Court Opinion

ID: 9520346
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 01:37:02.736332+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:46:01.294365
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE HOLDRIDGE, dissenting: I would remand for another hearing because I am still not convinced that the trial judge applied the Boose analysis. Although the Boose factors were argued by counsel on remand, the judge said he had “always taken the position” that Boose did not apply to electronic security belts and that the appellate court had “ignore[d] the obvious difference between visible shackles and a concealed security device.” The judge expressed this view several times, suggesting that appellate judges would agree if they had any experience in the real world of criminal trials. The following remarks are illustrative: “The judges, who have no history in the court system, who have addressed this under People versus Martinez, want to look at this as an issue of well, it really in their opinion offends the dignity of the judicial process, which they have never been involved in. I find it very interesting that they have never tried — picked a jury, tried a case, tried an Aggravated Battery, seen a victim shake on the witness stand, cry on the witness stand, and yet they are going to tell the trial court what and what doesn’t offend the dignity of the trial process. So all that aside, I don’t think — I did everything I could not to prejudice the jury. I have not heard anything that would lead me to believe that the defendant’s abilities to assist his counsel during trial was in any way impaired or restricted by the presence of the device, and I take offense at any reference that the use of the device offends the dignity of the judicial process for the reasons I stated previously.” It appears that instead of following our instructions, the judge used the remand hearing as a forum to express his disagreement with the instructions. Although he mentioned two factors relevant to Boose (seriousness of the charge and criminal history), he had already done that when the case was before us on direct appeal. I have been a trial judge. I have picked a jury. I have seen crime victims testify. This experience actually accounts for my belief that Boose violations should be remedied through retrospective hearings instead of outright reversal. In People v. Martinez, 347 Ill. App. 3d 1001 (2004), the evidence revealed that the Will County sheriff had a policy of requiring all felony defendants to wear an electronic security belt in the courtroom. The trial judge deferred to this policy, stating that “he did not want to disrupt the sheriff’s standard operating procedure.” Martinez, 347 Ill. App. 3d at 1003. Such deferral was improper because a trial judge must control his or her own courtroom procedures. See People v. Allen, 222 Ill. 2d 340 (2006). The purpose of a retrospective Boose hearing is to afford judges an opportunity to fix this impropriety without undoing an entire trial. The instant judge obviously disagrees with our application of Boose to electronic security belts. Nevertheless, as our supreme court has held, Boose does apply. See Allen, 222 Ill. 2d 340. Since I do not believe the judge has yet followed the applicable standard, I would remand once again for compliance.