{
  "id": 5352319,
  "name": "The People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, vs. Chester Clark, Plaintiff in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Clark",
  "decision_date": "1962-05-25",
  "docket_number": "No. 35764",
  "first_page": "211",
  "last_page": "213",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "25 Ill. 2d 211"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "22 Ill.2d 567",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2787550
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/22/0567-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 272,
    "char_count": 3830,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.769,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.1583462974096173
    },
    "sha256": "025390e2ac111a2eff321a641aa1694e2df1b70ca1b5456868cf1b91f3bc559a",
    "simhash": "1:b72ee8f6c68bce4b",
    "word_count": 638
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:58:32.986200+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "The People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, vs. Chester Clark, Plaintiff in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice House\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nAt a bench trial in the criminal court of Cook County, Chester Clark was convicted of the unlawful sale of narcotics and sentenced to confinement in the penitentiary for a term of 15 years to life. Defendant asserts that his conviction should be set aside because the trial court ordered the case to be heard when his counsel was not prepared for trial.\nDefendant first employed Eugene Pinchman to represent him. After several months, he discharged Pinchman and employed Harold Rosenfield. Motions for a change of venue and several continuances were granted to defendant and finally a day certain was set for the trial. On Tuesday, March 7, 1956, as the trial was about to begin, defendant discharged Rosenfield. The prosecution opposed the withdrawal of defendant\u2019s attorney and argued that the case should proceed because of the delays already occasioned by defendant. The court asked defendant if he had anyone to replace Rosenfield and defendant answered no. The court then suggested that defendant consult the public defender. After defendant had talked with a representative of the public defender\u2019s office, he told the court he wanted to be represented by the public defender and the court permitted Rosenfield to withdraw. The court then continued the cause and stated that \u201con Monday we will go ahead, if everything is all right.\u201d\nOn Monday, the judge inquired, \u201cWhat is the lawyer situation this morning?\u201d John Flaherty of the public defender\u2019s office then told the court that defendant had refused to talk with him about the case. Defendant stated, however, \u201cI am ready for trial now, your honor.\u201d The judge advised defendant of the importance of giving his attorney all the facts of the case and defendant replied, \u201cI talked to him. I have explained the case to him. And I told him that the court desires for him to represent me, it is all right.\u201d Although Flaherty again stated that he' knew nothing about the case, the trial judge made it clear that he had attempted to provide counsel for defendant and that he would give him time to discuss the case with Flaherty but that defendant said he had discussed the case with his attorney and was ready for trial. The court also made it clear that if defendant wanted anything during the trial he would do the best he could to arrange the matter. He then told defendant that \u201cif you want Mr. Flaherty to do other things you let him know, and do it in time so that he may assist you in every way possible. In the meantime, we will proceed with the trial.\u201d\nDefendant\u2019s attorney actively participated in the trial and, from his cross-examination of informant White, he was apparently familiar with the defense the defendant intended to advance. He cross-examined all the People\u2019s witnesses and on direct examination of defendant clearly brought out defendant\u2019s version of the occurrence in question. The record rev.eals that Flaherty did a commendable job of representing defendant.\nWe are of the opinion that the trial court did not deprive defendant of any constitutional right in ordering the case to trial. (Cf. People v. Kenzik, 22 Ill.2d 567.) Furthermore, there was a competent presentation of defendant\u2019s case.\nThe judgment of the criminal court of Cook County is affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice House"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "John B. Hucic, of Chicago, appointed by the court, for plaintiff in error.",
      "William G. Clark, Attorney General, of Springfield, and Daniel P. Ward, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago, (Fred G. Leach and E. Michael O\u2019Brien, Assistant Attorneys General, and John T. Gallagher and Matthew J. Moran, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel,) for the People."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "(No. 35764\nThe People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, vs. Chester Clark, Plaintiff in Error.\nOpinion filed May 25, 1962.\nRehearing denied September 27, 1962.\nJohn B. Hucic, of Chicago, appointed by the court, for plaintiff in error.\nWilliam G. Clark, Attorney General, of Springfield, and Daniel P. Ward, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago, (Fred G. Leach and E. Michael O\u2019Brien, Assistant Attorneys General, and John T. Gallagher and Matthew J. Moran, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel,) for the People."
  },
  "file_name": "0211-01",
  "first_page_order": 221,
  "last_page_order": 223
}