Court Opinion

ID: 9525460
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:03:58.052889+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:14:50.544553
License: Public Domain

Mr. JUSTICE CRAVEN, dissenting: I dissent for two reasons. First, in order to rely upon and avail themselves of the affirmative defense of advice of counsel, it was incumbent upon the defendants to show what information they gave counsel and that the information was a full, truthful and correct statement of facts as they then existed. (Froemke v. Massman (1919), 215 Ill. App. 86, 89.) This record does not satisfy that requirement. There are no specifics as to what Mr. Difanis or Mr. Goodman told the lawyer and indeed there is no showing whatsoever that their discussion with the lawyer related to the facts disclosed by the subsequent incident. Second, the admitted testimony about finding a cardboard cylinder in plaintiffs room like those used in detonating explosive devices was so highly inflammatory and prejudicial that it denied the plaintiff a fair trial. The trial court had granted plaintiffs motion in limine ruling that evidence of prior misconduct was not to be mentioned. The reference to explosives violated this ruling and in my opinion denied the plaintiff a fair trial. The majority opinion citation and reliance upon Aldridge and Harris is lacking in persuasion.