13.07.2015 Views

Robert Simpson - Cook County State's Attorney

Robert Simpson - Cook County State's Attorney

Robert Simpson - Cook County State's Attorney

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Defendant’s callous disregard for human life is amply demonstrated by the above facts.His victim, Barbara Lindich, was shot down in cold blood for no other reason than that she was inthe wrong place at the wrong time. Prior to the robbery defendant had announced to his cohorts hisintention to “pop” someone if anything happened. Defendant was true to his word, for he killedMrs. Lindich in cold-blood. Because of these actions alone, defendant is not entitled to clemency.As detailed in the facts section of this response, defendant has an extensive criminalhistory. He had been convicted of unlawful use of a weapon by a felon, attempt murder,aggravated battery, unlawful use of a weapon, possession of a stolen motor vehicle, two separateburglaries, criminal trespass to vehicle, contempt of court, theft and damage to properly. Giventhis extensive history of criminal conduct it is clear that defendant has nothing but contempt forsociety and is therefore undeserving of clemency.Defendant also asserts that he is entitled to clemency because he did not receive thebenefit of the changes to the Illinois capital sentencing system which have recently been adopted,proposed or enacted. By relying upon a laundry list of new Supreme Court Rules, statutes andproposals from the Governor’s Commission on Capital Punishment which were not available at thetime of his trial, defendant claims that his trial (as well as that of every other capital defendant inIllinois) was by definition fundamentally unfair. However, the Illinois Supreme Court hasexpressly rejected the claim “that every capital trial has been unreliable and that all appellatereview has been haphazard” (People v. Hickey, ___ Ill. 2d ___, 2001 Ill. LEXIS 1080 at *57 (No.87286 September 27, 2001)). Rather, the Court held that the additional safeguards included in itsrules governing capital cases are not retroactively applicable because they “function solely asdevices to further protect those rights given to defendants by the federal and state constitutions”29

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!