Court Opinion

ID: 9719434
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 07:52:35.024965+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:07.259951
License: Public Domain

Mr. JUSTICE SIMON, dissenting: Under proper circumstances prior recorded testimony can be admitted against a criminal defendant without violating the confrontation clause of the sixth amendment; this is not such a case. I do not read California v. Green (1970), 399 U.S. 149, or Barber v. Page (1968), 390 U.S. 719, cited by the majority as support for an absolute rule of admissibility allowing the use of preliminary-hearing testimony any time a witness is unavailable and an opportunity to cross-examine was presented at the preliminary hearing. In addition, neither oase deals with the type of due process problem that arises in the case before this court where, on the face of the record, the earlier testimony appears to be so unreliable as to create a great danger of misleading the jury. In Green, the witness whose prior testimony was admitted also testified at the trial. Consequently, there was no need for the court to satisfy itself that his prior testimony was reliable, or to scrutinize it as it might have felt compelled to had the witness been absent. Nor was there anything questionable about the witness’ preliminary-hearing testimony other than his own statement at trial that he took LSD shortly before the events about which he testified at the preliminary hearing and as a result was unable to remember what actually happened or to distinguish fact from fantasy. Any doubt raised by the witness’ trial testimony could be resolved by the trier of fact because it had the opportunity to observe and hear the witness and to consider trial and preliminary-hearing testimony. Nothing in California v. Green indicates that the court would have been unconcerned about accepting the preliminary-hearing testimony of a witness unavailable for cross-examination at trial if other evidence established he was under the influence of a hallucinogenic drug during the incident to which he testified. Also, in California v. Green, the witness testified about a conversation with another person at which no one else was present. In this case, there were three persons beside Willa Watson who were as close or closer to the events, covered in her testimony as she was. In Barber, the Supreme Court was faced only with the issue of whether a witness was actually unavailable. Barber held that preliminary-hearing testimony was erroneously admitted in violation of the confrontation clause where the "missing” witness was in prison and the prosecution made no effort to secure his presence at trial. Under those circumstances there was no showing that the witness was unavailable. The court there was not faced with the claim that the preliminary-hearing testimony was too unreliable to be left to the jury. Thus, neither Green nor Barber create a rule permitting the use of such testimony as was admitted here. Nor are People v. Beathea (1974), 24 Ill.App.3d 460, 321 N.E.2d 458, and People v. Coburn (1974), 20 Ill.App.3d 60,313 N.E.2d 270, precedents on which it is safe to rely, for in those cases there were other witnesses at the trial who corroborated the testimony of the dead witness. The unavailable witness, Willa Watson, was the only person, other than the defendant, who was in the apartment before the police arrived, and whose testimony was offered. Recently, this court set aside a conviction because the State failed to make an adequate search for a witness whose testimony at the first trial of the accused, which ended in a mistrial, was introduced at the second trial. (People v. Payne (1975), 30 Ill.App.3d 624, 332 N.E.2d 745.) The reason for that result was not because the prosecution was penalized for ambivalence in locating a witness, but rather because the law recognizes the dangers in the reading of a cold transcript instead of permitting the jury to observe the demeanor of a live witness. When the State is required in protecting the accused’s right to confrontation to take such great care to produce a live witness even where there was full cross-examination in a prior adversary trial in preference to reading that prior trial testimony, a rule which admits without careful scrutiny of its reliability the preliminary-hearing testimony of a person unavailable at trial is neither logical nor reasonable. To provide due process under the fourteenth amendment and to satisfy the requirements of the sixth amendment of the Constitution of the United States, the trial judge, before admitting prior recorded testimony, must be satisfied that it will not lead the jury into error. Such an inquiry is not likely to require burdensome efforts by the court since it principally involves an examination of the testimony the prosecution is seeking to introduce as well as the other evidence which is introduced at the trial. The areas of inquiry suggested by the evidence in this case which the court should have considered in exercising its discretion and which the cross-examination of Ms. Watson failed to cover were her ability and opportunity to observe the events about which she testified, whether she had any motive to be untruthful, and whether other witnesses to the same incident were available. Nor can the failure to have cross-examined in these areas be said to constitute a waiver. (See Barber v. Page (1968), 390 U.S. 719, 725.) It is not unusual for the preliminary hearing to be held before counsel is sufficiently acquainted with the facts to suspect that the capacity of the witness to observe or remember might have been impaired or that a bias exists. If cross-examination did not extend to these areas because the public defender did not have sufficient time to investigate them or knowledge of the facts to appreciate their relevance, the mere opportunity to cross-examine cannot be realistically regarded as meaningful. Without a real opportunity to cross-examine a defendant is not afforded his confrontation and due process rights. Because the evidence raises serious doubts as to Willa Watson’s credibility, her testimony is not sufficiently reliable to be left to a jury for evaluation, as we would do in the case of a witness whose demeanor the jury could observe. While the function of the jury is to determine the credibility of witnesses, as Justice Brennan pointed out in his dissenting opinion in California v. Green (1970), 399 U.S. 149, 198, "[n]o such determination of credibility is possible when the witness comes before the trial factfinder by the reading of a cold transcript.” Testimony may be so inherently improbable, and contain internal contradictions, inconsistencies and omissions so extensive that it is self-impeaching. Such testimony when offered by a live witness presents questions of weight and credibility, and the trier of fact is free to ignore such testimony even though no contradictory evidence is offered. (Quock Ting v. United States (1891), 140 U.S. 417; People v. Malmenato (1958), 14 Ill.2d 52, 150 N.E.2d 806; People v. Davis (1915), 269 Ill. 256, 110 N.E. 9; People v. Booker (1966), 73 Ill.App.2d 226, 218 N.E.2d 779.) However, where the evidence is offered in the form of a transcript of preliminary-hearing testimony, as Justice Brennan observed, the trier of fact is confronted with a different and more difficult setting in attempting to determine whether it should be ignored. Inconsistencies which might be apparent during the give-and-take of five interrogation slip easily past the ear when read dispassionately from a transcript. Defense counsel is deprived of the opportunity to bring home to the jury the contradictions, inconsistencies and omissions by playing upon them during five cross-examination. The very fact that the evidence is read from a written document may lend it credibility that it would not have were it presented live. Therefore, fairness requires that the court take the precaution of testing a missing witness’ preliminary-hearing testimony for reliability before admitting it into evidence. Here the court erred in admitting Ms. Watson’s preliminary-hearing testimony because it was so unreliable that it created too great a likelihood of misleading the jury. As to Ms. Watson’s capacity and opportunity to observe, we know from testimony given by others at the trial, but not from her own cross-examination, that she had been drinking from at least 7 p.m. the night before the murder, and that she went to bed about 3 a.m. She was never asked at the preliminary hearing how much she drank and over what period of time, and the record does not demonstrate whether she was sober enough after going to bed to have the capacity to observe and remember what happened. She testified about the comings and goings of the defendant in her room during the early morning hours after 3 a.m., but the record does not establish whether there was enough light in her room to see what occurred. The police arrived at approximately 5:45 a.m. and one of the officers testified he had to use a flashlight to examine the body of the deceased in the defendant’s room. Police officers testified that Ms. Watson was wearing a wrinkled nightgown, was blinking and rubbing her eyes, that she had been asleep, and that she was “very droopy eyed like she had just gotten up.” These facts, not inquired into on her cross-examination, are sufficiently important to raise serious doubt about whether she was too intoxicated or too sleepy to observe and remember with accuracy. Since she was not able to relate any exact or approximate intervals of time between the incidents which her testimony covered, she could have conceivably confused tire sequences as one who is awakened several times from sleep after a long night of drinking might easily do. In fact, her testimony about the defendant’s entries into her room, as pointed out below, was self-contradictory and confused. There is also a serious doubt about Ms. Watson’s motive in testifying as she did. Blood found on the floor of her room after the murder was never satisfactorily explained. If it came from the metal bar referred to in her testimony and if that bar had been used to beat the deceased to death, there was no explanation of tire absence of a trail of blood from the room where the murder occurred to the bloodstains in Ms. Watson’s room. According to the testimony of the police officer, Ms. Watson attributed the reddish tint in the bathtub water in which her dress was soaking and the reddish tint in the small bucket in the bathtub to a head wound she suffered earlier in the week which bloodied her dress. It is possible that the bloody dress, together with red stains in the basin of the bathroom in the premises where the murder occurred, may have been connected with the murder. If so, Ms. Watson had a motive for testifying in a way which directed suspicion to the defendant. Three other persons were as close or closer than Ms. Watson to the bed on which the murdered man was found. Mr. Cross although blind could have heard the conversation Ms. Watson claimed she heard when she testified defendant said, “Get out of my bed.” No explanation was offered as to why Harry Housely who was in the same bed with Ms. Watson when the incidents occurred was not called as a witness. Nor was there any explanation as to why Peter Reeves, in whose room the supposed murder instrument was found, could not be called as a witness at trial in place of or in addition to reading the preliminary-hearing testimony of the dead witness. The police officer who conducted the investigation testified that based upon the statements of Ms. Watson and Mr. Reeves, he concluded the defendant was lying. Therefore, it is apparent that Reeves must have had information which showed the defendant’s guilt. It is correct, as the majority points out, that the State is not obliged to call every witness who might testify concerning evidence of the crime. This, however, does not justify the State’s failure to call any of the witnesses who were in the apartment at the time of the murder or to explain why they were not being called, and its reliance instead only on testimony not subject to cross-examination. The danger of Ms. Watson’s preliminary-hearing testimony is highlighted by the number of factual questions raised and left unanswered by the evidence. Ms. Watson testified the defendant brought the metal bar back in her room. There is no explanation as to how the metal bar then got to Peter Reeves’ room. Nor was there any explanation of the lack of fingerprints on the murder instrument or the blood on the floor of Ms. Watson’s room. The only explanation of the bloody dress was a police officer’s testimony at the trial regarding what Ms. Watson told him outside the presence of the defendant. The bloody dress was not referred to by Ms. Watson at the prefiminary hearing and counsel did not cross-examine her about it. Additional unanswered questions were raised by the blood on the metal bar which the State claimed was the murder instrument and which Ms, Watson’s testimony placed in defendant’s hands. There was no testimony that this substance was not on the bar before the murder. The blood was dried when the police officer found it around 6 a.m., and could have been there a long time. Particles of flesh and bone were lying about the victim’s head and body, but no particles of bone, flesh or hair were found on the bar. While blood from the victim tested as O-type blood, the Chicago Police Department’s microanalyst testified that the blood on the metal bar was not group O. Finally, much of Ms. Watson’s testimony was confused and self-contradictory. She testified that after she went to bed she did not hear anything unusual that night. But she also testified that after the defendant’s first appearance in her room she fell asleep, and in response to the question, “Did you hear anything else unusual that night, after that,” she testified, “Yes, after a while I heard him say, ‘Get out of my bed * * ” with the addition of an obscenity. Later, on direct examination she testified that she heard the defendant tell “him to get off his bed,” the inference being that the defendant told this to the deceased, but the witness was in no position to observe to whom the defendant was speaking. She testified that after she saw the defendant leave her apartment, “he came back in his own apartment,” but since she remained in her bed she had no opportunity to observe where the defendant went after he left her room. She testified that the defendant left her room with the metal bar, that she then heard him say, “Get out of my bed * * and following that he came back into her room and threw the metal bar on her bed. But a few questions later she was asked what happened after she heard the defendant say, “Get out of my bed * # and her answer was: “I don’t know, he went back outside, I guess because after awhile, he came back in and the police was there and he came in.” When asked if she was awakened by the metal bar she answered, “Yes, he dropped it on the floor.” But she had previously testified that the defendant threw the metal bar on her bed and she also testified that he threw the metal bar by her bed. She had no idea of how much time elapsed between the defendant’s various entries into her room. Her testimony with respect to how the metal bar was taken out of her room a second time was complete speculation, but the jury heard it. The testimony was as follows: “Question: The defendant threw the iron down by your bed. Answer: Yes. Question: After he threw it down by your bed, did you do anything with the iron? Answer: I didn’t touch it, he came back and got it. Question: When did the defendant come back the third time? Answer: He must have. Question: Did you see him come back? Answer: No, I was asleep. Question: You mean, after he threw the iron back on your bed, you went back to sleep? Answer: Yes.” While internal inconsistencies such as these in a witness’ testimony are ordinarily matters to be resolved by the trier of fact (People v. Smith (1968), 102 Ill.App.2d 134, 243 N.E.2d 286; City of Chicago v. Carney (1962), 34 Ill.App.2d 303, 180 N.E.2d 729), the inconsistencies here emphasize the care which must be taken before using preliminary-hearing testimony when the witness is unavailable and the trier of fact cannot observe the witness’ demeanor. The confusion in Ms. Watson’s testimony together with the suspicions about the accuracy of her testimony and the factual gaps in the evidence lead me to the conclusion that the use of her testimony was an abuse of discretion which deprived the defendant of both his confrontation and due process rights. One of the police officers and a former Assistant State’s Attorney testified that the defendant confessed to the crime. Defendant denied making either a confession or an admission of guilt. It is impossible to evaluate how the jury would have resolved this conflicting testimony had it been free of the influence of Ms. Watson’s testimony. I would, therefore, remand the case for a new trial at which the preliminary-hearing testimony would not be admitted.