Court Opinion

ID: 9885081
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-06 03:29:23.677378+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:43.715717
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Schaefer, dissenting: In my opinion the petitioner was entitled to a hearing to determine the merits of his claim that his appointed counsel did not competently represent him. In support of this claim the petitioner attached a copy of his jail visitation card which shows that he had one visitor prior to his trial. The suggestion that this visitor, named but not otherwise identified, was in some way connected with the public defender’s office originates"with this court, not with the attorneys for the parties who know the facts. The trial assistant stated that the public defender’s office had no confidential questionnaire from the petitioner. The significance of this statement is obvious in view of the procedure followed by the public defender’s office. (People v. Morris, 3 Ill.2d 437, 450, 451.) No attempt was made at any time to dispute the charge implicit in the petitioner’s explanation that he concluded the public defender was incompetent “when I only get a chance to see her two minutes before trial.” These facts raise questions which should have been resolved by an evidentiary hearing. The opinion states that “there is nothing in the petition establishing the manner in which defendant has been prejudiced.” But the assistant public defender who tried the case stated that she would not be able to cross-examine the prosecution’s witnesses until she had an opportunity to talk to the witnesses of whom she learned only when she talked to the defendant after she had answered ready for trial. The opinion of the court continues, “It is neither alleged nor established that named witnesses were available, could have been located, or how their testimony would be helpful to defendant.” Frank Wilson, a co-defendant who had been tried and acquitted before the defendant’s trial commenced, was not called as a witness. At the trial the prosecution resisted a continuance to secure Wilson’s attendance on the ground that he had been present in the courtroom during the defendant’s trial. The defendant denied this. Attached to the post-conviction petition is the affidavit of Frank Wilson which states that he was in Cook County at the time of the trial, had not been present in the courtroom during the trial of the defendant’s case, or during the month in which that case was tried, that he had not been served with a subpoena to appear, and that if he had been served with a subpoena he would have appeared and testified for the defendant. The opinion considers that Wilson’s testimony was unimportant because he “had neither been present during nor overheard the alleged conversation between Sloan and defendant’s wife. Such testimony as he might have given, as disclosed by the offer of proof, was merely cumulative in nature to that of his brother and sister, and could scarcely be thought to affect the result here in view of the clear proof of guilt.” But the “clear proof of guilt” to which the opinion refers is largely the testimony of Sloan, who was the only occurrence witness for the prosecution. The fact that Wilson was not present during the alleged conversation between Sloan and the defendant’s wife is of no significance, because Sloan denied that he had ever visited the defendant’s wife. Wilson’s testimony that he had taken Sloan to see the defendant’s wife was, in my opinion, highly important. ■ Whether the “offer of proof” by the defendant’s attorney was regarded by the trial judge as of any significance, (see Chicago City Railway Co. v. Carroll, 206 Ill. 318, 328-9; cf. Garvey v. Chicago Railways Co., 339 Ill. 276, 282-3.), cannot be determined from the record. He made no ruling concerning it. The defendant’s appointed attorney failed to request the prosecution to enter into the statutory stipulation as to what the testimony of the absent Wilson would be. Ill. Rev. Stat. 1965, chap. 38, par. 114—4. Serious questions of adequate representation are also presented by the fact that the public defender was appointed to represent petitioner at the post-conviction hearing even though he had requested other counsel. In a recent case the court stated: “Petitioner’s contention that he should have counsel other than the public defender was not entirely without merit since it was, in part, inadequate trial representation by that official of which defendant was complaining * * *.” (People v. Ashley, 34 Ill.2d 402, 409.) In the present case the public defender did argue that the trial counsel from the public defender’s office was incompetent for want of preparation, although he based his argument upon matter set out in the petition, which he did not seek to amend, and did not undertake an independent investigation. But the fact that the argument was made does not avoid the problem. Even though the public defender’s office is staffed with competent and dedicated lawyers it is unfair both to them and to their clients to require a public defender to attempt to show that a fellow public defender was incompetent. I would afford the petitioner an evidentiary hearing and provide other counsel.