Court Opinion

ID: 9722987
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 09:59:18.424289+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:43.528728
License: Public Domain

Mr. JUSTICE GEORGE J. MORAN, dissenting: Both the trial court and the majority of this court have assumed that the trial court has power to exclude witnesses when the lawyer and not the party does not comply with Supreme Court Rule 413(d) (i) (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1975, ch. 110A, par. 413(d) (i)) which reads in part as follows: “(d) Defenses. Subject to constitutional limitations and within a reasonable time after the filing of a written motion by the State, defense counsel shall inform the State of any defenses which he intends to make at a hearing or trial and shall furnish the State with the following material and information within his possession or control: (i) The names and last known addresses of persons he intends to call as witnesses * ° It is crystal clear that this rule applies only to the lawyer and not his client. The duty to furnish witnesses he intends to call is put on the lawyer and not the client for a good reason. The lawyer has to make the decision as to what witnesses he will use in his client’s defense. This decision is strictly the lawyer’s prerogative, for it is he who has the duty to conduct the defense through all stages of the proceeding. It stands to reason he does not have to disclose witnesses unfavorable to his client’s defense even though those witnesses may be furnished to him by his client. The authority to exclude witnesses is found in Supreme Court Rule 415(g) (i) and (ii) which reads: “(g) Sanctions. (i) If at any time during the course of the proceedings it is brought to the attention of the court that a party has failed to comply with an applicable discovery rule or an order issued pursuant thereto, the court may order such party to permit the discovery of material and information not previously disclosed, grant a continuance, exclude such evidence, or enter such other order as it deems just the circumstances. (ii) Wilful violation by counsel of an applicable discovery rule or an order issued pursuant thereto may subject counsel to appropriate sanctions by the court.” Since the duty to furnish witnesses pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 413(d) is the lawyer’s and not the party’s, a lawyer’s failure to disclose witnesses, whether intentionally or negligently, cannot be the fault of the party. However, the client is being punished for his lawyer’s transgression. There are two separate punishments provided for in Rule 415(g) for failure to comply with discovery rules. Rule 415(g) (i) provides for punishment of the party and 415(g) (ii) for punishment of the lawyer. By describing the sanctions separately, the Rule seeks to sanction the one responsible for the violation, i.e., if the party violates the Rule he may be sanctioned for his violation, while if the lawyer violates the rule he may be sanctioned for his violation. It follows that a party cannot be punished for his lawyer’s transgression and vice versa. Here the punishment is meted out to the one who is innocent of the transgression. Prior to punishing the defendant in this case for his lawyer’s violation of the discovery rule, the trial court called attention to the fact that defendant’s lawyer was an experienced and able lawyer, knew the custom and practice in Madison County that at arraignment time “the discovery rule is ordered or put on each party * # Under this rationale the more able the lawyer, the more likely the client is to suffer. Preclusion of evidence is a harsh and illegal sanction in a case where the lawyer and not the party violates the discovery rules. It threatens the conviction of an individual who may be innocent of the crime for which he is charged because of his lawyer’s commission of a separate wrong— the failure to furnish information which only the lawyer had a duty to furnish. The defendant in this case has been deprived of a fundamental right guaranteed him by the sixth amendment to the Constitution of the United States. “The right to offer the testimony of witnesses, and to compel their attendance, if necessary, is in plain terms the right to present a defense, the right to present the defendant’s version of the facts as well as the prosecution’s to the jury so it may decide where the truth lies. Just as an accused has the right to confront the prosecution’s witnesses for the purpose of challenging their testimony, he has the right to present his own witnesses to establish a defense. This right is a fundamental element of due process of law.” Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14, 19, 18 L. Ed. 2d 1019, 1023, 87 S. Ct. 1920. The rationale that “what is good for the goose is good for the gander” may be relevant to a civil trial but cannot apply to a criminal proceeding for under our Constitution the State has the burden of proving a defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The exclusion of witnesses in this case sets an ominous precedent for future criminal trials. A party can be deprived of a defense because of the transgressions of his lawyer, intentional or unintentional.