STATE OF ILLINOIS ) COUNTY OF COOK, ) PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS JIMMIE SMITH IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY COUNTY DEPARTMENT-CRIMINAL DIVISION ) ) vs. ) No, 09CR10062 ) ) MOTION FOR NON-DISCLOSURE OF PHOTOGRAPHS NOW COME the People of the State of Illinois, by and through. their Attomey, ANITA ALVAREZ, State’s Attomey of Cook County, through ‘her assistant, Michelle Papa, and respectfully request this Honorable Court grant-‘tle “inotion ‘for non-disclosure pursiuanit to Supreme Court Rule 412. in support the People state: 1 The ‘defendant is, charged by- Indictment under Number’ 09CR10062. ° The defendant is charged with the offense(s) of Aggravated Criminal Sexual Assault ofa vietirhs, 8.R. (14 yoa), U.G.(14 yoa), FM. (21 yoa) and B.G. (22 yoa). Defendant is pro se and inh the custody of the Cook County Department of Corrections, In preparing the discovery materials, the People believe it is necessary to redact certain discovery: photographs of the victims taken during the course of medical treatment as a result of the charged crimes, which include photographs of the Victims? exposed genitalia and breasts, Deiendant is not entitled to the photographs. The photographs subject to revluetion are photographs that the People do not intend to use et trial, Supreme Cuoutt Rule 412 (@)(v) Howeves, if this court deems disclosure necessary,defendant may inspect during specified reasonable times and the People will make the photographs available at such specified times. Supreme Court Rule412(eXi). ‘The basis for the redaction of these photographs a. ‘The photographs in question were not obtained from or belong to the defendant-and are not automatically discoverable to the defendant unless the People intend to use them at trial. Since the People do net intend 10 uuse the photographs, defendant is not-entitled to disclosure. People vy. Newbury, 53 Ull.2d 228, 238 (1972); People v, Son, 111 ULApp.3d 273 2" 1982), Under the Ilinois Constitution and 725 ILCS 120/4 (a), erime victims have the right to be treated with faimess and respect for their dignity and Privacy and to be free from harassment, intimidation, and abuse throughout the criminal justice:prodess. Ill; Const, art. 1, § 8.1(a). These rights must be formally. factored against defendant's right io prepare a defense, and unless defendant car make an actual showing thet he needs these photographs in his ‘possession to propare his defense the victims? rights must not be violated. : Allowing the defendant to obtain this photographs in his possession is akin to e-victimization of the four young ‘women in this case, ‘The photographs contain sensitive, graphic depictions of the victims’ body parts, And, two of the victims depicted in the photographs were minors, time of their victimization. There is io fourteen years of age at the meaningful manner in which these photos and the vietims’ puivacy can be protected, No protective order will have any meaningful effect in this case, Since the defendant is in the custody of the Cook County epartment of Corrections, the defendant iv aot entitled to possess photoys:hs depicting nude body parts.€. The content of the photographs could be considered child pomography since it depicts two girls under the age of 18 in a pose involving the lewd exhibition of the unclotlied genitals, pubic area, and fully or partially developed breasts of the child, 720 ILCS $/11-20.1(a(1)(vi). The focal point of the visual depiction is on the child’s genitals, the child is depicted in an unnatural pose, and the child is fully or partially nude. £ Similar to cases of child pornography, disclosure should be conszained in terms of location of review and time of review, WHEREFORE, the People of the State of Illinois respectfully request that this Honotabile Court enter an order resizicting discovery to the extent provided herein, Respectfully submitted, ANITA ALVAREZ State’s Attomey'of Cook County By: MifhellePapa Astistant State's Attorney