{
  "id": 3207870,
  "name": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JEROME J. BRADFORD et al., Defendants-Appellants",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Bradford",
  "decision_date": "1980-06-02",
  "docket_number": "No. 77-1835",
  "first_page": "493",
  "last_page": "494",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "84 Ill. App. 3d 493"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "78 Ill. App. 3d 869",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        5603603
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/78/0869-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "356 N.E.2d 822",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "42 Ill. App. 3d 947",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        2642338
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/42/0947-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "243 N.E.2d 208",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1976,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "41 Ill. 2d 351",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2853189
      ],
      "year": 1976,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/41/0351-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "244 N.E.2d 145",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "41 Ill. 2d 494",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2853113
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/41/0494-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "37 N.E.2d 790",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "378 Ill. 216",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2549309
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/378/0216-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "546 F.2d 973",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "F.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        1010000,
        5691889
      ],
      "year": 1941,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/f2d/546/0973-01",
        "/us-app-dc/178/0207-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 279,
    "char_count": 3471,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.861,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.09037322253150666
    },
    "sha256": "05dbec435dba23c0e16b50cd9fe57c64d079834fcce851f92b0a6154457cd5b5",
    "simhash": "1:ae6a56c4fc1cc6b2",
    "word_count": 562
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:36:38.181565+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JEROME J. BRADFORD et al., Defendants-Appellants."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. JUSTICE McGLOON\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nDuring the pendency of this appeal, there was a substitution of attorneys for defendant Davis. The new attorney for Davis apparently was unaware that his client had adopted the brief of co-defendant Bradford for purposes of appeal. He alleges that he never received notice of the date for oral arguments and that he was therefore precluded from raising the additional issue that the trial court erred in denying Davis\u2019 motion for severance. We have granted Davis leave to file a supplemental brief addressing this issue.\nDefendant Davis argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion for severance on the grounds that the bulk of the evidence presented implicated only co-defendant Bradford. In particular, he notes that the victim of the armed robbery was able to identify only co-defendant Bradford and, further, that no cash was found on Davis when arrested. Relying on United States v. Mardian (D.C. Cir. 1976), 546 F.2d 973, and People v. Mutter (1941), 378 Ill. 216, 37 N.E.2d 790, Davis concludes that severance was required since the great disparity in the evidence of guilt against Bradford could have \u201crubbed off\u201d on him.\nDavis did not raise this issue below. In his petition for severance he alleged only that co-defendant Bradford\u2019s defense would be antagonistic and, further, that he believed Bradford was going to proceed pro se and disrupt the proceedings. In People v. Rhodes (1969), 41 Ill. 2d 494, 244 N.E.2d 145, the Illinois Supreme Court held post-trial arguments, supporting defendant\u2019s motion for severance, which were not raised prior to trial were untimely and irrelevant. That principle applies here since Davis first raised the issue of co-defendant Bradford\u2019s guilt prejudicing his case in a post-trial motion. The issue was raised too late.\nWe note further the general rule that persons jointly indicted for the commission of a crime should be tried together; the issue of separate trial being left to the sound discretion of the trial court. (People v. Gendron (1968), 41 Ill. 2d 351, 243 N.E.2d 208.) Here Davis was convicted of armed robbery under principles of accountability. In People v. Hunter (1976), 42 Ill. App. 3d 947, 356 N.E.2d 822, a conviction for armed robbery was affirmed where the co-defendant stood silently in a separate area of a restaurant while his cohort pulled a gun and emptied the cash register. In affirming the conviction, the court noted that one may aid and abet a criminal offense without actively participating in an overt act. Thus, even if Davis\u2019 motion for severance had been granted, there was sufficient evidence for him to have been found guilty in a separate trial.\nWe, therefore, adhere \u2022 to our original decision and affirm the judgments of the circuit court of Cook County.\nJudgments affirmed.\nO\u2019CONNOR and CAMPBELL, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. JUSTICE McGLOON"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Edward J. Overtree, of Chicago, for appellant Melvin R. Davis.",
      "James J. Doherty, Public Defender, of Chicago (Richard D. Kharas, Assistant Public Defender, of counsel), for appellant Jerome J. Bradford.",
      "Bernard Carey, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago (Marcia B. Orr and Linda D. Woloshin, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JEROME J. BRADFORD et al., Defendants-Appellants.\nFirst District (1st Division)\nNo. 77-1835\nSupplemental opinion filed June 2, 1980.\nEdward J. Overtree, of Chicago, for appellant Melvin R. Davis.\nJames J. Doherty, Public Defender, of Chicago (Richard D. Kharas, Assistant Public Defender, of counsel), for appellant Jerome J. Bradford.\nBernard Carey, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago (Marcia B. Orr and Linda D. Woloshin, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People.\nThe original opinion in this case is found at 78 Ill. App. 3d 869."
  },
  "file_name": "0493-01",
  "first_page_order": 515,
  "last_page_order": 516
}