You are on page 1of 3

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS

CRIMINAL DIVISION 2 0 | U U L , o p H 2 : 5^

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Willie- Johnson- Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
->
)
)

[K .
-.OWN
^ ^0^K' r w j r a Y J L ^ 7

CLE!

No. 11CR13172
-- -

PEOPLE'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS'
MOTION TO DISMISS INDICTMENT

Now come the People of the State of Illinois by and through their Attorney, Cook
County State's Attorney, Anita Alvarez, by her assistant Christa Bowden, and respectfully
requests this Honorable Court to deny the defendants' motion to dismiss the indictment. In
support of the People's response, the People state the following.
1.

Defendant has been charged with two counts of Perjury, in that he made two
separate and conflicting statements under oath in the course of testimony at two
separate and distinct proceedings. These statements were knowingly made and
were material to the issue or point in question.

2.

By definition one of these statements must be false. The statute under which
defendant is charged does not require proof of which of the two statements is
false. 720 ILCS 5/32-2(b). The opinions' of the parties regarding which of the
statements is the falsity is irrelevant to the question of Defendant's guilt on the
charge of Perjury. The very fact that two contradictory statements were made

under oath at separate proceedings is sufficient to prove the charge of Perjury.
720 ILCS 5/32-2(b)
3.

Just as The People are not required to prove which of the statements are false,
a jury would not be required to determine or agree which of the statements are
false.

4.

The purpose of the indictment is to put Defendant on notice as to the charges,
to inform him of the factual basis for the charges and to protect Defendant from
Double Jeopardy. "The test is whether the indictment informed defendant of the
offense charged with sufficient specificity to allow him to prepare his defense and
protect him from double jeopardy." People v. Toney. 337 111. App. 3d 122, First
Dist. (2003), citing People v. Allen, 56 111. 2d 536, 542-43.

5.

An examination of the indictment as well as previous written motions to
dismiss as well as the arguments heard by this Court and the rulings of this Court,
on those motions clearly show that defendant has been given adequate notice of
the charges against him as well as the facts which support those charges
Defendant is most assuredly protected from Double Jeopardy.

6.

Defendant's objection to the use of the language "continuing through," in the
indictment must be viewed in light of the specific facts of this case. Defendant's
violation of the Perjury statute was not completed until the second utterance
under oath which contradicted the first. The evidence of the perjury being
defendant's two contradictory statements under oath on different dates at separate
proceedings.

WHEREFORE The People request this Honorable Court deny the defendants' motion to
dismiss the indictment

Respectfully submitted,
Anita Alvarez
"State's Attorney-of Gook County,

Christa Bowden
Assistant State's Attorney