Criminal Law

Defendant and his brother, and another man, were jointly tried for first-degree murder when victim was shot during melee at party. Two brothers were represented by one attorney, and were found guilty; other man had his own attorney and was acquitted. Defendant claimed conflict because his attorney refused to present three defense witnesses who Defendant said would say that he had no involvement with gun used in shooting. (State's theory was that brother was the shooter and that this Defendant had handed him the gun, and that other man had punched victim.) No conflict in representation that affected attorney's performance, as attorney had made tactical trial decision to not present witnesses, as upon interviewing witnesses he found they lacked credibility, were inconsistent, and might be damaging.

Failure to obtain required written consent of client to allow Rule 711 senior law student or recent law graduate to perform legal services, under supervision of licensed attorney, is not a per se violation of right to counsel, but is one factor to be considered in assessing whether supervising attorney provided effective assistance of counsel. One case involved juvenile adjudicated as delinquent for aggravated battery; 711 law student performed some witness examination at bench trial. Appellate Court must examine all of juvenile's claims of error, and trial court's refusal to allow supervising attorney to conduct redirect, to determine whether counsel's performance prejudiced Defendant. Other case involved Defendant convicted, after jury trial, of possession of controlled substance within 1000 feet of a school; 711 intern took direct testimony and argued at motion to suppress hearing, but did not participate in trial. Defendant did not argue errors by 711 intern, but only per se violation. No per se violation of right to counsel by failure to obtain written consent.

Speedy trial statute's 2000 amendment requires that Defendant on bond waives his speedy trial demand if he fails to appear for a court date, and thus distinguishes failure to appear in court from other types of delay. Failure to appear is thus waiver of speedy trial demand, rather than only temporary suspension of it.

(Modified 3/8/10, originally filed 12/31/09). Defendant was not deprived of his right to fair trial, where court failed to read to jury IPI 2.04 which informs jury of Defendant's right to not testify, even though court had granted Defendant's request that IPI 2.04 be given. That written instruction was among the packet of instructions given to jury for their deliberations, and in voir dire jurors were repeatedly admonished of Defendant's right not to testify. Jury was not misinformed of this right, no structural error existed, and error harmless as evidence overwhelmingly supported jury's guilty verdict. Fifty-year sentence is within range for first-degree murder and is appropriate given facts.