Court Opinion

ID: 9819660
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 06:29:38.623347+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:38:31.694265
License: Public Domain

PRESIDING JUSTICE CAMPBELL, specially concurring: I write separately only to emphasize the direction given by our supreme court in Chitwood: “ ‘It takes but a few moments of a trial judge’s time to directly elicit from a defendant a response indicating that he understands that he is entitled to a jury trial, that he understands what a jury trial is, and whether or not he wishes to be tried by a jury or by the court without a jury. This simple procedure incorporated in the record will reduce the countless contentions raised in the reviewing courts about jury waivers.’ ” People v. Chitwood, 67 Ill. 2d 443, 448-49, 367 N.E.2d 1331, 1334 (1977), quoting People v. Bell, 104 Ill. App. 2d 479, 482, 244 N.E.2d 321, 323 (1968). In this case, if the trial court was unsure as to whether it performed its duty to secure a knowing jury waiver on the record, it could have taken a few moments to perform the procedure. It is far more preferable to have two knowing jury waivers on record than to have none.