Court Opinion

ID: 9713769
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 05:21:57.975375+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:20.441810
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE TULLY, dissenting: Although I concur with the majority’s recitation of the law, I must respectfully dissent to the application of the law to this particular case. As the majority correctly noted, in the absence of a written jury waiver or specific admonishment or advice by the trial court, a defendant has nevertheless knowingly, understanding^ and voluntarily waived his constitutional right to a jury trial in open court when he permits his counsel in his presence and without his objection to waive his right to a jury trial on his behalf. See People v. Tooles, 177 Ill. 2d 462, 687 N.E.2d 48 (1997); People v. Asselborn, 278 Ill. App. 3d 960, 664 N.E.2d 110 (1996). I disagree, however, with the majority’s conclusion that defendant properly waived his right to a jury trial because defense counsel represented on defendant’s behalf and in defendant’s presence that defendant would seek a bench trial. On December 14, 1995, the following colloquy transpired: “THE COURT: As to Jamail [sic] Lake, is there an indication, did you say bench trial? JAMES FRYMAN [Public defender]: She indicated that it would be a bench trial. THE COURT: As to Jamail [sic] Lake, 2/13 for bench trial. Mr. Lake is 2/13.” On February 13, 1996, the following colloquy occurred: “THE COURT: Miss Miller, which is the one you represent? MS. MILLER [Public defender]: Jermail Lake, bench trial.” The crux of the analysis turns on whether defendant understandingly and knowingly waived his right to a jury trial in open court. Under the facts and circumstances of this particular case, I do not believe defendant properly waived his right to a jury trial. The majority asserts that this case is analogous to Asselborn. In that case, however, the trial court explicitly used the phrase jury waiver and asked defense counsel whether it would be a bench or jury trial. Asselborn, 278 Ill. App. 3d at 962. Conversely, in the instant case, defense counsel merely indicated on two occasions in defendant’s presence that defendant would seek a bench trial. I cannot conclude that this fact by itself shows that defendant understandingly and knowingly waived his right to a jury trial. In light of the foregoing, I would reverse the judgment and remand this cause for further proceedings consistent with this view.