{ "id": 5379464, "name": "The People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, vs. Herbert Hart, Plaintiff in Error", "name_abbreviation": "People v. Hart", "decision_date": "1966-11-14", "docket_number": "No. 36981", "first_page": "548", "last_page": "552", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "35 Ill. 2d 548" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill.", "id": 8772, "name": "Illinois Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "372 U.S. 528", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 1765184 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/372/0528-01" ] }, { "cite": "373 U.S. 503", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 11718904 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/373/0503-01" ] }, { "cite": "384 U.S. 436", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 12046400 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/384/0436-01" ] }, { "cite": "35 Ill.2d 219", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5378774 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/35/0219-01" ] }, { "cite": "384 U.S. 719", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 12047240 ], "weight": 3, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/384/0719-01" ] }, { "cite": "378 U.S. 478", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6166688 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/378/0478-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 462, "char_count": 6966, "ocr_confidence": 0.786, "pagerank": { "raw": 6.380125665320789e-08, "percentile": 0.3928140212035528 }, "sha256": "0ce267dd332a0b50b385331f12fe92b45a438f70878726872f9ed27035d87e05", "simhash": "1:ba43b72fc31a10bc", "word_count": 1166 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:37:37.175519+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. Herbert Hart, Plaintiff in Error." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. Justice Schaefer\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThe defendant, Herbert Hart, waived a trial by jury, and after a trial by the court he was convicted of armed robbery and sentenced to imprisonment for not less than four nor more than twelve years. On this writ of error he contends that a written statement, which he made after his arrest, was received in evidence in violation of his privilege against self-incrimination and his constitutional right to counsel.\nA pretrial sanity hearing was requested by the defendant\u2019s retained counsel, and a jury determined that the defendant was competent to stand trial. At the trial, the victim of the robbery testified that about 4:30 A.M. on June 19, i960, the defendant, who was wearing white coveralls and was armed with a pistol, entered the garage where the witness was working, stuck a gun in his side, and demanded money. The defendant tied the witness\u2019s hands, took his coin purse, and left the garage by the back door. The witness ran out the front door with his hands tied behind him, and met two policemen who took him into their squad car. Almost at once they saw the defendant. When the defendant was ordered to stop, he ran behind a parked car. After an exchange of shots with the police officers, he surrendered. An officer testified that he asked the defendant \u201cif he had held up the complainant, and the defendant answered, \u2018Yes.\u2019 \u201d The stolen coin purse was recovered from the defendant when he was searched at the scene of his arrest.\nWhen the arresting officer was asked whether, after the defendant was arrested, questions put to him and answers made by him were reduced to writing, the officer answered that he believed so. The prosecutor then called for Detective Bryne or Carbone, apparently the officers who had taken the defendant\u2019s statement. Defendant\u2019s attorney, however, stated, \u201cWe will stipulate as to the testimony on the statement,\u201d which was then admitted into evidence.\nThe defendant contends that his written statement was obtained in violation of his constitutional right to counsel and his constitutional privilege against self-incrimination. As to the defendant\u2019s right to counsel, the short answer is that Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478, 12 L. Ed. 2d 977, upon which he relies, was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States long after defendant\u2019s trial in i960, and in Johnson v. New Jersey, 384 U.S. 719, 16 L. Ed. 2d 882, the court held that the decision in Escobedo applies only to trials commenced after June 22, 1964. (See, People v. McGuire, 35 Ill.2d 219.) The contention that defendant\u2019s privilege against self-incrimination was violated is likewise without merit. The new rules governing police interrogation which were announced in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694, are not applicable. See Johnson v. New Jersey, 384 U.S. 719.\nThe record does not show how much time elapsed between the defendant\u2019s arrest and the signing of the statement, but the defendant\u2019s present counsel indicates that the statement was signed three hours after arrest. There is no hint of police harassment or intimidation, and we find nothing in the simple process of question and answer, even upon the unlikely assumption that it lasted for three hours, which would render an otherwise voluntary statement involuntary. Cf. Haynes v. Washington, 373 U.S. 503, 10 L. Ed. 2d 513; Lynumn v. Illinois, 372 U.S. 528, 9 L. Ed. 2d 922.\nThe defendant\u2019s counsel also argues that \u201cif Defendant Hart had a will, at least to some degree, his will was fettered by an extremely low mentality and the lack of power to resist even the slightest pressure. * * * It is submitted that Defendant Hart\u2019s will was such that any confession which he made could not have been the product of rational intellect and a free, or unfettered, will.\u201d This argument is based upon the testimony of Dr. Haines, Director of the Behavior Clinic of Cook County, at the pretrial hearing to determine the defendant\u2019s competence to stand trial. Dr. Haines examined the defendant from 20 minutes to an hour on three occasions. He testified rather fully as to his first examination of the defendant, at which the defendant responded that he did not know, or gave vague answers to many simple questions put to him concerning his past life. Dr. Haines testified that subsequently the defendant\u2019s behavior changed and he answered questions more readily. But his testimony as to the details of subsequent examinations, and particularly as to the factors that led him to believe that the defendant was competent to stand trial, was cut off by the defendant\u2019s attorney.\nDr. Haines testified that at the first examination he asked the defendant what was in the written statement given to the police, and the defendant replied: \u201cI don\u2019t know \u2014that man asked me a million questions \u2014 when he got through asking me the questions, they told me I should sign the papers \u2014 so I signed it.\u201d During that same examination the defendant stated that he had no children. When Dr. Haines, referring to an information sheet, said, \u201cIt says here that you have three children, 13, 17 and 18\u201d, the defendant answered, \u201cThat\u2019s been a long time ago \u2014 they can\u2019t expect a man to remember all that, do they? Good gracious.\u201d Dr. Haines testified further that the defendant\u2019s mother told him that the defendant was in the third grade when he was 14 years old, and at the age of two had fallen three stories to the ground. He also testified that a psychologist had reported that the defendant\u2019s I.Q. was 44, in the \u201cimbecile\u201d range, while at the time of the defendant\u2019s discharge from the penitentiary in 1953 it was recorded as 91, in the \u201caverage\u201d range.\nIn our opinion the record does not sustain the contention that the defendant lacked sufficient mentality to make a voluntary confession. It is apparent from Dr. Haines\u2019s testimony that he believed that the defendant was feigning a lack of mental capacity. The jury heard the testimony of the defendant and observed him, and also heard the testimony of Dr. Haines, and its verdict found that the defendant understood the nature of the charges against him, and was competent to cooperate with his attorney. While this determination is not, of course, a direct adjudication of the voluntariness of the defendant\u2019s confession, it is inconsistent with the present contention that the defendant was incapable of making a confession.\nThe judgment of the circuit court of Cook County is affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. Justice Schaefer" } ], "attorneys": [ "Robert W. Erickson, of Deerfield, 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, Assistant Attorney General, and Elmer C. Kissane and William: J. Nellis, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel,) for the People." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "(No. 36981.\nThe People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, vs. Herbert Hart, Plaintiff in Error.\nOpinion filed November 14, 1966.\nRobert W. Erickson, of Deerfield, 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, Assistant Attorney General, and Elmer C. Kissane and William: J. Nellis, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel,) for the People." }, "file_name": "0548-01", "first_page_order": 550, "last_page_order": 554 }