Court Opinion

ID: 9450728
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 16:56:12.642484+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:32:25.940022
License: Public Domain

KNOCH, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
Regretfully, I find myself in disagreement with the opinion of the majority.
As the Illinois Supreme Court noted in its opinion on defendant’s writ of error proceeding, neither defendant nor his counsel requested a sanity hearing. Granted that it was the duty of the Trial Judge to impanel a jury to determine the issue if the facts brought to the Court’s attention or the personal observations of the Trial Judge raised a bona fide doubt of defendant’s sanity. Here the Trial Judge, who was advised of the facts of the defendant’s past medical history, had more than the usual opportunity to evaluate the defendant’s demeanor in Court because of the several colloquys between the defendant and the Judge. Manifestly the Trial Judge experienced no bona fide doubt as to defendant’s sanity. Lacking his unique advantages for such observation, it seems to me somewhat presumptuous for this Court, or the District Court, to say that he ought to have entertained such doubts.
As to denial of continuance to subpoena two additional witnesses, whom defendant’s counsel had not seen fit to call, it seems only fair to me that the Trial Court be given some inkling of the nature of their anticipated testimony to justify the continuance sought mid trial.
I would affirm the decision of the District Court. In my opinion the Illinois Supreme Court has adequately dealt with the issue raised here and its decision should not be disturbed.