{
  "id": 1587059,
  "name": "People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eddie Monden, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Monden",
  "decision_date": "1969-10-08",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 53,053",
  "first_page": "18",
  "last_page": "21",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "116 Ill. App. 2d 18"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "244 NE2d 321",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "104 Ill App2d 479",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        1601080
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-2d/104/0479-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "189 NE2d 265",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "27 Ill2d 311",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        5361214
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/27/0311-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "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"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "195 NE2d 708",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "30 Ill2d 131",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2826745
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/30/0131-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "248 NE2d 92",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "42 Ill2d 441",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2847854
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/42/0441-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "395 US 238",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        1771759
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/395/0238-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 279,
    "char_count": 3731,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.57,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.05946273315548513
    },
    "sha256": "7e1da6eb6f85140cf47794d80e74eea2820dcaea3d3716dd86abedab39f8152d",
    "simhash": "1:a5b179a56faf2bae",
    "word_count": 616
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:10:29.248935+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eddie Monden, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "HR. JUSTICE ENGLISH\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nOFFENSE CHARGED\nArmed robbery. HI Rev Stats (1965), c 38, \u00a7 18-2.\nJUDGMENT\nAfter a bench trial, defendant was found guilty of armed robbery and sentenced to a term of 2 to 5 years.\nCONTENTION ON APPEAL\nDefendant\u2019s only contention on appeal is that the court erred in accepting his jury waiver.\nEVIDENCE\nWhen the case was initially called for trial, defendant and his attorney (Asst. Public Defender Toole), along with the codefendant, Taylor, engaged in the following colloquy with the court:\nTHE CLERK: \u201cTheodore Taylor, Eddie Monden.\u201d\nMR. TOOLE: \u201cMay I have a jury waiver, please ?\u201d\nTHE COURT: \u201cIs this a bench or a jury ?\u201d\nMR. TOOLE: \u201cIt is a bench, Judge.\u201d\nTHE COURT: \u201cIs that correct, Mr. Taylor?\u201d\nTHE DEFENDANT TAYLOR: \u201cYes, sir.\u201d\nTHE COURT: \u201cMr. Monden?\u201d\nTHE DEFENDANT MONDEN: \u201cYes, sir.\u201d\nTHE COURT: \u201cYou understand, each of you, you have a right to a jury trial. You are waiving that right, Mr. Taylor?\u201d\nTHE DEFENDANT TAYLOR: \u201cYes, sir.\u201d\nTHE COURT: \u201cMr. Monden?\u201d\nTHE DEFENDANT MONDEN: \u201cYes.\u201d\nTHE COURT: \u201cIndicate that by signing a jury waiver.\u201d\nMR. TOOLE: \u201cFor the record, I am tendering to the Court jury waivers which have been signed by the defendants.\u201d\nTHE COURT: \u201cReady to proceed?\u201d\nMR. MORAN: \u201cYes.\u201d\nThe doctrine is well entrenched that it is the trial judge\u2019s responsibility to insure that the waiver of a jury trial is knowingly and under standingly made. Boykin v. Alabama, 395 US 238; People v. Mims, 42 Ill2d 441, 248 NE2d 92; People v. Wesley, 30 Ill2d 131, 195 NE2d 708; People v. Brownlow, 114 Ill App2d 458, 252 NE2d 685. Whether a 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, 189 NE2d 265.\nThe instant facts indicate that defendant\u2019s attorney made the initial request for a bench trial, but that the judge subsequently asked the defendants, in essence, what type of trial they wanted. Defendant reaffirmed his attorney\u2019s reply that it was to be a bench trial. The judge then pursued the matter further by informing defendant of his right to a jury trial and posing the specific question of waiver directly to defendant. Defendant reiterated his waiver orally, and also signed a jury waiver form.\nDefendant cites People v. Bell, 104 Ill App2d 479, 244 NE2d 321, to support his contention, but it is factually distinguishable from the case at bar. In Bell, this court stated:\n. . . defendant never manifested an understanding of the nature of a jury trial. His only response when questioned about this was \u201cA what?\u201d Nor are we apprised of any other indication that defendant knew or was then informed of the meaning or consequences of a jury waiver.\nThe circumstances before us, however, indicate a concern on the part of the trial court to inform defendant of his constitutional right to a jury trial. The court also questioned defendant directly and received responses, both orally and in writing, adequate to indicate, in our opinion, that defendant knowingly and understandingly waived his right to trial by jury.\nThe conviction is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nDRUCKER, P. J. and McNAMARA, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "HR. JUSTICE ENGLISH"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Gerald W. Getty, Public Defender of Cook County, of Chicago (Herbert Becker, Norman W. Fishman, and James J. Doherty, Assistant Public Defenders, of counsel), for appellant.",
      "Edward V. Hanrahan, State\u2019s Attorney of Cook County, of Chicago (Elmer C. Kissane and Patrick T. Driscoll, Jr., Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eddie Monden, Defendant-Appellant.\nGen. No. 53,053.\nFirst District, Fourth Division.\nOctober 8, 1969.\nGerald W. Getty, Public Defender of Cook County, of Chicago (Herbert Becker, Norman W. Fishman, and James J. Doherty, Assistant Public Defenders, of counsel), for appellant.\nEdward V. Hanrahan, State\u2019s Attorney of Cook County, of Chicago (Elmer C. Kissane and Patrick T. Driscoll, Jr., Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0018-01",
  "first_page_order": 24,
  "last_page_order": 27
}