10-06-16 Transcript Case 922

STATE OF ILLINOIS
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE 17TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

WINNEBAGO COUNTY
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE
‘,V‘,~.IV‘,-,‘,
OF ILLINOIS,
vs. NO. 20l4mCF—922
RICHARD WANKE, STATUS
Defendant . C O p Y
REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS at the hearing in the
10 above-entitled matter before the Honorable Rosemary
ll Collins, Judge of said Court, heard on Tuesday, the 6th
12 of October, 2016.
l3 APPEARANCES:
14 MS. MARILYN HITE ROSS,

Winnebago County State's Attorney,
15 Chief of the Criminal Bureau,
appeared on behalf of the People;
l6
MR. JAMES BRUN,
17 Winnebago County Deputy State‘s Attorney,
Criminal Bureau,
18 appeared on behalf of the People;
19 MS. PAMELA WELLS,

Winnebago County Assistant Deputy State‘s Attorney,
2O appeared on behalf of the People;
21 MR. NICK ZIMMERMAN,

Winnebago County First Public Defender,
22 appeared on behalf of the Defendant;
23 MR. ROBERT SIMMONS,

Winnebago County Assistant Public Defender,
24 appeared on behalf of the Defendant.
Brittyn Higdon, CSR, RPR

Official Court Reporter
CSR License #084—004810
THE COURT: This is People vs. Richard Wanke. We're
here today to argue People's motions 33 and 34 and then
the State today has filed a motion for clarification that
I have not ~—
MS. WELLS: I don't believe that's the State, your
Honor.
MS. HITE ROSS: That's defense, your Honor.
MR. BRUN: Defense motion.
THE COURT: Or the defense has filed. That's what I
10 meant to say, yes.
ll MS. WELLS: Yes.
12 THE COURT: The defense has filed and I haven't read
13 it yet. I don't know if you‘ve read it yet.
14 MS. HITE ROSS: We just got it and we were going
15 through it, Judge. Mr. Brun, Ms. Wells and I were going
16 through it.
I7 THE COURT: Could you briefly speak to it?
18 MR. SIMMONS: Sure, Judge. Where we are with
19 respect to the State's motion, specifically amended
2O motion 27, 33 and 34, we are preparing a response. As
21 you know, we received those motions on Tuesday, I believe
22 it was. We have —— I would —— Mr. Simmons has been
23 working on it and we do intend to submit a response to
24 the Court, but we don't have that prepared as of yet. We

CSR License 41084—004810
would like to submit that maybe next Tuesday.
But the —- in the State's filings, they give
sort of a general prayer for relief in terms of what they
want without any specifics as to what statements they
want admitted in each of the various stances or without
any indication as to how it is that they're going to
admit that into evidence.
So, for example, People's 33rd motion in limine
seeks to have statements by appellate counsel. It's
10 unclear to us whether or not they intend to have
ll Mr. Wanke's appellate counsel testify at trial or whether
12 or not they are seeking to just have the brief given to
l3 the jury. How exactly they intend to do that in each of
14 those instances to some extent dictates how we respond to
15 their motions. So that's simply what we’re asking for,
16 Judge.
17 THE COURT: So here's what I suggest we do, that
18 proceed with the State's arguments on those motions, see
19 if that answers your questions, and if not, then we'll go
2O into a little bit further. So we'll proceed with the
21 State‘s arguments on motion number 33.
22 MR. ZIMMERMAN: And, Judge, then we would respond
23 with our argument either in writing, both in writing and
24 orally at a later time? Is that ——
Britryn Higdon, CSR, RPR

THE COURT: Well, depending upon what they say, it
may be exactly what you were expecting and so you may be
able to respond. If you can‘t respond, you can‘t
respond.
MR. ZIMMERMAN: Okay.
THE COURT: So you'll just have to tell me.
MR. ZIMMERMAN: Okay.
THE COURT: Okay. All right. Let me get to that
page. All right. Go ahead, counsel.
10 MS. HITE ROSS: Is it okay to stand, Judge?
ll THE COURT: It's okay to stand. It's all right with
12 me if you sit if that's more comfortable for you since
13 it's just us in the courtroom. I appreciate the respect
14 shown by standing, but since it's all just us you can sit
15 if you'd like.
16 MS. HITE ROSS: I will sit so I can speak directly
17 into the microphone if that's okay.
18 THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Sure.
19 MS. HITE ROSS: Judge, with respect to People's
20 motions in limine, excuse me, number 33. First of all,
21 we have outlined specifically the statements that we
22 believe should be admitted and that premise is the same
23 as with our amended 27.
24 We believe that this defendant, when he alleged

that Mr. Clark provided ineffective assistance of counsel
at the trial level, he continued that allegation

DO
throughout the appellate process. And specifically his

to
attorney, who was his representative and obviously who
had authority to speak on behalf of defendant with
respect to whether or not at the trial court level he was
provided ineffective assistance of counsel, specifically
alleged that the nature of the relationship was
contentious and that the trial court erred by denying
10 Mr. Clark's motion to withdraw.
11 And I know that the Court has read the motion
12 and I won't highlight everything, but basically, Judge,
13 the appellate brief filed on behalf of the defendant is
14 replete with allegations regarding the nature of the
15 relationship between the defendant and his attorney.
16 During the proceedings there are allegations
17 that, because of the breakdown in communications,
18 Mr. Clark could not effectively at any point represent
19 the defendant throughout those criminal proceedings.
20 In addition, the fact that Mr. Clark himself
21 indicated that there was a breakdown, the fact that the
22 defendant concurred in that, Judge, through his attorney
23 on the appeal where he alleged that because they could
24 not communicate, because he had a distrust for

CSR License #084-004810
Mr. Clark's representation, he did not feel that he was
properly represented.
And the People's position is that this goes
directly to his intent and his motive to kill Mr. Clark.
He never wanted Mr. Clark to represent him despite
Mr. Clark asking to be removed and the trial court
denying that. Defendant persisted with those pleadings
throughout the appellate level and I've outlined in the
motion certain sections of the attachments for the Court
10 with specific statements that I know the Court has read.
11 In addition, I've attached the complete
12 documents, but I've certainly highlighted what I believe
13 are the nature of the contentious relationship of
l4 Mr. Clark and the defendant throughout Mr. Clark's
15 representation of him.
16 In addition, and I indicated to the Court that
17 motion in limine 33 and 34 correlate with amended motion
18 in limine 27 because motion in limine number 27 contains
19 specific documents indicating the communication between
20 Mr. Clark and the defendant, some of which were directly
21 discussed in open court and which directly contradicts
22 the defendant's allegations on appeal.
23 For example, the defendant claims on appeal that
24 Mr. Clark was derelict in his representation in that he

failed to apprise the defendant that he was eligible for
extended term. Yet we have a letter attached to amended
motion in limine number 27 dated June 27th of 2007, which
is several months prior to the trial date of
September 18th and 19th of 2007 where Mr. Clark
specifically outlines for the defendant the possibility
of an extended term sentence in detail.
Again, in April 23rd of 2007, which is again
correspondence attached to our amended motion in limine
10 number 27, Mr. Clark, again, indicates for the defendant
11 the parameters of his sentencing.
12 The defendant alleges on appeal, your Honor,
13 that Mr. Clark failed to investigate any viable defenses
14 for him. And, again, this is directly contradicted by
15 correspondence attached to People's motion in limine
16 amended number 27. Specifically, a letter dated
17 November 16, 2006, is a letter to Kim Klein with the
l8 defendant copied on it where Mr. Clark is basically
19 indicating whether or not she might be an alibi witness
20 for the defendant in the case that he is representing the
21 defendant on.
22 And, again, this communication directly
23 contradicts the defendant's in—court allegations that
24 Mr. Clark provided ineffective assistance of counsel, not

only at the trial court level, at the appellate level.
He then petitioned the Illinois Supreme Court and U.S.
Supreme Court. The defendant also alleged that certain
motions were not filed on his behalf and that Mr. Clark
was not again pursuing a viable defense for him.
I would indicate to the Court that the
documentation of Mr. Clark from February 27, 2007, where
Mr. Clark had alleged in open court that the defendant
was refusing to communicate with him. This
10 correspondence dated by Mr. Clark, February 27, 2007,
ll corroborates that. And again this is an issue that was
12 raised in open court.
13 So we believe that the correspondence that goes
14 directly to that issue that was raised in open court is
15 relevant. And in that correspondence Mr. Clark writes,
16 ”This letter's to affirm that you have not replied to my
17 correspondence dated February 16th, 2007."
18 He goes on to say "You are under court order to
19 reply." He goes on to say that "Your failure to reply
20 will bar any alibi or defense." He's inquiring of the
21 defendant of names, of anyone that he wishes to call as a
22 witness on his behalf and then he indicates "I
23 corresponded with you regarding your sister."
24 So, again, these allegations that the defendant

makes, this is what he thought, Judge, whether or not it
was true, and we know it was not true that Mr. Clark was
not, not communicating with him regarding any viable
defense because the correspondence says otherwise. But
it's what was in his mind. And so certainly he has
perpetrated this thought process throughout the appellate
process regarding Mr. Clark's representation.
We also have a letter of correspondence dated
February 16, 2007. And, again, these are attachments
10 that were in our amended motion in limine 27 as I
11 indicated, your Honor, but they relate directly to motion
12 in limine 33 and 34 where Mr. Clark writes to the
13 defendant, ”Please find enclosed a copy of the State's
14 motion for disclosure to the prosecution. I must respond
15 prior to the next status date.” He indicates that being
16 March 14th.
17 And then there's additional statements regarding
18 a photograph of a van. And Mr. Clark indicates to the
19 defendant if he thought it was relevant, basically he
20 should have given that to him prior to the hearing.
21 So, again, denoting the contentious relationship
22 between the defendant and Mr. Clark, we believe, provides
23 a motive for the murder. It goes to the intent of the
24 defendant to kill Mr. Clark. The defendant corroborates

10
that. He corroborates that through his appellate counsel
and as we indicate in motion in limine number 33, with
all of the attached documents, and we believe that those
statements should come in and that they are relevant.
And we have outlined them, I believe, very
specifically with respect to the exhibits that were
attached and the context in which those statements were
made which is why we have attached the exhibits. But we
did outline certain statements so that the Court could be
10 aware of statements the State was seeking to use and the
ll thought processes surrounding those statements.
12 And, again, I would indicate that another
13 correspondence which goes directly to the relationship or
14 the contentious relationship which the defendant alleged
15 in his appellate, to his appellate counsel, a
16 correspondence dated March 14th, 2007, where the
17 defendant was ordered to cooperate with his attorney.
18 Mr. Clark then wrote a letter indicating "You
19 have refused to communicate with me concerning the
2O development of any possible defense in this cause." He
21 then continues to write ”I have made repeated attempts to
22 have you or Kim Klein contact my office, none of which
23 have been forthcoming. I've come to the conclusion that
24 Kim Klein is not a witness on your behalf and has no

11
interest in participating in the presentation of your
trial."
And, again, I'm just pointing out a few of the
documents that I attached to motion, amended motion in
limine number 27 that I know that the Court has read.
But we believe that it certainly goes to our motion in
limine number 33.
And, again, these are correspondence from
Mr. Clark that were found pursuant to a search warrant in
10 the defendant's home addressed to the defendant at the
ll address on Grant Avenue.
12 THE COURT: Counsel, do you intend to bring this in
l3 through appellate counsel's testimony?
l4 MS. HITE ROSS: That would be one method that we
l5 would intend to bring it in. We believe also that we
16 could bring that in through transcripts and also having
17 the Court take judicial notice.
18 THE COURT: Is there anything else then regarding
19 both 34 and 33 and anything else on 27?
2O MS. HITE ROSS: Judge, I think that all my arguments
21 that I made go to both 33 and 34 with the caveat being
22 that motion in limine 34 relates directly to pro se
23 motions and affidavits filed by this defendant. So we're
24 not even talking about whether or not attorney statements

12
are imputed to their client. But 34 specifically deals
with the defendant's own pro se documents that he filed
himself, affidavits he signed and statements he made that
are outlined specifically in motion in limine number 34
and included in the attachments regarding the contentious
relationship between he and Mr. Clark, your Honor. So
that's all I would add to that.
THE COURT: Okay. And with those you expect to i
bring them in through what mechanism?
10 MS. HITE ROSS: Judicial notice, certified copy of
11 transcript and certified copy of the documents filed,
12 Judge.
13 THE COURT: Okay. After hearing the State's
14 comments, do you need time before you respond?
15 MR. SIMMONS: Your Honor, I have been working on a
l6 written response. At this time, I guess to answer your
17 question directly, no, I'm not prepared to respond. I do
18 have something that's over halfway done, but it's not ——
19 I had hoped to have it done this morning as the Court
20 requested. I, unfortunately, was not able to.
21 Some of the information the state's attorney
22 gave in their argument is what I was looking for. So I ‘
23 can —— I think this is a crucial decision for the Court
24 to make and I'd like to put together an appropriate gj

13
response. So I would ask for a little more time to do
it.
I would hope to be able to have it done at the
latest by Sunday, but I will try to have it done by the
end of business day tomorrow if the Court will allow me
extra time.
THE COURT: Okay.

MR. SIMMONS: Either way we would be prepared to
present argument at our next hearing date. I'm not sure
10 if that was Tuesday or what day it was.
ll THE COURT: Well, actually we have it tomorrow, but
12 I'm not sure that anything productive will actually
13 happen tomorrow. So unless anybody really wants to keep
14 it on for tomorrow, I think I'll take it off for tomorrow
15 afternoon and then we have it set for, we have it set for
16 Wednesday.
17 MR. ZIMMERMAN: Actually, Judge, I think Wednesday
18 is in the afternoon. It's set for a deposition and then
19 we have it set for Thursday at 2:00, I believe.
20 THE COURT: Right. That's true.
21 MS. HITE ROSS: It's tentative.
22 THE COURT: Tentative for a deposition, yeah.
23 MS. HITE ROSS: Judge, if we could just have a
24 moment.

14
THE COURT: Yes, sure.
(Discussion held off the record.)
THE COURT: I think I have it set Wednesday,
Thursday and Friday of next week.
MS. WELLS: Judge, we have talked to the witnesses
for the deposition. You had given us two possible dates.
THE COURT: Mm—hmm.
MS. WELLS: And Friday of next week which was the
second date that you had given us as a potential date
10 worked out, actually, for both of the witnesses. We
11 would do one at 1:30 and then we would do the other one,
12 she's available starting at about 2:45. So we would get
13 them both done in the afternoon. We just need to know
14 the location. You didn't know if your courtroom would be
15 available or if you would send us to another location.
16 THE COURT: You'll either be in here or you'll be
17 next door.
18 MS. WELLS: Okay.

19 THE COURT: So it's —— I have no preference as to
20 which location you do it in. So Judge Wilt is not here.
21 So he could, he could -“ his courtroom is available. If
22 for some reason you'd rather do it in here, you know, you
23 can do that and I can move to his courtroom. So I don't
24 really care. Just figure that out among yourselves and

CSR License “084—004810
15
let me know.
So we have Mr. Wanke then at 1:30 on
October 12th and then at 2:00 on October 13th and then
the depos on October 14th. And then I have it also for
October 20th. And then I don't know that I set much time
the week of October 24th. I don't think I set anything.
MS. WELLS: October 31st.
THE COURT: The next one is the 3lst.
MS. WELLS: Yes.
10 THE COURT: So I could also set it, if you had time
11 available, I could probably -— because I have a case
12 that's not going on the 26th now in the afternoon, but I
13 have other ones set. I could probably set a short, like
14 an hour on the 26th at 3:00 if we need it. Because we're
15 really running out of time. So is that available to the
16 attorneys?
17 MR. BRUN: State is available. Wednesday ——
18 THE COURT: Wednesday the 26th.
19 MR. ZIMMERMAN: At what time?
20 THE COURT: 3:00.
21 MR. ZIMMERMAN: That's fine.
22 THE COURT: But I probably wouldn't have —— I have
23 something else written in at 4:00, but I don't really
24 know what it is. So I may be available longer, but I

CSR License “084—004810
16
have something written in so I may not be available after
4:00. So we'll do it at 3:00 then on October 26th too.
All right. So I'm going to give the defense
time to respond. If you could give it to the State
Tuesday, that would be great.
MR. SIMMONS: I will try to e—mail them a copy of it
this weekend and anticipate having it done before
Tuesday.
THE COURT: Okay. And then hopefully we'll be able
10 then to finish all of our discussions on Wednesday.
ll MS. HITE ROSS: Judge, can I have those dates and
12 times again? I'm sorry.
13 THE COURT: Sure. Okay. So Wednesday, October 12th
14 at 1:30. Thursday, October 13th at 2:00. Friday
15 October 14th will be for the depositions in here, so from
16 1:30 on. We have one deposition at 1:30 and the other
17 one's at 2:45, right?
18 MS. WELLS: Yes.
19 MR. BRUN: Yes.
20 THE COURT: Then Thursday, October 20th at 1:30,
21 October 26th at 3:00 and then October 3lst at 2:30.
22 Now, depending upon what we're doing, I may
23 cancel some of them. It's just it's so hard to build
24 them in if we don't set them in. So like tomorrow

17
afternoon we had one scheduled, but it really doesn't
seem like that would be productive for any reason.
MS. HITE ROSS: That's fine with the State, Judge.
And just so -— with respect to the depositions, we would
be using our own court reporter and we plan on having it
videotaped as well. I just wanted to let the Court know.
THE COURT: So this courtroom might be better for
that then. It's a little bigger in terms of having the
video machine.
10 Do you —— during the deposition I don't think
ll the video would actually record Mr. Wanke at all. It
12 will record objections, but not Mr. Wanke. And so he
13 doesn't have to be addressed in street clothes for that,
14 but he needs to be here for that, obviously.
15 MR. ZIMMERMAN: And if there's an in—court
16 identification, I want to make sure that they don't say
l7 he's the person in the jumpsuit.
l8 THE COURT: Then he can be dressed in street clothes
19 for next Friday.
20 MR. ZIMMERMAN: And then who is the, who is the
21 State deposing at what times?
22 MR. BRUN: We expect Eugene Koelker at 1:30, Sheila
23 Zerouali at 3:00 or 2:45.
24 MS. WELLS: She's available after 2:45.

CSR License #084e004810
18
MR. BRUN: After 2:45.
THE COURT: So we'll enter an order saying the
defendant may attend court Thursday in street clothes.
Now, Friday I am available so if there are any
objections, you know, I could also be here for that, but
I also have an order of protection call that I'm covering
for Judge Wilt. So I‘m not going to be always available.
Okay. So, Mr. Wanke, you have documents today?
THE DEFENDANT: Yesterday, your Honor. Can I talk
10 to my attorney just for a second?
ll THE COURT: Yes. Mm—hmm.
l2 (Discussion held off the record.)
l3 THE COURT: Ms. Wells, can I ask you a scheduling
l4 question?
l5 MS. WELLS: Yes, ma'am.
16 THE COURT: My bailiff and I have a conflict in our
17 schedule on another case that I have with you.
18 MS. WELLS: Yes.
19 THE COURT: He thinks that's set next Friday,
2O October 14th at 1230.
21 MS. WELLS: Not that I'm aware of.
22 THE COURT: I don't have it my calender.
23 MS. WELLS: I have it in November, your Honor. Let
24 me find the correct date.

CSR License "084-004810
19
THE COURT: I have it November 14th.
MS. WELLS: That's what I have. November 14th at
1:30.
THE COURT: Right. Okay.
MS. WELLS: Yes.
THE COURT: Okay. We're good.
All right. Mr. Wanke?
THE DEFENDANT: Thank you, your Honor.
I have an addendum number six to my motion for
10 relief. I wanted to attach to this Exhibit 24 ——
11 THE COURT: Hold on just a second. I'm looking for
12 the copies of these documents. I think we have them.
l3 THE DEFENDANT: No. I think I've —— I needed a copy
l4 of this that I'm going to be filing.
l5 THE COURT: Okay. Do you have a copy for the Court?
l6 Are these the Court copies then or are these the
17 filings? They're marked copies, so
18 THE DEFENDANT: That's what I'm going to need to
19 file because some of the originals are the only copies I
20 have.
21 THE COURT: So these are not actual copies. These
22 are the actual documents you wish to file?
23 THE DEFENDANT: Please.
24 THE COURT: Okay. Can you run a copy without the

20
"copy" on it? Okay. Because this is ——
Okay go ahead.
THE DEFENDANT: Thank you, your Honor. The first
exhibit, Exhibit 24, I just wanted to make the Court
aware that Judge Mihm of the U.S. Central District Court
in Peoria, which I'm before, joined with Judge Kapala's
request that officers at Winnebago County Jail provide me
with reasonable access. So I was just providing a copy
with that.
10 The next exhibit, Exhibit 25, I wanted —— the
11 Court didn't take this from Superintendent Redmond when
l2 he offered it and he presented it as contraband and as
l3 somehow hidden. It's a newspaper article as you can
14 clearly see. Let's see, March 2nd, 2016, that I used as
15 exhibits in both Judge Kapala's court and Judge Mihm's
16 court.
l7 The Court would know that I'm seeking pro bono
18 counsel. Currently I'm pro se in those courts and I have
19 to show that I'm submitting letters and requesting
20 attorneys in to try to represent me so I'm not pro se in
21 those matters and that was one of the exhibits I was
22 sending along to kind of give any prospective attorney
23 kind of a background of what I'm facing here and what --
24 I attached other documents with a letter where I'm

21
seeking counsel to represent me pro bono.
So it's incorrect that Superintendent Redmond is
calling this contraband. It was an exhibit that I've
shared with a number of courts and I've sent out to a
number of attorneys.
THE COURT: Okay. Let me just stop you. My exhibit
number 24 is a one-page document; is that correct?
THE DEFENDANT: Correct .
THE COURT: It clearly does not include all of the
10 orders from the judge.
ll THE DEFENDANT: Correct.
12 THE COURT: All right. I just wanted to make sure.
13 THE DEFENDANT: There's one line on the other one
l4 and unfortunately when the jail opened it, they cut it
l5 into three pieces and --
16 THE COURT: Just for the record, I'm just, I'm just
17 saying that.
18 THE DEFENDANT: Correct.
19 THE COURT: There's also a motion for relief that
20 you have put in parenthesis then, TRO and addendum number
21 six. That's also a document that's included in this
22 packet; is that correct?
23 THE DEFENDANT: Right. Correct.
24 THE COURT: And so then the next page I have is this

22
one page that you've referred to as Exhibit 24 ——
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, ma'am.
THE COURT: —— which is one page long. And then the
next document that you've referred to as Exhibit 25 is
what you say is a copy of a newspaper article from
Wednesday, March 2nd, of 2016; is that correct?
THE DEFENDANT: Correct.
THE COURT: And then Exhibit Number 26 is a two—page
document, a Freedom of Information Act request that is
10 dated September 30th of 2016; is that correct?
ll THE DEFENDANT: Yes. That's Exhibit 26.
12 THE COURT: Yes. A two-page document. And then
13 after that there's another document that's labeled
14 ”affidavit" which is apparently from —— or supposedly
l5 from someone called Cameron Wehrheim; is that correct?
l6 THE DEFENDANT: Correct.
17 THE COURT: And then there's another document called
18 ”affidavit" and that purports to be a document from a
19 David Collins; is that correct?
2O THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
21 THE COURT: And then there's another document called
22 "affidavit" and that purports to be from you; is that
23 correct?
24 THE DEFENDANT: Yes, ma'am.

CSR License #084F004810
23
THE COURT: All right. Those are the documents in
this packet. Now, please continue if you have something
else you need to say about them.
THE DEFENDANT: And just briefly, Superintendent
Redmond delivered several screenshots from a security
video and those were entered into the record. And as the
Court knows, you sealed that. All I'm asking in my FOIA
is I want the, a copy of that security tape in which he
pulled the video, or the photos from. And in the
10 alternative, if I can‘t be provided with those, that that
ll footage be preserved for possibly later use.
12 And I'm asking the Court to accept these
l3 documents and at least join with that request that a
14 court order or some means put forth by the Court to
15 preserve that video footage in which Superintendent
16 Redmond or his staff pulled those screenshots from.
17 I go on to say a few other things down in 6 and
18 7 and 8. The Court previously directed the jail to give
19 me a copy of the inmate handbook and make sure that I
20 signed for it. That's not happened yet. I've made
21 numerous requests through officers and then on the kiosk
22 which we're required to do.
23 And the same thing with accessing my legal
24 property which is in storage and you directed the jail to

CSR License 51084-004810
24
make sure I signed for that when I did it. That's not
happened.
It's unfortunate, but it seems that the people
that they assign to take me to my legal property happen
to be also always on the list for vacation time. So if
I'm scheduled to have Lieutenant Mangram bring me to my
legal documents for a certain time period, that's the
time period he's not there or he's on vacation.
For example, this week, it was Sergeant Boyd who
10 was scheduled to take me and he's on vacation for this
ll week.
l2 So I‘ve not signed for anything and I've not
l3 signed for any time of going to visit and access my legal
14 property and I'm dealing with these other courts who have
15 asked or requested of the jail to give me reasonable
l6 access on my own, but I'm just wanting to inform the
17 Court of the hindrance or blockage from accessing those
18 documents.
19 Similarly, ever since September 22nd, the law
20 library computer was off and that's what the affidavits
21 discuss. It was fixed rudimentarily sometime either
22 September 30th or October lst, but then my pod has been
23 locked down ever since that. So it may have a working
24 computer which is the law library that we access, but no

CSR License 4084-0011810
25
one has had the ability to use it because it's —— we‘re
on lockdown.
I just wanted to inform the Court of this.
Thank you.
THE COURT: All right. The Court is not going to
join in your Freedom of Information Act request. That's
not appropriate for a Court to do and we'll show these
documents again filed by yOu and they're not adopted by
counsel; is that correct?
10 MR. ZIMMERMAN: That's correct, Judge.
ll THE COURT: Okay. All right.
12 MR. ZIMMERMAN: Judge, one other thing, last time we
l3 were in court, the State referenced a transcript and
14 argued from that transcript that we had made certain
15 statements. I sent an e—mail to Attorney Wells asking
16 for a copy of that transcript. I would ask if they could
17 provide that, please.
18 THE COURT: I don't have that transcript anymore. I
19 gave it back to the State.
20 Do you have that available?
21 MS. WELLS: I don't have it down here with me, your
22 Honor. Generally we're not supposed to copy transcripts
23 from court reporters. They can order their own at a copy
24 rate which is why I haven't provided it and I had not had

26
an opportunity to respond by e—mail to that given it's
only been one day, two days. I'm not sure it's been very
brief given that we were in court late that day.
You know, I'll follow the Court's directives,
but the policy of Winnebago County is that we have to
purchase it from the court reporters.
THE COURT: This is true. And when I have ordered
copies of transcripts to be prepared, I have heard of
that. It is true that we're not to be copying
10 transcripts.
ll So if you wish to view the transcript, the State
12 will make it available to you in their office. I cannot
l3 order them to make a copy of the transcript.
14 MR. ZIMMERMAN: Okay. Judge, a couple things,
15 number one, the State previously provided me a very
l6 lengthy transcript because they were unsure about the
17 Court's position on certain things. No mention was ever
18 made at that time of, you know, you can just view it.
19 They brought it down to my office for me to have a copy
20 of it.
21 This is a short transcript. I think it's
22 inappropriate for the State to reference something,
23 provide a copy to the Court and not provide a copy -—
24 THE COURT: I don't have a copy.

CSR License ”084—004810
27
MR. ZIMMERMAN: But they handed it to you.
THE COURT: I'll order them —- go up and get it and
hand it to you right now. You can sit and look at it
right now if that's what you want.
MS. WELLS: And, Judge --
THE COURT: I don't have it.
MS. WELLS: I did give it to counsel and he had an
opportunity to review it the other day. We have not
hidden it or not allowed him to view it.
10 And the issue with the other transcript, we did
ll make a copy of that because we were in court that
12 afternoon and I wanted counsel to be aware of what we
13 were drawing the Court‘s attention because you had
l4 specifically asked counsel to respond to something and I
l5 wanted to remind him of what it was that he was being
l6 asked to respond to. So we were actually trying to
17 assist counsel.
18 That being said, we will happily let him view it
19 as long as he would like.
20 MR. ZIMMERMAN: I'll find out who the court reporter
21 is and have a copy made.
22 THE COURT: Okay. All right. Thank you. That's
23 all then.
24 (End of proceedings.)

28
STATE OF ILLINOIS
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 17TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
COUNTY OF WINNEBAGO
C E R T I F I C A T E
I, Brittyn G. Higdon, CSR #084—004810,
an Official Court Reporter for the Circuit Court of
Winnebago County, 17th Judicial Circuit of Illinois,
10 reported in machine shorthand the proceedings had on the
11 hearing in the above—entitled cause and transcribed the
12 same by Computer Aided Transcription, which I hereby
13 certify to be a true and accurate transcript of the
14 proceedings.
15
16 IN WITNESS HEREOF I have hereunto set
17 my hand seal this let day of June, 2017.
18
19
20
I Official/Court Reporter
21 17th Judicial Circuit
State of Illinois
22
23
24
Erittyn Higdon, CSR, RPR


10-06-16 Transcript Case 922

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

10-06-16 Transcript Case 922

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

STATE OF ILLINOIS

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE 17TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE

vs. NO. 20l4mCF—922

RICHARD WANKE, STATUS

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS at the hearing in the

10 above-entitled matter before the Honorable Rosemary

ll Collins, Judge of said Court, heard on Tuesday, the 6th

14 MS. MARILYN HITE ROSS,

19 MS. PAMELA WELLS,

21 MR. NICK ZIMMERMAN,

23 MR. ROBERT SIMMONS,

Brittyn Higdon, CSR, RPR

here today to argue People's motions 33 and 34 and then

the State today has filed a motion for clarification that

MS. WELLS: I don't believe that's the State, your

MS. HITE ROSS: That's defense, your Honor.

MR. BRUN: Defense motion.

THE COURT: Or the defense has filed. That's what I

10 meant to say, yes.

ll MS. WELLS: Yes.

12 THE COURT: The defense has filed and I haven't read

13 it yet. I don't know if you‘ve read it yet.

14 MS. HITE ROSS: We just got it and we were going

I7 THE COURT: Could you briefly speak to it?

18 MR. SIMMONS: Sure, Judge. Where we are with

19 respect to the State's motion, specifically amended

2O motion 27, 33 and 34, we are preparing a response. As

21 you know, we received those motions on Tuesday, I believe

22 it was. We have —— I would —— Mr. Simmons has been

23 working on it and we do intend to submit a response to

24 the Court, but we don't have that prepared as of yet. We

Brittyn Higdon, CSR, RPR

But the —- in the State's filings, they give

sort of a general prayer for relief in terms of what they

want without any specifics as to what statements they

want admitted in each of the various stances or without

any indication as to how it is that they're going to

admit that into evidence.

So, for example, People's 33rd motion in limine

seeks to have statements by appellate counsel. It's

10 unclear to us whether or not they intend to have

ll Mr. Wanke's appellate counsel testify at trial or whether

12 or not they are seeking to just have the brief given to

l3 the jury. How exactly they intend to do that in each of

14 those instances to some extent dictates how we respond to

15 their motions. So that's simply what we’re asking for,

17 THE COURT: So here's what I suggest we do, that

18 proceed with the State's arguments on those motions, see

19 if that answers your questions, and if not, then we'll go

2O into a little bit further. So we'll proceed with the

21 State‘s arguments on motion number 33.

22 MR. ZIMMERMAN: And, Judge, then we would respond

23 with our argument either in writing, both in writing and

24 orally at a later time? Is that ——

Britryn Higdon, CSR, RPR

may be exactly what you were expecting and so you may be

able to respond. If you can‘t respond, you can‘t

MR. ZIMMERMAN: Okay.

THE COURT: So you'll just have to tell me.

MR. ZIMMERMAN: Okay.

THE COURT: Okay. All right. Let me get to that

page. All right. Go ahead, counsel.

10 MS. HITE ROSS: Is it okay to stand, Judge?