Robert Simpson - Cook County State's Attorney

More documents

Recommendations

Info

suggestive for various reasons (C.R. 152), including the fact that he was the only subject with a curlin his hair. (R. 703)Sergeant DiMare testified that he had been assigned to investigate the instant offensewhich had resulted in the death of the victim, Barbara Lindich. (R. 595-596) Pursuant to hisassignment, Sergeant DiMare contacted several witnesses in the early morning hours of May 26,1992, and asked them to come to the Glenwood Police Department in order to view a lineup. (R. 595-596) Sergeant DiMare informed the witnesses that the purpose of the lineup was to determinewhether the witnesses could identify anyone who had been present in the Fairway store on May 20,1992, the date of the offense. (R. 595) An officer was stationed at the front lobby of the policestation and instructed to ensure that, as each witness arrived, he or she was not to speak with anyother witness. (R. 597) Sergeant DiMare stated that, to his knowledge, the witnesses did not havecontact with each other prior to their viewing the lineup. (R. 603, 605, 607, 608)Just prior to the witnesses' arrival at the police station, Sergeant DiMare had a conversationwith defendant in the room in which the lineup was to take place. (R. 597-598) Sergeant DiMareinformed defendant that he did not have the right to refuse to be in a lineup, but that he did have theright to have an attorney present for the same. (R. 598) Sergeant DiMare further informed defendantthat he could choose to stand in any of the five positions in the lineup. (R. 598-599) Defendant chosethe third position and told Sergeant DiMare that the other men could be positioned in any manner.Defendant did not request that an attorney be present for the lineup. (R. 599) By 1:30 a.m., thecontacted witnesses, Kathryn Koszut, Ruth Morford, Angela Fields, Helen Gair and KimberlyKnight, had arrived at the police station. (R. 596) Sergeant DiMare testified that the followingprocedure was employed with respect to the witnesses viewing the lineup. First, each witness was9
individually escorted from the lobby area of the police station to an office adjoining the roomcontaining the five men participating in the lineup. (R. 600, 601, 603, 605, 607, 608) Next, thewitness viewed the lineup through a glass window separating the two rooms and attempted to makean identification. (R. 600) After viewing the lineup, the witness was escorted into a separate office,away from the witnesses waiting in the lobby who had yet to view the lineup. (R. 602-603, 605, 606-607, 608) Before each new witness viewed the lineup, Sergeant DiMare advised defendant that hecould elect to change his position in the lineup and that he had the right to have an attorney present.(R. 604, 606, 607, 608-609) Each time, however, defendant elected to remain in the third positionand declined to have an attorney present. (R. 604, 606, 607, 608-609) All five witnesses who viewedthe lineup identified defendant. (R. 602, 605, 606, 608, 609) Sergeant DiMare testified that, to hisknowledge, none of the witnesses had been shown photographs of defendant, had seen his likeness ontelevision or in the media, or seen him in a one-on-one show up prior to their viewing the lineup. (R.614-615) Sergeant DiMare further testified that neither he nor any other officer ever suggested to anyof the witnesses whom they should identify in the lineup. (R. 615)The lineup photograph was introduced into evidence at the hearing. (R. 693, S.R. Vol. 1)Referring to a lineup report he had previously filled out, Sergeant DiMare testified as to the physicalcharacteristics of the men portrayed in the photograph. (R. 609-612) According to the informationlisted in the lineup report, the men ranged in height from five-foot-nine to six-foot-one and in weightfrom 144 to 225 pounds. (R. 609-612) Defendant himself stood five-feet-eleven inches tall andweighed 179 pounds. (R. 611-612)The parties stipulated that if the witnesses listed in certain police reports were called totestify at the hearing, they would testify consistently with those reports. (R. 649-650, 687) The first10
Page 4: eing made by defendant and not by t
Page 7 and 8: to proceed. (R. 53) The trial court
Page 9: econsider his decision, a decision
Page 13 and 14: Public Defender's Office was not do
Page 15 and 16: description on file was consistent
Page 17 and 18: Tinley Park Police Officer Barbara
Page 19 and 20: 1717) Accordingly, the trial court
Page 21 and 22: was only a few feet from the door,
Page 23 and 24: was given $40.00 for her participat
Page 25 and 26: After deliberating less than two ho
Page 27 and 28: At the sentencing hearing, the tria
Page 29 and 30: IIIREASONS FOR DENYING THE PETITION
Page 32 and 33: Illinois, particularly those prosec
Page 34 and 35: under oath at his sentencing hearin
Page 36 and 37: the only reason the Illinois Suprem
Page 38 and 39: In conclusion, defendant is not ent

Robert Simpson - Cook County State's Attorney

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?