{ "id": 5130526, "name": "The People of The State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, vs. George Garines et al. Plaintiffs in Error", "name_abbreviation": "People v. Garines", "decision_date": "1924-12-16", "docket_number": "No. 16177", "first_page": "413", "last_page": "424", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "314 Ill. 413" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill.", "id": 8772, "name": "Illinois Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "307 Ill. 611", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5092380 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/307/0611-01" ] }, { "cite": "310 Ill. 234", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5109122 ], "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "351" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/310/0234-01" ] }, { "cite": "261 Ill. 11", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 4739602 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/261/0011-01" ] }, { "cite": "303 Ill. 204", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5005944 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/303/0204-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 786, "char_count": 19107, "ocr_confidence": 0.782, "pagerank": { "raw": 3.8050733677927887e-07, "percentile": 0.8976160386184677 }, "sha256": "dd99237871a8397f2805bdb4cea31e41e3a129ec47ef7bb4cd30eb2af1afcce8", "simhash": "1:13f17942cc9e0bb7", "word_count": 3359 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:34:24.077932+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. George Garines et al. Plaintiffs in Error." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. Justice Thompson\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThe homicide which is the subject of investigation in this prosecution occurred in a feud between two groups of Greek gamblers operating near the intersection of Halsted street and Blue Island avenue, in the city of Chicago. This prosecution is for the killing of Anastasi's Visvardis about 4:30 o\u2019clock in the afternoon of June 29, 1923. He was a member of the faction headed by George Charahus, \u201cking\u201d of the Halsted street Greeks, who was killed about the same time. Plaintiff in error Angelo Barbas was chief of the Greek faction to which plaintiffs in error George Garines, Dennis Mandolatos and Sam Vithoulkas belonged. Plaintiffs in error were indicted and tried for the killing of Visvardis and were convicted of murder and their punishment fixed at life imprisonment.\nThe evidence for the State shows that plaintiffs in error conspired to kill deceased and that pursuant to this conspiracy Garines killed Visvardis in front of a coffee house conducted by Mandolatos at 740 South Halsted street, and that at the same time Barbas killed Charahus inside the same coffee house. According to the witnesses for the State, both parties killed were unarmed at the time and the killing was wholly unprovoked. Eight bullets entered the body of Visvardis and three that of Charahus.\nPlaintiffs in error Garines and Barbas claim' that the shooting was in self-defense, and Mandolatos and Vithoulkas claim that they were merely witnesses to the killing of Charahus and that they had conspired with no one to kill Visvardis. The evidence for the defense is to the effect that Visvardis assaulted Garines with a revolver the night before the day of the shooting and that Garines saved his life by jumping behind an automobile parked in the street while other parties disarmed Visvardis. Other witnesses testified that when Charahus heard of this he rebuked Visvardis and his associates for not using their guns, and told them that if they did not know how to use their guns they ought to throw them in the ashcan. The theory of the defense is that the Charahus faction were under the impression that Garines and others of the Barbas faction had caused the police to close the gambling house owned by Visvardis, Dennis Lardas and others of the Charahus faction; that Charahus had said repeatedly that he did not need the aid of the police to rule in his district and that he could take care of his own affairs with his gun; and that there was a conspiracy among those of the Charahus faction to kill Barbas, Garines and others of the opposing faction. The evidence for the defense is to the effect that Charahus, Visvardis and Lardas were walking up and down the street in front of Mandolatos\u2019 coffee house; that finally Charahus went into the coffee house and Visvardis and Lardas took stations a short distance from the door; that when Charahus entered the coffee house Garines walked out; that as he stepped onto the sidewalk Lardas began shooting at him; that Garines returned the fire; that Visvardis stepped out from the side of the building and reached for his gun; that Garines shot him and he fell to the sidewalk; that when the shooting began outside, Charahus drew his gun from his pocket and Barbas grabbed his hand and engaged in a struggle with him, and that during this struggle Charahus was shot.\nThere are 1100 pages of testimony in this record. About a score of witnesses testified for the People and an equal number for the defense. In many respects the testimony of the witnesses for the prosecution is directly contradictory of the testimony of the witnesses^ for the defense. It was for the jury to determine which set of witnesses was telling the truth. Where the evidence is conflicting, as it is in this case, the record, to sustain a conviction, must be reasonably free from substantial and prejudicial error.\nNick Funtall, who operated an hotel at 7173^ South Halsted street, testified that about three o\u2019clock in the afternoon of the day of the shooting Charahus came into the coffee house at 719 South Halsted street; that Visvardis, Lardas and Spiros Konstantatos were sitting at a table; that Charahus appeared angry and abused Visvardis and his companions for not using their guns in the altercation with Garines the evening before; that about an hour later he saw Charahus, Visvardis and Lardas walking up and down the sidewalk in front of Mandolatos\u2019 coffee house; that he left at this time on a street car and knew nothing about the shooting. The cross-examination by the assistant State\u2019s attorney was in part as follows:\nQ. \u201cAre you indicted for robbery now ?\nA. \u201cI was arrested, but I don\u2019t know if I am indicted yet.\nQ. \u201cWere you indicted by the Federal government?\n<, A. \u201cI don\u2019t know if I am indicted.\nQ. \u201cIn a bank robbery ? Did the government arrest you ?\nA. \u201cYes.\nQ. \u201cFor the robbery of the Atlas National Bank of $14,000 of liberty bonds?\nA. \u201cYes.\nQ. \u201cIs that what you were arrested for?\nA. \u201cYes, but my attorney will find out\u2014\nQ. \u201cIs Mr. Nash your attorney?\nA. \u201cNo.\nQ. \u201cAnd when were you arrested by the Federal authorities ?\nA. \u201cIn my place about three weeks ago; I am out on bonds now.\u201d\nThere was an objection to every question asked and the objection was promptly overruled without explanation. In reply to one of the objections the prosecutor said: \u201cI will show who this witness is; it goes to his credibility.\u201d At another point the following colloquy took place:\nSmith: \u201cHe is objecting to every question I ask.\nNash: \u201cOn this line I am, because it is improper.\nSmith: \u201cYou think it\u2019s improper. Now, I submit to the court it is not improper. It goes to the credibility of this witness as to whether the jury can believe him on anything.\u201d\nGus Michas testified on behalf of defendants that he operated the crap game for Barbas; that about two weeks before the day of the shooting Charahus came'into Barbas\u2019 gambling house about 1:15 A. M. and asked Barbas why he had not closed his house at 1 :oo o\u2019clock; that Barbas replied that he was busy and wanted to remain open about twenty minutes longer; that Charahus told him if he did not close his place at 1:00 o\u2019clock he (Charahus) would close it with his own gun; that Barbas replied that in the future he was going to keep his place open all night, and that Charahus said that if he did he would fix him; that on the date of the shooting he walked past Mandolatos\u2019 coffee house and saw Charahus, Visvardis and Lardas walking up and down the sidewalk in front of the place; that as he passed them he heard Charahus say to Visvardis, \u201cWhy do you carry that gun in your pocket? Why don\u2019t you use it ?\u201d that he went to a coffee house in the neighborhood and later to a barber shop across the street from the scene of the shooting; that during all this time Charahus, Lardas and Visvardis were walking up and down the sidewalk in front of Mandolatos\u2019 coffee house; that he sat down in a barber chair to be shaved and that while he was being shaved he heard a shot; that he looked out of the window and saw Garines shooting toward the north and Lardas toward the south; that Visvardis was standing near Lardas and during the shooting fell to the sidewalk; that George Mistakus ran to the body of Visvardis, took his gun and ran away with it. During the cross-examination of this witness the following took place:\nQ. \u201cWere you ever in the penitentiary?\nA. \u201cYes, sir.\nQ. \u201cWhat penitentiary were you in ?\nA. \u201cJackson, Michigan.\nQ. \u201cWhat for?\nA. \u201cRobbery.\nQ. \u201cWhen was the robbery committed?\nA. \u201cIn 1913.\nQ. \u201cWhere were you arrested?\nA. \u201cDetroit.\nO. \u201cWhere were you arrested first?\nA. \u201cIn Detroit.\nQ. \u201cThat is where you were arrested ?\nA. \u201cYes, sir.\nQ. \u201cWere you arrested in Chicago May 7, 1922?\nA. \u201cThey arrested me for gambling.\nQ. \u201cHow long did you serve in the Jackson, Michigan, penitentiary for robbery ?\nA. \u201cTwo years.\u201d\nProper objections were made to all these questions and the objections were curtly overruled.\nDuring the cross-examination of William Maneates, another witness for the defense, the following occurred:\n\u25a0Q. \u201cYou have had a little trouble, have you, some time or other ?\nA. \u201cWith whom ?\nQ. \u201cWith a shoulder, a little?\nA. \u201cWhere?\nQ. \u201cShot through the shoulder ?\nNash: \u201cObject to that as 'improper; not proper cross-examination.\nSmith: \u201cAll right.\nNash: \u201cWhat is the court\u2019s ruling?\nThe court: \u201cI don\u2019t know what he is alluding to, I am sure.\nSmith: \u201cI will withdraw it, if you don\u2019t want\u2014\nNash: \u201cI object to withdrawing it\u2014\nSmith: \u201cIf you don\u2019t want it answered I will withdraw it to save time.\nNash: \u201cObject to him asking a question of that kind in the presence of the jury as being designedly for the purpose of prejudicing and arousing the prejudices of the jury, and I ask the court to admonish him against any repetition of these improper actions.\nSmith: \u201cIt\u2019s not so\u2014\nThe court: \u201cIf there is any reason to go on with that cross-examination you can\u2014\nNash: \u201cWell, I will ask the court\u2014\nThe court: \u201cOr if not, you shouldn\u2019t have started it; you should go on and show it; the bullet wound is there, if he has any.\nSmith [to witness] : \u201cI will ask you, you are in the bootlegging business now, are you? [Objection overruled.]\nA. \u201cI am cooking, only.\nQ. \u201cDon\u2019t you sell wine over on Polk street? [Objection overruled.]\nA. \u201cI can buy a gallon for somebody else and I sell it; I don\u2019t sell no wine; I drink all myself.\u201d\nMichael Maharas, a witness for the defense, testified that Lardas told him that he and Visvardis and Charahus had tried to kill Garines and Barbas and that instead of killing them Visvardis and Charahus were killed. On cross-examination the following occurred:\nQ. \u201cDid you ever go bonds for anybody charged with murder ?\nA. \u201cNo, sir; not me.\nSmith: \u201cI am trying to get into your record.\nWitness: \u201cYes, sir.\nQ. \u201cDo you know a man named Judge Williams ?\nA. \u201cI do not.\nQ. \u201cWas there any trouble in your place when Judge Williams was beat up in your place at Seventy-ninth and Halsted ?\nA. \u201cNo, sir.\nQ. \u201cAbout a year or a year and a half ago, wasn\u2019t there a man beaten up in your place at Seventy-ninth and Halsted?\nA. \u201cNo, sir.\nQ. \u201cWas there an arrest at the place?\nA. \u201cNo, sir.\nQ. \u201cSure it wasn\u2019t at your place?\nA. \u201cI am positively sure.\nQ. \u201cYou are the only Greek candy man on the corner of Seventy-ninth and Halsted ?\nA. \u201cThere is another one; there are two more.\nQ. \u201cYou are the only Greek candy man on the corner ?\nA. \u201cThere is another one on the corner.\nQ. \u201cA year and a half ago ?\nA. \u201cYes, he was.\nQ. \u201cI am talking about the northeast corner.\nA. \u201cYes, I am on the northeast corner; that never happened in my place as I know, and I am there six years.\u201d\nThereafter the prosecutor called Charles A. Williams, a former judge of the circuit court of Cook county, and after locating the cigar store at the corner of Seventy-ninth and Halsted streets, in Chicago, the following examination took place:\nSmith: \u201cDid you ever have any difficulty in that store ?\nNash: \u201cJust a minute, Judge. I object to that, your Honor, on the ground that it is not proper rebuttal, and it is improper, irrelevant and immaterial, and is, if it is anything, only additional proof of something I believe improperly admitted.\nSmith: \u201cIf the witness Maharas will lie about immaterial matters he will lie about material matters.\nNash: \u201cObject to the statement of the State\u2019s attorney and move to strike it out.\nThe court: \u201cI will strike it out and overrule the objection.\nNash: \u201cAlso object on the further ground, your Honor, that this question was asked in connection with the impeachment of Maharas, and the witness has not stated that he knows Maharas.\nSmith: \u201cMaharas says there was never an altercation in his place, \u2014 there never was any trouble in there and Judge Williams never was beaten in there.\nSmith: \u201cJudge Williams, were you beaten up and attacked in the place on the northeast corner of Seventy-ninth and Halsted?\nWitness: \u201cI had a fight in that store once.\nSmith: \u201cWho did you have a talk with ?\nWitness: \u201cThe man who owns the store.\nSmith: \u201cWere they employees?\nWitness: \u201cI don\u2019t know; they were back of the counter.\nSmith: \u201cWas there a court proceeding after that?\nWitness: \u201cThere was.\nSmith: \u201cWhat was the result of that court proceeding? The defendants were in court, were they, at that time ?\nWitness: \u201cMen were in court; I don\u2019t remember who they were.\nSmith: \u201cAnd I will ask as to the location of the four corners of Seventy-ninth and Halsted streets.\nWitness: \u201cIt is the northeast corner.\nSmith: \u201cJudge Williams, will you tell me what the fight was about and how it started ?\u201d\nProper objections were made to all of the cross-examination of Maharas with respect to the altercation with Judge Williams and to all of the examination of Judge Williams on this subject, but all these objections were overruled. On cross-examination Judge Williams testified that he did not know the witness Michael Maharas and that he did not know who the two men were who were in the place when he had his fight there, two or three years before.\nDuring the direct examination of the defendant Vithoulkas the following occurred:\nNash: \u201cAfter you talked to this man were you called to any place, \u2014 to the State\u2019s attorney\u2019s office?\nA. \u201cYes, they let me tell the story.\nSmith: \u201cAnswer your lawyer\u2019s question.\nWitness: \u201cHow is that thing coming, \u2014 his brother come there to see me.\nSmith: \u201cI want to object to the witness\u2019 volunteering anything, \u2014 any statement. I object to him answering counsel\u2019s question, and I think he ought to be reprimanded for it.\nThe court: \u201cThis is one of the defendants and I give him more latitude than an ordinary witness.\nSmith: \u201cIt is just a lot of cooked-up stuff here.\nNash: \u201cI object to that remark as highly improper and prejudicial. The counsel said it is a \u2018lot of cooked-up stuff.\u2019 I want to object to counsel\u2019s statement before the jury, and ask that the jury be instructed to disregard it and that counsel be admonished.\nThe court: \u201cIt would be a question of argument, wouldn\u2019t it ?\nNash: \u201cIt is, sometimes, but counsel ought to be admonished, in view of the repeated offenses in this line. \u201d\nSmith: \u201cThis man bursts out with speech every time Mr. Nash asks him a question; Mr. Nash can hold him down, if he wants to.\nThe court: \u201cWe all know what it is; we are not blind; go on, Mr. Nash.\u201d\nThis remark of the court was highly prejudicial. The court undoubtedly meant to insinuate that the defendant\u2019s testimony was \u201ca lot of cooked-up stuff\u201d and that his attorney could control his testimony if he desired. This impression is the only one that the jury could have received, under the circumstances.\nWhatever explanation the trial officers have to make of their conduct, the fact is that the plaintiffs in error have not had a fair trial. Although there may be enough evidence in a record to justify a conviction, a defendant has a right to a trial by jury and not by this court. He has a right to be tried in accordance with the law of the land, and a conviction secured in total disregard of that law can not be sustained. (People v. Gardiner, 303 Ill. 204.) The law does not provide one method for trying innocent persons and another for trying guilty persons. (People v. Newman, 261 Ill. 11.) Respect for the law and its proper administration will not be established by lawless and unprofessional conduct of those charged with the enforcement of the law. We have quoted enough of the testimony of the witnesses improperly impeached to show that their testimony was material to the defense. For the misconduct of the State\u2019s attorney in the examination of witnesses for the defense and the errors of the trial court in permitting such misconduct this case must be reversed. People v. Decker, 310 Ill. 234; People v. Green, 292 id. 351; People v. Simmons, 274 id. 528.\nOn behalf of the People the court gave to the jury the following instruction:\n\u201cThe court instructs the jury in the language of the statute that if a person kills another in self-defense, it must appear that the danger was so urgent and pressing that in order to save his own life or to prevent him from receiving great bodily harm, the killing of the other was absolutely necessary and it must appear also that the person killed was the assailant, or that the slayer had really, and in good faith, endeavored to decline any further struggle before the mortal blow was given.\u201d\nThis instruction is simply a copy of section 149 of the Criminal Code, and is another labor-saving makeshift com-' monly used in homicide trials but which does not give the jury any accurate knowledge of the law of self-defense. This instruction has been repeatedly condemned. (People v. Durand, 307 Ill. 611; Kipley v. People, 215 id. 358; Steiner v. People, 187 id. 244; Enright v. People, 155 id. 32; Gainey v. People, 97 id. 270; Campbell v. People, 16 id. 17.) The law on this subject was announced in the Campbell case in 1854, and the doctrine announced in that case has been approved in every case since that time in which the question has arisen. There is no plausible excuse for the State\u2019s attorney offering or the court giving an instruction so long and so often condemned.\nThe judgment of the criminal court is reversed and the cause is remanded for a new trial.\nReversed and remanded.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. Justice Thompson" } ], "attorneys": [ "Thomas D. Nash, Michael J. Ahern, and James J. McDermott, (Thomas E. Swanson, of counsel,) for plaintiffs in error.", "Edward J. Brundage, Attorney General, Robert E. Crowe, State\u2019s Attorney, and James B. Searcy, (Edward E. Wilson, Clyde C. Fisher, and Henry T. Chace, of counsel,) for the People." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "(No. 16177.\nReversed and remanded.)\nThe People of The State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, vs. George Garines et al. Plaintiffs in Error.\nOpinion filed December 16, 1924.\n1. Criminal law \u2014 record must be free from error where evidence is conflicting. Where the evidence is conflicting, the record, to sustain a conviction, must be reasonably free from substantial and prejudicial error.\n2. Same \u2014 what remark of court is prejudicial. Where counsel for the prosecution remarks that the defendant\u2019s evidence is \u201ca lot of cooked-up stuff,\u201d a remark by the court, \u201cWe all know what it is; we are not blind,\u201d in answer to the objection of counsel for the defendant, is highly prejudicial.\n3. Same \u2014 when case must be reversed because of improper impeachment of defendant\u2019s witnesses. A defendant is entitled to a fair trial by the jury, and although there may be enough evidence to justify a conviction, where the court, over proper objections, permits counsel for the prosecution to ask improper, insinuating and prejudicial questions for the alleged purpose of impeachment of the defendant\u2019s witnesses who give testimony material to the defense, a judgment of conviction will be reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.\n4. Same \u2014 what instruction as to self-defense is improper. An instruction as to self-defense which is simply a copy of section 149 of the Criminal Code does not give the jury any accurate knowledge of the law of self-defense and should not be given.\nWrit op Error to the Criminal Court of Cook county; the Hon. -Harry A. Lewis, Judge, presiding.\nThomas D. Nash, Michael J. Ahern, and James J. McDermott, (Thomas E. Swanson, of counsel,) for plaintiffs in error.\nEdward J. Brundage, Attorney General, Robert E. Crowe, State\u2019s Attorney, and James B. Searcy, (Edward E. Wilson, Clyde C. Fisher, and Henry T. Chace, of counsel,) for the People." }, "file_name": "0413-01", "first_page_order": 413, "last_page_order": 424 }