{ "id": 5027681, "name": "Jeremiah O'Donnell v. The People of the State of Illinois", "name_abbreviation": "O'Donnell v. People", "decision_date": "1891-06-02", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "23", "last_page": "25", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "41 Ill. App. 23" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "25 Ill. 9", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "30 Ill. App. 399", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 2421626 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/30/0399-01" ] }, { "cite": "124 Ill. 399", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2930253 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/124/0399-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 285, "char_count": 3983, "ocr_confidence": 0.553, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.4916476050659184e-08, "percentile": 0.28158861771477794 }, "sha256": "733a28370eab9857fbe1ee3e822df36566ecb7ff7498577e63941cfd1eff56bf", "simhash": "1:6d61ccdbee7625e6", "word_count": 715 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:42:40.256502+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Jeremiah O\u2019Donnell v. The People of the State of Illinois." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Gaby, J.\nThe plaintiff in error was convicted at the April term, 1890, of the Criminal Court of Cook County, of conspiracy to \u201cpack\u201d a jury favorable to the defendants,on a trial before then had in the same court upon the charge of the murder of Dr. Cronin.\nThe evidence against the plaintiff in error consisted partly of his own statement, contained in a shorthand report of what he said in reply to questions by the state\u2019s attorney and his assistants. This report was put in evidence by his own attorneys, after, on the part, of the people, a large part of the same matter had gone in on the cross-examination of the plaintiff in error.\nThere was a great deal of evidence as to the part other defendants took in the same alleged conspiracy.\nFrom this report it appeared that he had a conversation with another defendant (indicted with him, but not convicted) in regard to the Dr. Cronin trial, in which that other defendant said that the lives of the men then on trial were in danger; that he would like to see them get out of it; that probably if there was some friendly juror, they would not have to hang; to see one Hoagland in regard to the defense; to tell him he should be very careful as to how he should answer questions for the defense, and not to convict on circumstantial evidence.\nHe acknowledged that he talked with Hoagland about going upon the jury; told him to be very careful what he should say in the court room, and that later on he would give him further instructions, but never did.\nThat several of the defendants, in different directions, were endeavoring to \u201cpack\u201d that jury, is conclusively proved. Hoagland testified that O\u2019Donnell told him that he, Hoagland, would-be summoned on that jury to \u201cdo a square thing by the boys, and try and get them off as easy as you can,\u201d and \u201cthere would be $1,000 or more for you in the case.\u201d After a verdict for the people, the plaintiff in error moved for a new trial, assigning twenty-five reasons, and on this record assigns fifty-four alleged errors.\nIt is impossible, within any reasonable compass, to review the case at length. His own confession convicts him of an effort to get a friendly juror upon the panel.\nHoagland\u2019s testimony goes much farther. That efforts of the same character, and with the same object, were at the same time being made by others, is part of the case against him.\n\u201cIf it be proved that the defendants pursued, by their acts, the same object, often by the same means, one performing one part, and another another part of the same, so as to complete it, with a view to the attainment of the same object, the jury will be justified in the conclusion that they were engaged in a conspiracy to effect that object;\u201d quoted by the Supreme Court from 3 Greenleaf on Ev., Sec. 92, in Ochs v. People, 124 Ill. 399. The character of the crime of packing juries, and the difficulty in punishing it, are forcibly described in the opinion of my brother Moran, in Welch v. People, 30 Ill. App. 399.\nTo avoid unjustifiable prolixity, we must content ourselves by following the example of the Supreme Court in Smith v. People, 25 Ill. 9, a case of conspiracy, and say that we have carefully examined this record and find no error committed by the court.\nThe verdict of the jury is warranted by the evidence, and the judgment is affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.\nJudge Waterman presided in the Criminal Court on the trial of this case, and takes no part in it here.", "type": "majority", "author": "Gaby, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Messrs. John C. King and John W. Byam, for plaintiff in error.", "Mr. J. M. Longenecker, State\u2019s Attorney, for defendants in error." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Jeremiah O\u2019Donnell v. The People of the State of Illinois.\nCriminal Law\u2014Conspiracy\u2014Packing of Jury.\nThis court declines to interfere with a verdict finding (he defendant in the case presented, guilt-y of conspiracy to pack a jury favorable to the defendants, on the trial of a cause named.\n[Opinion filed June 2, 1891.]\nIn erbob to the Criminal Court of Cook County; the Hon. Abba H. Waterman, Judge, presiding.\nMessrs. John C. King and John W. Byam, for plaintiff in error.\nMr. J. M. Longenecker, State\u2019s Attorney, for defendants in error." }, "file_name": "0023-01", "first_page_order": 19, "last_page_order": 21 }