{ "id": 1588363, "name": "People of the State of Illinois, Appellee, v. Thomas McGraw and Jerry Robertson, Appellants", "name_abbreviation": "People v. McGraw", "decision_date": "1969-10-15", "docket_number": "Gen. No. 53,347", "first_page": "444", "last_page": "447", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "115 Ill. App. 2d 444" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "27 Ill2d 311", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5361214 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/27/0311-01" ] }, { "cite": "99 Ill App2d 208", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5322515 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-2d/99/0208-01" ] }, { "cite": "249 NE2d 121", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "110 Ill App2d 91", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 1594029 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-2d/110/0091-01" ] }, { "cite": "244 NE2d 182", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "41 Ill2d 401", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2853933 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/41/0401-01" ] }, { "cite": "395 US 238", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 1771759 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "242" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/395/0238-01" ] }, { "cite": "80 Ill App2d 146", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2562429 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-2d/80/0146-01" ] }, { "cite": "252 NE2d 685", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "114 Ill App2d 458", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 1588939 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-2d/114/0458-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 346, "char_count": 5322, "ocr_confidence": 0.615, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.1975460153382228e-07, "percentile": 0.5929027136331114 }, "sha256": "65b4dfebcd3f16eb7e5efee2ad2d9b6dc282bc9a1386b5a0b7c8998e603711df", "simhash": "1:cdc630816865081a", "word_count": 874 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:12:48.620365+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "People of the State of Illinois, Appellee, v. Thomas McGraw and Jerry Robertson, Appellants." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "MR. PRESIDING JUSTICE DRUCKER\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nAfter a bench trial, the defendants were found guilty of battery and were sentenced to six months in the Illinois State Farm at Vandalia. The cases were consolidated on appeal. The defendants\u2019 sole contention is that they did not knowingly and understandingly waive their right to a jury trial.\nThe defendants were initially charged with robbery. At the preliminary hearing the State\u2019s witnesses testified to the alleged criminal conduct and subsequent arrest of the defendants. After presenting its case the State asked leave to nolle prosse the felonies and file reduced charges of battery. Defense counsel, an Assistant Public Defender, then asked leave to withdraw from the case and have private counsel appointed to represent one of the defendants. He stated that based upon the evidence introduced by the State, the defendants\u2019 stories conflicted as to who actually beat the complaining witness and he therefore could not represent two people with conflicting stories being tried together. The following colloquy then took place:\nTHE COURT: \u201cDo you want to represent one?\u201d\nMR. SCHEFFLER: \u201cUnless both want me to represent them.\u201d\nTHE COURT: \u201cDo you boys want the Public Defender to represent you?\u201d\nMR. ROBERTSON: \u201cYes, but what he said about us blaming each other is not right.\u201d\nMR. McGRAW: \u201cYes, we want the Public Defender.\u201d\nTHE COURT: \u201cThen you talk with the Public Defender and straighten it out.\u201d\n(Discussion off the record between the Public Defender and the defendants.)\nMR. SCHEFFLER: \u201cThey have decided they want to be represented by me today.\u201d\nTHE CLERK: \u201cThe charge is battery. What is the plea?\u201d\nTHE COURT: \u201cNolle prosse the felony.\u201d\nMR. SCHEFFLER: \u201cNot guilty, jury waived.\u201d\n(Witnesses sworn.)\nTHE COURT: \u201cWere they arraigned ?\u201d\nTHE CLERK: \u201cYes. The charge is battery, and the plea is not guilty, jury waived.\u201d\nMR. KARA VIDAS: \u201cWill you stipulate that the evidence heard on the preliminary hearing would be the same as on the present charge of battery?\u201d\nMR. SCHEFFLER: \u201cSo stipulated.\u201d\nTHE COURT: \u201cSo stipulated, so ordered. Proceed.\u201d\nDefendants contend that they did not knowingly and understandingly waive their right to a jury trial. In People v. Brownlow, 114 Ill App2d 458, 252 NE2d 685, the court said, \u201cThe requirement that a jury waiver by defendant must be knowingly made, has been held to impose a duty on the trial judge to ascertain to his satisfaction that the waiver was understandingly made. People v. Turner, 80 Ill App2d 146.\u201d In the instant case neither defendant signed a written jury waiver and their counsel waived the right to a jury trial for them. The court made no attempt to explain the effects of such a waiver but immediately proceeded with the trial.\nIn Boykin v. Alabama, 395 US 238, 242, the United States Supreme Court stated, \u201cIt was error, plain on the face of the record, for the trial judge to accept petitioner\u2019s guilty plea without an affirmative showing that it was intelligent and voluntary.\u201d By analogy the same standard may be applied to determine whether or not a jury waiver was understandingly and intelligently made. In the case before us the record is silent as to any affirmative showing that the defendants knew or understood the effects of a jury waiver. Therefore, the trial court failed to fulfill its obligation to ascertain to its satisfaction that a jury waiver was understandingly made.\nThe State argues that the principle of silent acquiescence should be applied to the conduct of the defendants when their attorney waived the right to a jury trial. People v. Novotny, 41 Ill2d 401, 244 NE2d 182; People v. Sykes, 110 Ill App2d 91, 249 NE2d 121. We do not agree. In People v. Brownlow, supra, the court said:\nThe State urges that defendants\u2019 silence before the court should be construed as an acquiescence to their counsel\u2019s statement that a jury was waived, citing People v. Melero, 99 Ill App2d 208. We recognize that whether a jury waiver has been knowingly and understandingly made, depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case, and there can be no precise formula for determining the issue. People v. Palmer, 27 Ill2d 311; Richardson, supra. We must, however, disagree with the Melero opinion to the extent that it stands for the proposition there stated (pages 211-212) that \u201cthe trial court was entitled to rely on the professional responsibility of defendant\u2019s attorney that when he informed the court that his client waived a jury, it was knowingly and understandingly consented to by his client.\u201d We believe that the court cannot, in that way, delegate its responsibility to assure to a defendant his understanding of so basic a right as that of trial by jury.\nFor the reasons herein presented, the judgments of the Circuit Court are reversed and remanded for a new trial.\nReversed and remanded.\nENGLISH and LEIGHTON, JJ., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "MR. PRESIDING JUSTICE DRUCKER" } ], "attorneys": [ "David B. Kahn, of Chicago, for appellants.", "Edward V. Hanrahan, State\u2019s Attorney of Cook County, of Chicago (Elmer C. Kissane, Assistant State\u2019s Attorney, and Robert Kelty, Special Assistant State\u2019s Attorney, of counsel), for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "People of the State of Illinois, Appellee, v. Thomas McGraw and Jerry Robertson, Appellants.\nGen. No. 53,347.\nFirst District, Fourth Division.\nOctober 15, 1969.\nRehearing denied November 18,1969.\nDavid B. Kahn, of Chicago, for appellants.\nEdward V. Hanrahan, State\u2019s Attorney of Cook County, of Chicago (Elmer C. Kissane, Assistant State\u2019s Attorney, and Robert Kelty, Special Assistant State\u2019s Attorney, of counsel), for appellee." }, "file_name": "0444-01", "first_page_order": 450, "last_page_order": 453 }