Court Opinion

ID: 9716961
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 06:54:54.202408+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:50.331001
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE HOLDRIDGE, specially concurring: I agree with Justice Schmidt’s special concurrence but write separately to elaborate on the point in question. Defense counsel was supposed to be an advocate at trial. However, by offering no objection when the court entirely denied defendant’s right to present his case, counsel engaged in no advocacy at all. Moreover, I do not agree that the judge was unreceptive or inflexible. Indeed when a question surfaced about the application of People v. Allen, 375 Ill. App. 3d 810 (2007), the judge displayed flexibility by allowing Officer Wojowski to be recalled for clarification of the evidence. Thus, the record suggests that the judge would have been receptive to a reminder that defendant had a right to proceed once his motion for a directed verdict was ostensibly denied.