Court Opinion

ID: 9819339
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 06:23:09.729453+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:38:30.098588
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE McLAREN, specially concurring: I concur in the judgment of the court but write separately because I believe we should consider a point that was raised by the defendant in the trial court below but not raised on appeal, namely, the trial court’s denial of the defendant’s/applicant’s request for appointment of an independent psychiatrist. The failure to raise this issue on appeal is understandable because the Third District in People v. Trainor, 312 Ill. App. 3d 860, 862 (2000), the Fourth District in People v. Savage, 277 Ill. App. 3d 63, 65-66 (1995), and this district in People v. Finkle, 214 Ill. App. 3d 290, 296 (1991), determined that a defendant is not entitled to the appointment of an independent psychiatrist to assist him in sustaining his burden of proof by helping to establish his recovery. Unlike the case at bar, in Finkle it is not clear if the defendant requested an independent psychiatrist to assist in merely preparing the defendant’s petition or actually to offer testimony at the hearing to establish his recovery. The majority adopts the reasoning of Trainor regarding summary judgment, but does not discuss the futility inherent in Savage, Trainor, and Finkle regarding the denial of an independent psychiatrist. Unlike other forms of institutionalization, the burden of going forward and the burden of proof in section 9 applications are upon the defendant/ applicant. Finkle, 214 Ill. App. 3d at 292. The defendant/applicant must establish that he has recovered, but, without an independent psychiatrist, he is not given the tools to do so. The Fourth District in Savage, 277 Ill. App. 3d at 66, and People v. Cash, 282 Ill. App.. 3d 638, 641 (1996), determined that summary judgment and a directed verdict, respectively, are available to the State to thwart the defendant’s/ applicant’s attempts to sustain his burden. However, the Fourth District then determined that the defendant/applicant is not entitled to an independent psychiatrist who could possibly provide an opinion that would either create a material issue of fact to preclude summary judgment or stave off a directed verdict. Section 9 of the Act instructs the trial court to consider “any other relevant information submitted by or on behalf of [the] applicant.” 725 ILCS 205/9 (West 1998). Yet, the indigent defendant/applicant is given no means to provide such “other relevant information.” To require the petitioner to prove that he has recovered without giving him the means to present his own expert testimony to rebut the statutorily required socio-psychiatric report effectively reduces the right to a jury trial to an exercise in futility. We must keep in mind the principles stated by our supreme court in People v. Olmstead, 32 Ill. 2d 306 (1965): “Under this act the defendant has been indeterminately committed to the Director of Public Safety. The only statutory route to freedom from confinement is to establish his recovery under section 9. It is inconceivable that such sole right should find a road block in the fact that the indigent defendant is inarticulate in the forms of the law or that he does not have the affidavits of psychiatric specialists to support his application. *** To hold otherwise would be to permit the State to forever hold in confinement a defendant found to be sexually dangerous at the sole discretion of the officers of the State. The rights of the individual, as protected by the provisions of this act, do not so intend.” Olmstead, 32 Ill. 2d at 314. A defendant’s/applicant’s rights to a jury trial and an attorney are a waste of time and resources if the only witnesses, albeit honest and unprejudiced ones, testify on behalf of the State. I submit it is a violation of the defendant’s rights under Finkle and Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68, 84 L. Ed. 2d 53, 105 S. Ct. 1087 (1985), to permit the State to forever hold in confinement a defendant found to be sexually dangerous at the sole discretion of supposedly honest and unprejudiced officers of the State. In Ake, the United States Supreme Court held that the Constitution requires the State to provide any indigent defendant with , an independent psychiatrist to assist him with his insanity defense. Ake, 470 U.S. at 74, 84 L. Ed. 2d at 60, 105 S. Ct. at 1091-92. We also note that Finkle cites People v. Capoldi, 37 Ill. 2d 11 (1967), for the proposition that a defendant/applicant is not entitled to an independent psychiatric expert. However, I submit that the supreme court came to that conclusion in Capoldi only because the defendant/applicant in that case alleged that a member of the penitentiary’s psychiatric division found the defendant to be recovered. Capoldi, 37 Ill. 2d at 18-19. Therefore, unlike the case at bar, there was evidence to support the defendant’s/applicant’s claim of recovery. Query: If there are two State psychiatrists and one finds the defendant to be recovered and the other finds the defendant not recovered, which expert is “honest and unprejudiced”? If only one is, then it has been established that either all State experts are no longer honest and unprejudiced or that they all are, but that honesty and/or lack of prejudice are not relevant or material when determining whether or not a defendant/applicant is entitled to an independent expert. In conclusion, if the defendant/applicant is not given an independent expert, then we should save a lot of time and effort and do what the supreme court in Olmstead stated was wrong. Without affidavits from an independent psychiatrist attached to the defendant’s application showing recovery, all applications should be dismissed and the defendant/applicant should remain confined indeterminately until such time as the State decides the petitioner is “recovered.”