{
  "id": 5220721,
  "name": "The People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, vs. Theodore Wilson, Plaintiff in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Wilson",
  "decision_date": "1929-04-20",
  "docket_number": "No. 19462",
  "first_page": "412",
  "last_page": "430",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "334 Ill. 412"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "331 Ill. 581",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5210894
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/331/0581-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "300 Ill. 383",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2426488
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/300/0383-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 925,
    "char_count": 32655,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.791,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.0148023356950663e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5431681538190064
    },
    "sha256": "51c15f8a8bd4101ebd5fe7c29c9f2c2da4f60ab9f71f99dc3dc8958c1e758ad0",
    "simhash": "1:3e21ede6b50fe0a0",
    "word_count": 6119
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:36:10.837105+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. Theodore Wilson, Plaintiff in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Dunn\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nTheodore Wilson was indicted in the criminal court of Cook county jointly with Joseph Allman and Frank Wilson for robbery while armed with a pistol. His co-defendants pleaded guilty and he was put on trial alone and convicted and has sued out a writ of error.\nThe defense was an alibi. Margaret Halliday, the victim of the crime, testified that she conducted a delicatessen store at No. 1353 West Seventy-ninth street, in Chicago. Mrs. Norman, a colored woman, was in the back room when three men entered the store, one of whom, the plaintiff in error, bought some groceries and handed witness a dollar-bill in payment. She was handing him the change when one of the other men pushed a gun at her and told her to be quiet and everything would be all right. The other man was Frank Wilson. He was at the door and went into the back room ahead of witness with his gun in his hand and ransacked the place back there, and while he was taking her back Allman told the plaintiff in error to wait on the store. The two women were in the back room from 9:10 until about 9:35 o\u2019clock. They tied witness and the colored woman together, binding their feet and hands and heads. Witness\u2019 fur coat, ring and vibrator and $25 from the cash register were taken. Mrs. Norman got her bandage loose and started to scream. A man came in, and without waiting to untie them ran out on the street, calling, \u201cHold-up!\u201d Two motorcycle policemen who were passing came in, and after talking with witness arrested Allman and Frank Wilson at about 9:40 o\u2019clock, about three blocks from the store. They found on them all the property which had been taken, including the $25, and a loaded gun on each of them. Mrs. Halliday testified that the plaintiff in error did not have a gun, and on cross-examination said that Mrs. Norman did not see him, as she was not in the store, and that witness could not see him while she was in the back room. The plaintiff in error was arrested on the night of October 3 at the place where he roomed and boarded with Mrs. Bergamin, 713 West Fiftieth street.\nThe plaintiff in error testified that on October 3 he was at 713 West Fiftieth street, where he roomed and boarded with Mrs. Bergamin, as he had been doing for about a year and a half. He got up about seven o\u2019clock in the morning and went to a poolroom. Afterward he took a bath and went back to bed. About half or three-quarters of an hour later he got up and called his mother on the telephone. That was a little after eight o\u2019clock. His mother came down to him with some underwear and a clean shirt and left two dollars with him. She got there about 8:45 or 9 :oo o\u2019clock, sat down and talked with him and left about 11:3o. He had been a truck driver, employed for about six years for the Consumers Company, but had quit because he was sick. He had kidney trouble. He was arrested about 10:3o o\u2019clock that night. His mother and sister were there at the time. He did not go into Mrs. Halliday\u2019s store on October 3 and make a purchase, was not near the store and never saw it, and had nothing to do with the robbery.\nFrank Wilson testified that he is a brother of the defendant and is in the penitentiary at Joliet. He was indicted with his brother and Joe Allman, and he and All-man pleaded guilty and were sentenced to the penitentiary but his brother was innocent. He saw his brother at the police station the day after he was arrested and previous to that had not seen him for ten or twelve months. About 8:3o o\u2019clock on the morning of October 3 he and Allman entered the store of Mrs. Halliday \u2014 just the two of them. Mrs. Halliday was alone in the store. He entered first and went to make a purchase. While he was making the purchase Allman came in and held up the front of the store and witness ran in the back room. Allman came in immediately afterward. Witness met the colored woman just coming into the store from the rear room and told her to go back and sit down and nothing would happen, and All-man brought Mrs. Halliday back. Witness talked to her and told her nothing would happen to her and asked her where the money was. She said the money had already left. He told Allman, \u201cLet\u2019s leave immediately,\u201d and went out in the store and took some money from the cash register and went back again. Allman was taking Mrs. Halliday\u2019s coat. She said, \u201cPlease don\u2019t take that,\u201d and witness said, \"Leave it there and let\u2019s go.\u201d They walked out in the street and were not out of the place a half minute when somebody entered, and they were about a block and a half away when they were arrested. His brother was not with him that day. There were only two men in the store during the progress of the hold-up, witness and the other man who participated in the robbery.\nBridget Wilson, the mother of the plaintiff in error, testified that she had been living for two years at 1116 West Seventy-second street with her daughter, Mrs. Kennedy. The plaintiff in error went to board with Mrs. Bergamin in 1926, when witness broke up housekeeping and went to live with her daughter. Before that the plaintiff in error lived with witness. On October 3 she received a telephone call about eight o\u2019clock in the morning from her son, telling her he was sick and asking her to bring some clean underwear. She went over to see him and gave him a couple of garments. He was there when she got there, about 8:3o o\u2019clock. She stayed until about half-past eleven. It was a couple of minutes before 12 :oo o\u2019clock when she got home, and the plaintiff in error was there when she left. That evening she told her daughter about it, and they went over and saw the plaintiff in error there at that time. The next day she went to see Mrs. Halliday and asked her how she knew Ted was there at the time. Mrs. Halliday told her he had something sore on his neck. Witness said that Ted hadn\u2019t anything sore on his neck, and Mrs. Halliday said, \u201cWell, there was some lump on his neck; he bought a can of soup and loaf of bread;\u201d that he had a lump on his neck and she recognized him from his Adam\u2019s apple. She told witness that the man with something on his neck came into the store and asked to make a purchase. She was not positive that Ted was the man, but she said the police told her if she did not prosecute him that she would not get any more protection from them. She said she did not want to do it, but she had to do it or they would not give her any more protection. Mrs. Wilson also testified that she heard Mrs. ITalliday testify before Judge Padden in the police court on October io, and she then testified that the man who came into the store first purchased a can of soup and a loaf of bread and paid for it and walked out and a minute or two later Allman and Frank Wilson came in. She said that the boys were there; that Theodore walked out after he bought the loaf of bread and the can of soup and she did not see him any more. She said the man with the sore throat was the one who made the purchase and he was the one who walked out, and she was not positive whether it was Wilson or not.\nPearl Bergamin testified that on October 3, 1928, she lived at 713 West Fiftieth street and had lived there about a year. She was a widow and lived there with her two little girls and had worked for five years at 210-212 West Lake street, where she was then employed. She had known the plaintiff in error three years. He came first to her home in 1926 and had roomed and boarded with her about two years and paid $10 a week. She saw him on the morning of October 3 at 7:00 o\u2019clock, when she left for work, and at 5:3o o\u2019clock that night, when she returned from work, he was sitting on the bed on the back porch.\nMrs. Halliday testified in regard to the conversation with Mrs. Wilson that the latter came to her house on October 4 and told her not to prosecute \u2014 that they were good Catholic boys. It was not the day following the robbery but the day before she went to the Grand Crossing station. She did not tell Mrs. Wilson at that time that a man came into the store with a flannel around his neck and that he did not do anything but merely paid for a can of soup and for the bread and then walked out about his business; that it was not true that Mrs. Wilson then said, \u201cWell, my boy never had any sore throat \u2014 he did not have any bandage around his neck,\u201d and she replied, \u201cWell, it must have been his Adam\u2019s apple;\u201d that she did not remember talking to the police officers in regard to the plaintiff in error, and that it was not true that she said to Mrs. Wilson, when Mrs. Wilson came to see her, that the police officers told her .that if she did not say that the man who came into the store to buy the soup was Ted Wilson they would not give her any more protection. She testified before Judge Padden, at the Grand Crossing station, on October 10, but did not remember testifying that a man came into her store who had a sore neck and bought a can of soup and a loaf of bread. He had no sore neck and she did not say that. He bought bread and Campbell\u2019s soup. He asked for a third item, which she could not remember. It was not true that she said at that time that she did not positively identify the man who first came into the store, and it was not true that she said at that time that this man came in first, purchased a can of soup and a loaf of bread and walked out and shortly afterward Allman and Frank Wilson came in.\nThe evidence of the prosecution, if true, was sufficient to sustain the verdict of guilty. The evidence for the defense, if true, was sufficient to establish the alibi. The credibility of the evidence was a question for the determination of the jury, and the court is not authorized to set aside their verdict if reached as the result of a fair trial. The evidence is not, however, so conclusive of the defendant\u2019s guilt as to justify the affirmance of the judgment where the conduct of the trial has been such as to lead to the. conclusion that the trial did not result in a fair consideration of the defense of the plaintiff in error. The instructions do not appear in the bill of exceptions and there is no complaint of them. There are no adverse rulings in regard to the evidence which we consider of sufficient importance to require a reversal of the judgment.\nComplaint is made that the prejudicial conduct and remarks of the judge were such as to manifest to the jury his belief in the plaintiff in error\u2019s guilt and to prevent him from having a fair trial. At the beginning of the trial the court, after making a general statement of the case to the jury and asking if any of the jury knew the prosecuting witness, the defendant or his attorney, or any reason why he could not try the case fairly and impartially, asked of the assistant State\u2019s attorney, \u201cDo you take the jury, Mr. Bellows?\u201d and was answered, \u201cYes, I do; I will tender them.\u201d The defendant\u2019s attorney then proceeded to examine the jurors, and the following occurred:\nMr. Heth: \u201cYou gentlemen believe in law enforcement, don\u2019t you?\nThe court: \u201cWhat did you ask them?\nMr. Heth: \u201cI asked them if they believe in law enforcement.\nThe court: \u201cWell, if they did not believe in law enforcement I would not allow them in here. Anybody that does not believe in law enforcement they are in the wrong pew. Do you want people that do not believe in law enforcement? You represent the defendant, don\u2019t you?\nMr. Heth: \u201cYes.\nThe court: \u201cWhy don\u2019t you ask them if they really believe in eating. You might as well. Don\u2019t ask such questions.\nMr. Heth: \u201cAs a rule, the State\u2019s attorney asks each and every juror if they believe in law enforcement.\nThe court: \u201cThey won\u2019t ask it in this court. Every citizen believes in the enforcement of law unless he him'self is a hold-up man or a burglar, and I don\u2019t believe you or any of you gentlemen are burglars.\nA juror: \u201cNo.\nThe court: \"These jurymen have been asked this question so often \u2014 this question of reasonable doubt, presumption of innocence, burden of proof \u2014 and they know all about it. Don\u2019t you, gentlemen?\nMr. Heth: \u201cYou have served on a criminal jury before, all of you gentlemen, I take it?\nA juror: \u201cYes, sir.\nMr. Heth: \u201cWhat I was about to say, gentlemen, was this: You understand that if the facts in this case warrant it, it is just as much your duty to acquit the defendant as it is to convict him? You understand that, don\u2019t you?\nA juror: \u201cYes, sir.\nMr. Heth: \u201cAs the court has explained, you have heard these questions asked over and over again. I am not going to take much time in asking you questions. Now, you will give this defendant the same fair and impartial trial as if you were placed on trial for the same offense, wouldn\u2019t you? That is all we want \u2014 is a fair and impartial trial.\nThe court: \u201cYes, you have told them that before, and I think they know it by this time. Swear .the jury to try the issues.\n\u201cTo which ruling of the court the defendant by his \u00bb counsel then and there duly excepted. Whereupon the jury was sworn to try the issues in the above entitled cause.\u201d\nThe whole incident indicates the impatient temper of the 'judge at the time. The record contains many exhibitions of the same impatience, lack of restraint and fretful, offensive and disrespectful treatment of the defendant\u2019s counsel. The questions, \u201cDo you want people who do not believe in law enforcement? You represent the defendant, don\u2019t you ?\u201d carry the implication that the defendant, being guilty, wanted jurors who did not believe in law enforcement, and should not have been asked by the judge.\nThe only material questions in regard to which the evidence in the case conflicts are the identification of the plaintiff in error and his alibi, and the only testimony for the prosecution on these questions was that of Mrs. Halliday, the complaining witness. She was contradicted not only by the plaintiff in error and his convict brother as to the presence of the plaintiff in error at the time the crime was committed, but by his mother as to her statements in regard to the affair immediately after the crime was committed. On the alibi the only evidence covering the time of the robbery was the testimony of the plaintiff in error and his mother, which was contradictory of that of Mrs. Halliday. The credibility of these three witnesses was the vital question in the case and it was the province of the jury to decide it. It should have been left to the jury without any manifestation from the judge of his feeling as to the guilt or innocence of the plaintiff in error. The trial was short and throughout it but one objection was made by the State\u2019s attorney, and that one was immaterial, but the judge interrupted the counsel for the plaintiff in error more than a dozen times in his examination and cross-examination of witnesses, not only to make rulings that questions not objected to were improper, but to rebuke the attorney in a peevish manner, and sometimes in threatening language, for asking the questions. Mrs. Halliday was the first witness examined, and after she had testified in chief, with no objection, she stated on cross-examination that she did not say to Mrs. Wilson, when Mrs. Wilson came to see her, that the police officers told her that if she did not say that the man that came into her store to buy the soup was Ted Wilson they would not give her any more protection. The abstract proceeds:\nMr. Heth: \u201cAre you sure about that?\nThe court: \u201cYes; she said so.\nThe witness: \u201cI am sure. I saw a gun on Frank Wilson. He had his gun out and Allman pressed his gun against my body.\nMr. Heth: \u201cDid you see Ted Wilson have a gun?\nThe court: \u201cShe said he had none.\nMr. Heth: \u201cI beg pardon. I did not hear her say that.\nMr. Heth: \u201cTed Wilson took no part in the robbery except to come in\u2014\nThe court: \u201cNow, wait a minute. What do you mean \u2018took no part in the robbery?\u2019\nMr. Heth: \u201cWell, I understood her to say\u2014\nThe court: \u201cThe jury will determine, under the law, if he did. (To which ruling of the court the defendant by his counsel then and there duly excepted.)\nThe witness: \u201cTed Wilson just came in the store and bought the groceries. That was his part in it. That is all I saw. I left him in the store and I was taken back. I gave him his change \u2014 fifty-four cents. I gave him change for a dollar. He bought three items, but I cannot remember the second. I know the sale was thirty-four cents.\nMr. Heth: \u201cHe just stood there and did nothing? After that you were taken back in the store?\nThe court: \u201cWhat do you mean by \u2018did nothing?\u2019\nMr. Heth: \u201cWell, I assume he did nothing. She said he did nothing.\nMr. Bellows: \u201cThe witness said he waited on the trade, your honor.\nThe court: \u201cDo you know of your own knowledge that he did wait on the trade?\nThe witness: \u201cWell, I had customers, but I couldn\u2019t be positive. I wasn\u2019t there. I couldn\u2019t see him wait on the trade when I was in the back.\nThe court: \u201cWhich one was it that said to the defendant, \u2018Wait on the trade?\u2019\nThe witness: \u201cAllman.\nThe court: \u201cDid the defendant say anything when he said, \u2018Wait on the trade?\u2019\nThe witness: \u201cNo, sir; he did not answer.\nThe court: \u201cWhen did you first learn that this defendant and the other Wilson were brothers ?\nThe witness: \u201cWhen I went to the police station.\u201d\nThe abstract shows the testimony of the plaintiff in error, as follows:\nThe witness: \u201cMy name is Theodore Wilson.\nMr. Heth: \u201cWhere did you live prior to the day you came to jail? Oh, by the way, where do you reside now?\nThe court: \u201cHe is in jail.\nMr. Heth: \u201cAnd how long have you been in jail awaiting trial?\nThe court: \u201cAs it makes no difference how long he has been in jail, the jury has got nothing to do with that.\nThe witness: \u201cAt the present time I reside in the county jail, and prior to that I lived at 713 West Fiftieth street, where I boarded with Mrs. Bergamin.\nMr. Heth: \u201cHow much did you pay her a week for board?\nThe court: \u201cWhat difference does it make how much he paid her a week? What has that got to do with this lawsuit \u2014 how much a week he paid her for board?\nThe witness: \u201cI lived at 713 West Fiftieth street about one and one-half years with Mrs. Bergamin. I have been a truck driver for six years, employed by Consumers Company. I went to live with Mrs. Bergamin in March, 1926, and lived with her about one and one-half years, until I was arrested.\nMr. Heth: \u201cCalling your attention to the third of October, 1927, will you tell the court and jury where you were on that particular day?\nThe court: \u201cAt 9 :oo o\u2019clock in the morning. All right. Proceed.\nThe witness: \u201cOn October 3,1 was at 713 West Fiftieth street, where I roomed and boarded with Mrs. Bergamin. I was sick at the time I went to stay with her. I got up about seven that morning and went to the poolroom. After I went to the poolroom I took a bath and went back to bed. I saw Mrs. Bergamin that morning.\nThe court: \u201cIs this the place where you were arrested ?\nA. \u201cYes, sir.\nThe court: \u201cThe officer said 709, as I understood him, West Fiftieth street.\nThe witness: \u201cAbout one-half or three-quarters of an hour after I went to bed I got up and called my mother on the telephone. That was a little after 8 :oo, or 8 :oo o\u2019clock.\nMr. Heth: \u201cWhat did you say to your mother ?\nThe court: \u201cNow, don\u2019t you know any different than that? If you don\u2019t, you ought to. Why do you ask such questions ?\nMr. Heth: \u201cWell, I don\u2019t know.\nThe court: \u201cWell, you should know it. You shouldn\u2019t ask that kind of question \u2014 what did he say to his mother. (To which ruling of the court the defendant by his counsel duly excepted.)\nMr. Heth: \u201cWell, you had a conversation with your mother on the telephone and you called her about 8 :oo o\u2019clock that morning. Is that right ?\nThe court: \u201cThat is what he has told you. Now, how far is 709 West Fiftieth street from 1353 West Seventy-ninth street?\nA. \u201cI guess it\u2019s about three miles, your honor.\nThe witness (continuing) : \u201cMy mother came down to me with some underwear and a clean shirt and left me with two dollars. She got there about 8:45 or 9:00 o\u2019clock. She sat down and talked to me; asked me how I was feeling; gave me the stuff and left about 11:30, I think. I worked for the Consumers Company six years, my reason for quitting being that I was sick. I had kidney trouble. When my mother left, Miss Estes came in \u2014 a woman downstairs \u2014 and she asked me how I was.\nThe court: \u201cNow, don\u2019t tell what Miss Estes asked you.\nThe witness: \u201cI don\u2019t know whether Miss Estes is here to-day or not. My mother came back again that night around 8:00 o\u2019clock with my sister, Mrs. Kennedy.\nMr. Heth: \u201cHow long did they stay?\nThe court: \u201cWhat has that got to do with it ? What has it got to do with whether they came at 8 :oo o\u2019clock that night? \u2022 What has that got to do with this case? Well, how is it important ?\nMr. Heth: \u201cI want to show as to the time he was arrested. I want to bring that out.\nThe court: \u201cWell, ask him what time he was arrested. (To which ruling of the court the defendant by his counsel duly excepted.)\nThe witness: \u201cI was arrested about 10:30 that night. My mother and sister were there at the time. Just before I was arrested I went up to the corner for the morning paper and a cigar.\nThe court: \u201cWhat has that got to do with the case, thirteen hours after the alleged robbery ? What has that got to do with the case? Now, tell me if it has any bearing on this case. I will be glad to let it in, but tell me what has it got to do with this case?\nMr. Heth: \u201cI was just trying to lead up to the time of the arrest, your honor, and show the circumstances under which he was arrested.\nThe court: \u201cSustained. (There appearing in the record no objection by the State\u2019s attorney calling for a ruling of the court.)\nThe court: \u201cThe circumstances\u2014\nMr. Heth: \u201cUnder which he was arrested; yes.\nThe court: \u201cWell, ask him if there is anything about the arrest. Ask him.\nMr. Heth: \u201cYou got back there about what time?\nThe witness: \u201cI got back in about five minutes. I was only out about five minutes.\nMr. Heth: \u201cWhen you got back what happened?\nThe witness: \u201cI threw my coat behind the settee\u2014\nThe court: \u201cNo, no. I am not going into any such situation at all. I am not going to have in anything he did at 11:3o at night. I cannot see the significance in it. Let\u2019s try this case on the issues. (To which ruling of the court the defendant by his counsel then and there duly excepted.)\nThe witness: \u201cThe police officers came into my home and arrested me. I was in the police court before Judge Padden on October 10. Mrs. Halliday and Mrs. Norman were both there.\nThe court: \u201cWere all three defendants tried at the same time?\nA. \u201cMy brother\u2014\nThe court: \u201cIt was your brother, was it?\nA. \u201cYes.\nThe court: \u201cAnd the other man tried at the same time in the police court?\nA. \u201cYes, sir.\nThe witness: \u201cI heard Mrs. Halliday then and on the stand to-day. Then she testified that 'a man that looked like Ted Wilson, I am not positive, came into my store and bought a can of soup and a loaf of bread, paid for it and walked out; he had a sore neck.\u2019 About two or three minutes later Frank Wilson and Joe Allman came in and held her up. Margaret Norman was also present in court and I heard her testimony.\nMr. Heth: \u201cAnd Margaret Norman testified at that time\u2014\nThe court: \u201cNow, I am not conducting a law school here. Now, are you asking him what she said? I don\u2019t know where you lawyers over here in the criminal court get your law from. What do they do \u2014 just let anybody ask any questions they want to?\nMr. Heth: \u201cI am trying to make a record. I realize my duty.\nThe court: \u201cNo, I realize your duty is to try the case with evidence.\nMr. Heth: \u201cI feel those remarks of the court are prejudicial, and I want at this time on account of these remarks, your honor, to have the case continued. I ask that a juror be withdrawn and the case be continued.\nThe court: \u201cAt any time I ask you to ask proper questions it seems to have no effect on you. The jurors will understand that, or anything the court says, that the court expresses no opinion as to the credibility or the lack of credibility of any witness in the case. What the court says to counsel must in no way influence you gentlemen in arriving at a verdict. (To which ruling of the court the defendant by his counsel then and there duly excepted.)\nThe witness: \u201cI did not go into the store of Mrs. Halliday on the third day of October, at about 9:10 in the morning, and make a purchase. I was not near the store\u2014 never saw it. I had nothing to do with the perpetration of this offense.\nMr. Heth: \u201cDid you conspire, aid or abet or in any way help or assist\u2014\nThe court: \u201cWell, he said he was not there and didn\u2019t know anything about it, and that covers it.\nMr. Heth: \u201cBut, your honor, he might have had something to do with conspiracy. \u2022 He might have had something to do with aiding or assisting these men, and that is the question I am asking him.\nThe court: \u201cThe State claims, not that he was not present, aiding, assisting or abetting, but that he was there. (To which ruling of the court the defendant by his counsel then and there duly excepted.)\nThe witness: \u201cI had nothing to with the robbery \u2014 -had no part in it.\nThe court: \u201cHe wasn\u2019t there, knows nothing about it.\u201d\nOn cross-examination:\nMr. Piggott: \u201cWhen was the last time you worked ?\nThe court: \u201cMrs. Halliday, did these men have any covering over their faces?\nMrs. Halliday: \u201cNo, sir; none.\u201d\nIn the examination of Frank Wilson the abstract contains the following:\nThe witness: \u201cAllman and I plead guilty and were sentenced to the penitentiary, and I was brought back to testify for my brother.\nMr. Heth: \u201cAnd your brother has maintained he is innocent, has he?\nA. \u201cHe is innocent.\nThe court: \u201cNow, if you ask a question like that again, sir, I will have to make a ruling against you that you don\u2019t like. Now, you take an exception. I want it understood if you do not know the rules of evidence you must not try cases here. The idea of asking such a question! \u2018Your brother has maintained he is innocent!\u2019\nMr. Heth: \u201cMy reason, your honor, for it is\u2014\nThe court: \u201cI don\u2019t want to know your reason. Don\u2019t you do that again in this court, sir. Don\u2019t you dare do it again or I will not let you go on with this case. (To which ruling of the court the defendant by his counsel then and there duly excepted.) \u201d\nIn the testimony of Mrs. Bergamin, in whose house the plaintiff in error was living, the abstract shows the following:\nThe witness: \u201cI saw Theodore on the morning of October 3. I know the day, because Sunday was my mother\u2019s birthday and I went to S\u00f3uth Bend. I saw him at 7:00 o\u2019clock, when I left for work.\nThe court: \u201cNow, what has that got to do with 9:30 when she saw him there at 7 :oo ? Will you please tell this jury what that has got to do with it?\nA. \u201cAt 5 :3o that night, when I returned from work, he was sitting on the bed on the back porch.\nMr. Heth: \u201cWhat did he say to you and what did you say to him?\nThe court: \u201cNo; I have always understood for about forty years and more that evidence of this kind has never been tolerated for a moment in any court, but here you come and insist on asking those kind of questions, and I have asked you several times not to ask those questions but you insist on doing it.\nMr. Heth: \u201cYour honor, this conversation between this man and this woman here. She said she saw him at 7:00 o\u2019clock in the morning.\nThe court: \u201cWhat law book on evidence did you ever read in your studies of the law that ever suggested that any such evidence could be possibly admissible?\nMr. Heth: \u201cI don\u2019t see how it is hearsay.\nThe court: \u201cA conversation between this lady and the defendant and you, you put her on the witness stand and you think it is admissible. Go on. Ask another question. (To which ruling of the court the defendant by his counsel then and there duly excepted.)\nThe witness: \u201cHe left me in March, 1927, and I did not see him any more until September.\nMr. Heth: \u201cAnd what time in September did he come to see you?\nThe court: \u201cWill you tell me what this has got to do with this case? I don\u2019t know why you are asking these questions. (To which ruling of the court the defendant by his counsel then and there duly excepted.)\nMr. Heth: \u201cDo you know what his condition was when he came to see you?\nMr. Piggott: \u201cThat is objected to.\nThe court: \u201cAre j^ou a doctor ? Ask her if she knows what his condition was. You may ask her.\nMr. Heth: \u201cYou saw him at 7:00 o\u2019clock, did you?\nThe court: \u201cShe has already told you that.\nMr. Heth: \u201cThat is all.\u201d\nThese copious citations from the abstract, which include one-third of its contents, have been necessary to show the attitude and manner of the judge and the extent to which he assumed the conduct of the trial on behalf of the prosecution. His discourteous treatment of the defendant\u2019s counsel throughout the trial; his constant, peevish, hectoring and censorious berating of him; charging him with ignorance of the rules of evidence; asking him what law book on evidence he had ever read which suggested that such evidence as he offered could possibly be admissible; interrupting him when he began to state his reason with the statement, \u201cI don\u2019t want to know your reason. Don\u2019t you do that again in this court, sir. Don\u2019t you dare do it again or I will not let you go on with this case;\u201d volunteering the remark when the defendant stated, \u201cI had nothing to do with the robbery \u2014 had no part in it,\u201d \u201cHe wasn\u2019t there, knows nothing about it;\u201d saying he was not conducting a law school, and when counsel said, \u201cI am trying to make a record; I realize my duty;\u201d \u201cNo, I realize your duty is to try the case with evidence,\u201d clearly implying that counsel was attempting to try the case without evidence, \u2014 all plainly indicated to the jury the opinion of the judge as to the merits of the defense. There were constant interruptions by the judge, impatient, fault-finding remarks, disparaging to counsel and unnecessary to any ruling, and objections interposed where none were made by counsel. The jury could not have failed to note the hostile attitude of the court to the defense. Counsel for the defense, feeling the prejudicial character of the court\u2019s remarks, asked to have a juror withdrawn and the case continued, but this was refused, the court remarking, \u201cAt any time I ask you to ask proper questions it seems to have no effect on you. The jurors will understand that, or anything the court says, that the court expresses no opinion as to the credibility or the lack.of credibility of any witness in the case. What the court says to counsel must in no way influence you gentlemen in arriving at a verdictand the judge continued throughout the trial the same course of disparagement of counsel and of the defense. The impression conveyed to the jury by the disparaging conduct of the judge could not be so easily effaced, and they were much more likely to be influenced by the actions of the judge and the feeling manifested in his repeated words and rulings during the trial than by these words thus directed to them.\n\u201cThis court has had occasion several times to consider the remarks and conduct of trial judges, and has said that a considerable latitude must be allowed in asking questions to enable the judge to give a proper ruling but has emphatically disapproved of anything which would tend to influence the jury in determining the facts. It has been said that a judge should exercise great care to avoid giving expression to any thought that would be calculated to lead the jury to infer that his opinion was in favor of or against the defendant in a criminal case.\u201d (People v. McMullen, 300 Ill. 383.) \u201cOne of the first purposes of orderly administration of the law is that a defendant, whether guilty or innocent, shall be accorded a fair trial. The fact that the judge may consider the accused to be guilty in nowise lessens his duty to see that he has a fair trial.\u201d People v. Rongetti, 331 Ill. 581.\nThe case was an exceedingly close one, and in the sharp conflict of the evidence it was highly important that the jury should consider the case unhampered by any intimation from the court in disparagement of the defense. In view of this record we do not think the verdict can be said to be the result of the fair trial to which every person accused of crime, whether guilty or innocent, is entitled.\nThe judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.\nReversed and remanded.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Dunn"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Joseph B. Lofton, for plaintiff in error.",
      "Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General, John A. Swanson, State\u2019s Attorney, and James B. Searcy, (Edward E. Wilson, of counsel,) for the People."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "(No. 19462.\nThe People of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, vs. Theodore Wilson, Plaintiff in Error.\nOpinion filed April 20, 1929.\nJoseph B. Lofton, for plaintiff in error.\nOscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General, John A. Swanson, State\u2019s Attorney, and James B. Searcy, (Edward E. Wilson, of counsel,) for the People."
  },
  "file_name": "0412-01",
  "first_page_order": 412,
  "last_page_order": 430
}