he was going to be out of the country at that time, although he told the court months. He explained, I kind of just really wanted to see what was going to happen when I got there. It was kind of a situation where I wanted to keep one foot here and I wanted to put one foot out there without necessarily losing what I had developed at that point. Granich acknowledged that he was thinking about living in Israel. He did not recall discussing his plans with attorney Stuart Smith. When the State's questioning was complete, the court asked Granich if he had tried any death penalty cases prior to his April 2001 motion for appointment; Granich answered that he had not. Granich also stated that he believed Theis had tried federal death penalty cases, which was part of the reason Granich sought Theis's assistance in this case. On cross-examination, defense counsel asked several questions about Granich's April 26, 2001, appointment. The court interrupted the questioning, saying, There is no issue that he was appointed. It seems to me that you're wasting my time. He knows he was appointed. I said he was appointed, I said he was appointed, and a few days or less than a month later I struck the appointment. It's not whether he was appointed or not. Clearly he was appointed. Defense counsel also asked Granich if he had contacted a mitigation specialist, and Granich said that he had. Granich agreed that a mitigation specialist can take at least months and maybe years to develop a mitigation case. Counsel then asked, So, in fact, when you had gone that four months, wasn't it your plan that if a mitigation specialist was appointed it was going to continue? Granich answered, Yes. When counsel asked Would not a mitigation specialist be working on gathering records and doing the leg work on the case? the State objected, and the court said, That objection is sustained as to what would have happened if he had been gone four months. No one had been appointed, no one had been hired. He said he had talked to somebody. Finally, Granich agreed that he was ready, willing, and able to continue representing defendant if his appointment had been continued. The State also called Stuart Smith at the court's request. Smith testified that he did not have an independent recollection of any of the proceedings in this case on May 22, 2001. Similarly, Smith claimed he could not recall having a conversation with Granich about his travel plans or about anything else that day. He pointed out that there was another Mr. Smith in the public defender's office, but he agreed with the court that the transcript indicated that Stuart Smith was present. On cross-examination, Smith told the court that prior to his appearance on May 22, 2001, defendant was very upset and was actually hanging from the top bars in the lock-up in the back based on his being very upset. After questioning from the court, Smith clarified that defendant was hanging from his arms and climbing the walls.