Court Opinion

ID: 9372094
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-17 19:04:19.613691+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:32.700265
License: Public Domain

NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except
            in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).

                                         2023 IL App (3d) 210208-U

                                 Order filed February 17, 2023
      ____________________________________________________________________________

                                                   IN THE

                                    APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

                                             THIRD DISTRICT

                                                     2023

      THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF                       )       Appeal from the Circuit Court
      ILLINOIS,                                        )       of the 12th Judicial Circuit,
                                                       )       Will County, Illinois
             Plaintiff-Appellee,                       )
                                                       )       Appeal No. 3-21-0208
             v.                                        )       Circuit No. 13-CF-1667
                                                       )
      CHRISTOPHER L. THOMPSON,                         )
                                                       )       Honorable David M. Carlson,
             Defendant-Appellant.                      )       Judge, Presiding.
      ____________________________________________________________________________

            JUSTICE McDADE delivered the judgment of the court.
            Presiding Justice Holdridge and Justice Albrecht concurred in the judgment.
      ____________________________________________________________________________

                                                 ORDER

¶1          Held: The circuit court failed to comply with this court’s order to hold an evidentiary
                  hearing to determine the nature of the extraneous information the jurors were
                  exposed to and its resulting prejudice.

¶2          Defendant, Christopher L. Thompson, appeals from the Will County circuit court’s denial

     of his motion for new trial, arguing that jurors were exposed to prejudicial extraneous

     information from a newspaper article. Alternatively, defendant argues that the court failed to

     fully comply with our prior order to hold an evidentiary hearing on the jurors’ exposure to
     extraneous information. We reverse the court’s denial of defendant’s motion and remand for

     further evidentiary hearing with directions.

¶3                                           I. BACKGROUND

¶4          The State charged defendant with two counts of first degree murder (720 ILCS 5/9-

     1(a)(1), (2) (West 2012)), stemming from the shooting death of Gerardo Franchini on or about

     August 3, 2013. Prior to trial, pursuant to defendant’s motions in limine, evidence of defendant’s

     prior criminal history was excluded and any reference to prior police involvement was redacted

     from the recording of defendant’s police interrogation.

¶5          On February 8, 2016, defendant proceeded to trial with a six-person jury. During

     voir dire, the jurors all indicated that they had not read or heard anything regarding defendant’s

     case. The jurors were admonished by the court not to conduct any independent research or

     investigation and not to discuss the case with others or expose themselves to information about

     the case through the newspaper or television. After five hours of deliberation, the jury found the

     defendant guilty.

¶6          Several days after the verdict was entered, juror Darlene Rodriguez sent a letter to the

     court. The letter indicated that: (1) the first alternate, juror Karen Betzwiser, learned from the

     newspaper that juror John Jankowski had been excused from the jury; (2) during deliberations,

     Betzwiser and juror Kevin Kuell indicated that defendant had been arrested before, even though

     no evidence of defendant’s criminal history was presented at trial; and (3) in reference to the

     recording of defendant’s police interrogation, juror Randy Fortner stated that “these guys are

     probably all high on drugs.” Two newspaper articles regarding the defendant’s case were

     attached to Rodriguez’s letter. One article reported news of the ongoing trial and the dismissal of

     Jankowski and the other reported on the criminal history of both defendant and the victim.

                                                       2
     Defendant filed a supplemental motion for new trial, which was denied. Defendant was

     sentenced to 60 years’ imprisonment, plus a term of natural life.

¶7          On appeal, defendant argued, among other things, that the court abused its discretion in

     denying defendant’s motion for new trial based on Rodriguez’s letter to the court, contending

     that the letter indicated that “defendant was deprived of his Sixth Amendment right to a trial by

     an impartial jury and that the trial court denied his right to due process by not granting a new

     trial or at least an evidentiary hearing. The defendant also argue[d] that the juror’s letter

     implie[d] a racial bias.” People v. Thompson, 2018 IL App (3d) 160604-U, ¶ 23. We found that

     the “letter established that the jury had been exposed to some form of improper extraneous

     information. At a minimum, the letter indicates that there was information given to the jury that

     was specifically excluded by the court.” Id. ¶ 25. We acknowledged that the dismissal of

     Jankowski may not have influenced the jury’s verdict, however, the newspaper articles contained

     other, potentially prejudicial information. Id. Accordingly, we found that an evidentiary hearing

     was necessary to make that determination. Id.

¶8          On remand, the court had the State subpoena all the jurors for an evidentiary hearing in

     August 2019. Prior to the hearing, defense counsel moved to withdraw based on a change in

     employment which would preclude him from continuing to represent defendant. The motion was

     denied. A week before the hearing, defense counsel again moved to withdraw based on a

     deterioration of his relationship with defendant. During a hearing on the subsequent motion to

     withdraw, the court read a letter written by defendant at his insistence and, thereafter, recused

     itself. The case was reassigned to Judge David Carlson.

¶9          Upon reassignment, Judge Carlson quashed all the subpoenas that had been issued for the

     jurors prior to the recusal and indicated that, unless specifically directed by this court, he would

                                                       3
       not bring the jurors in to testify. The parties held several hearings discussing our order and how

       to proceed. Eventually, the court partially relented and allowed the State to subpoena Rodriguez.

¶ 10          On March 10, 2020, an evidentiary hearing was held. Rodriguez testified that she wrote

       the letter that had been sent to the court shortly after the trial concluded. Rodriguez confirmed

       the contents of the letter and stated that it was true. Rodriguez indicated that no one stated that

       the information revealed by Kuell and Betzwiser regarding defendant’s prior arrests came from

       outside information. Rodriguez believed it to be a “generalization or conclusion that they came

       up with by hearing how [defendant] talked or the way he interacted at the police station.”

       Rodriguez testified that this information did not change her mind, however, it did make her view

       the recording of defendant’s interrogation differently.

¶ 11          Regarding Fortner’s statement, Rodriguez testified that she did not mean to convey a

       racial bias in her letter and believed the statement was based on lifestyle as opposed to race. She

       indicated that Fortner’s statement affected her verdict. When questioned further, Rodriguez

       explained that her verdict changed after watching defendant’s police interrogation a second time

       and that change did not occur because of any extraneous information, stating that they “made a

       list on what [they were] going to be looking at in the video, then what [they] saw in the video.

       Then [they] went back. When [they] went back in there, [they were], like; trying to put all these

       pieces together. That’s why [her] decision had changed from after that time. It wasn’t because

       people were telling [her], oh, [defendant]’s been arrested before.” Rodriguez testified that none

       of the jurors made racial comments.

¶ 12          No further witnesses were called. During arguments, the State argued that:

                      “the question is, do the jurors *** who make the statements to our juror about

                      [defendant’s] past history and the fact that they may have been involved in some

                                                         4
                      kind of drug dealing, are they doing that because they are making that

                      generalization from evidence adduced at the trial? Or did those jurors, in fact, see

                      that in the paper? And if they did, that’s the extraneous information.

                              If all they are doing is making a generalization, judge, that, oh, [defendant]

                      and Mr. Franchini, they must be drug dealers and the way [defendant] acted in

                      that interview shows he must have been in trouble with the police before, then

                      nothing outside the trial has come in to influence the verdict.

                              But if they read the paper and the paper did have that information in it,

                      then, okay, well, there’s your extraneous information.”

       The court denied defendant’s motion for new trial. Defendant appeals.

¶ 13                                             II. ANALYSIS

¶ 14          Defendant asserts that the circuit court erred when it denied his motion for a new trial due

       to the jurors’ exposure to prejudicial extraneous information, arguing that Betzwiser read

       newspaper articles relating to the case and conveyed that information to other jurors.

       Specifically, defendant points to Betzwiser’s indication that she learned from the newspaper that

       Jankowski had been excused and Kuell and Betzwiser informing the jurors that defendant had

       been previously arrested, information that was readily available in contemporary newspaper

       articles. Alternatively, defendant requests that we reverse the court’s denial of his motion for

       new trial and again remand for a full evidentiary hearing on the matter of any extraneous

       information that the jurors were exposed to, arguing that the court erred in failing to comply with

       this court’s prior order to conduct an evidentiary hearing where the court failed to call Betzwiser

       as only she could testify to what extraneous information she exposed herself to.

                                                        5
¶ 15            We first consider whether the court complied with our prior order. Whether a circuit

       court complied with a reviewing court mandate is a question of law, subject to de novo review.

       Clemons v. Mechanical Devices Co., 202 Ill. 2d 344, 352 (2002). A circuit court must obey “the

       clear and unambiguous directions in a mandate issued by a reviewing court.” People ex rel.

       Daley v. Schreier, 92 Ill. 2d 271, 276 (1982).

¶ 16            In defendant’s first appeal, we found Rodriguez’s letter established that the jurors had

       been exposed to some form of improper extraneous information, the extent of which was unclear.

       Thompson, 2018 IL App (3d) 160604-U, ¶ 25. We remanded for an evidentiary hearing to

       determine the nature of the extraneous information to which the jurors had been exposed and

       whether prejudice resulted. Id.

¶ 17            Specifically, we previously found that, at a minimum, the jurors had been exposed to

       extraneous information about the discharge of Jankowski from another juror who read a

       newspaper article. Id. Two articles had been attached to Rodriguez’s letter. One article contained

       information about defendant’s criminal background which had been specifically excluded by the

       court.

¶ 18            The evidence, from Rodriguez’s letter and her subsequent testimony on remand,

       demonstrates that Betzwiser read at least one newspaper article. The letter also demonstrates that

       Kuell and Betzwiser somehow knew that defendant had been previously arrested and implicated

       Fortner in a comment that may have indicated a racial bias. While it was appropriate and

       necessary to call Rodriguez to address issues of foundation and credibility, it is also necessary to

       examine, at minimum, Betzwiser, who is alleged to have read extraneous newspaper articles

       pertaining to defendant’s case.

                                                         6
¶ 19          How Betzwiser knew about defendant’s prior arrests is completely speculative without

       her testimony. It is possible that Betzwiser read the newspaper article regarding this. It is also

       possible that she came to that conclusion from the evidence presented at the trial. We cannot

       know the extent of the exposure to extraneous information without Betzwiser’s testimony. As the

       prosecutor below pointed out, if Betzwiser came to this conclusion from generalizations about

       defendant’s demeanor and speech on admitted exhibits, that is not extraneous evidence.

       However, if she learned this from the newspaper, which is a reasonable possibility, that could

       certainly constitute improper extraneous information that could influence the verdict. Clearly, the

       court must determine the nature and extent of the extraneous information to determine any

       resulting prejudice.

¶ 20          We take no position on whether the motion for new trial should be granted. It remains our

       order that a full evidentiary hearing is necessary for the circuit court to determine the nature and

       extent of the extraneous information that the jurors were exposed to and whether that exposure

       was prejudicial or harmless. Only after having all the information and making that determination,

       will the circuit court be able to rule on defendant’s motion and this court be in a position to

       review it. The failure of the circuit court to follow the prior order of this court has generated

       another appeal, additional public orders at the trial and appellate levels, and a potential risk that

       when a proper hearing is finally held, the evidence and result could be compromised.

¶ 21          We understand that the examination of jurors is a sensitive matter. While questions may

       not be asked merely to show “the motive, method, or process by which the jury reached its

       verdict,” jurors may be questioned regarding the specific nature of the extraneous information to

       which they were exposed. People v. Willmer, 396 Ill. App. 3d 175, 181 (2009). Accordingly, we

       remand with specific directions for the circuit court to: (1) hold an evidentiary hearing to

                                                         7
       determine the specific nature of the extraneous information to which the jury was exposed during

       its deliberations; (2) allow the examination of Betzwiser; and (3) allow the examination of any

       additional jurors that the parties deem necessary and relevant to the matter. Defendant requests

       that a new judge be assigned to conduct the evidentiary hearing on remand. We accede to that

       request and direct this matter to be reassigned to a new judge on remand. See People v. Serrano,

       2016 IL App (1st) 133493, ¶ 45 (“Illinois Supreme Court Rule 366(a)(5) (eff. Feb. 1, 1994) gives

       a reviewing court, in its discretion, the power to reassign a matter to a new judge on remand.”).

¶ 22                                          III. CONCLUSION

¶ 23          The judgment of the circuit court of Will County denying defendant’s motion is reversed

       and remanded with directions.

¶ 24          Reversed and remanded with directions.

                                                        8