02-01-17 Transcript Case 922

STATE OF ILLINOIS
—_‘L
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 17TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
OQCDNOUCN§WN
COUNTY OF WINNEBAGO
THE PEOPLE OF THE

STATE OF ILLINOIS,
PTaintiff,
vs 2014-CF—922
Status
BMW. COPY
RICHARD WANKE,
REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS at the hearing of the
above-entitTed cause before the HonorabTe ROSEMARY

COLLINS, Judge of said Court, heard on the 1st day
of February, A.D., 2017.
PRESENT:
MS. MARILYN HITE ROSS, MS. PAMELA WELLS, and
MR. F. JAMES BRUN,
Assistant State's Attorneys,
Appeared on behaIf of the PeopTe;
MR. NICK ZIMMERMAN and MR. ROBERT SIMMONS,
Assistant Pub11c Defenders,
Appeared on behaIf of the Defendant.
Joyce M. 0730n
OfficiaI Court Reporter
P R O C E E D I N G S
THE COURT: All right. We're on the record on
People versus Richard Wanke.
I'm sorry. You've all been very patiently
waiting since 1:30, but I just finished my 1:30 call.
Before we go any further, the court reporter
that is in the courtroom today is on the list of
witnesses, so what I need to know is if the parties wish
10 me to get another court reporter because the list of
ll witnesses, obviously, I had entered an order saying the
12 witnesses should be barred from all these matters, and,
13 you know, I know, at least I‘m pretty confident as to why
14 she's listed as a witness. I think it's more in line
15 with her official duties as opposed to any other issue,
16 but we do have other court reporters available.
17 So I need to have a statement from each side if
18 they wish this court reporter to be replaced for the
19 purposes of today's hearing with another court reporter
20 or if they waive any Such issue and understand that that
21 would be waiving it.
22 She won't be taking the trial, but that would be
23 waiving it for trial. They can't —— no party will be
24 able to object to her testifying then because she was

part of this proceeding.
So if you want a minute to talk about that with
Mr. Wanke, that would be fine.
(Whereupon a discussion was had off the record.)
THE COURT: Let me know when you're ready so I don't
just sit up here and not know if you're ready.
MR. ZIMMERMAN: Unless I'm missing it, I see several
court reporters on the list, but I don't see this
10 particular court reporter.
ll THE COURT: Well, she's the one who told me she was,
12 so I assume she knows.
13 MR. BRUN: Also, for the court's understanding, the
14 last court date the court requested a comprehensive
15 witness list including the judges that were —— that have
l6 been part of this. That has been completed, and Ms.
17 Olson's name is on this witness list. I have provided
18 this to counsel, provide the court's courtesy copy.
19 THE COURT: Thank you very much.
20 So this is my curtesy copy?
21 MR. BRUN: Yes.
22 THE COURT: Thank you.
23 MR. ZIMMERMAN: I do see it, Judge. I'm sorry.
24 (Whereupon a discussion was had off the record.)

MR. ZIMMERMAN: Judge, we don't have an objection.
THE COURT: State.
MS. HITE ROSS: No objection.
THE COURT: All right. Then this court reporter
will be able to remain for this session. She will be my
court reporter for the month of February, but as I said,
she's not going to be the court reporter for the trial.
I already have those court reporters scheduled, and the
court reporters we have for the trial on none of the
10 court reporters who have been listed as witnesses.
ll So we're here today to argue the people's
12 amended 34th motion in limine, the motion to admit
13 statements of the defendant.
14 There maybe another thing that I can't remember.
15 It's been a while since we've been here.
l6 The Bill of Indictment I did want to talk to you
17 about. I'm going to read the Bill of Indictment to the
18 defendant so that I don't have to do that closer to
19 trial. I don't think I've ever actually done it.
2O I can tell you that I don't intend to read 30
21 counts of the Bill of Indictment to the jury. I think
22 it's confusing, frankly, to have 30 counts of murder when
23 there is one individual who is the alleged victim.
24 So what I'd like to do is the procedure that has

been followed I believe in some other courtrooms where
the first count is read, and then the court says
something to the nature of there are alternative ways of
charging murder and then go through the differences with
respect to each count.
I haven't quite charted that all out. I'm not
sure if it'll actually work, but reading 30 counts of
murder to the jury at the beginning of the trial is
cumbersome I believe, and I think we can do the same
10 thing, which is alert them to the charges without having
ll to read each and every count of the Bill of Indictment.
12 I'd like you to think about that and let me know
13 what your thoughts are, if you're opposed to that
14 process.
15 I mean, obviously, I'd go through the document
l6 that I would read to them before we do it. I would want
17 your input and suggestions, corrections, anything you'd
18 have to say about it.
19 If it doesn't seem we can come to terms on that,
2O I can always read the 30 counts, but —- but it seems to
21 me we could do —— we could do it differently, still
22 achieve the purpose, and do it in a way that doesn't
23 confuse the jury quite so much.
24 I‘ve also been looking at the time period that

we have. We're gonna start jury selection a day later
than we had planned on our previous trial as I recall
because we have a Monday that's a holiday, so we're
starting on a Tuesday.
So I think for the purposes of scheduling your
witnesses, —— you know, frankly, I just don't know. I
know —— I don't know how long jury selection took in the
Todd Smith case. How long did that take?
MR. BRUN: Three days.
10 MR. ZIMMERMAN: Yes.
ll THE COURT: It seems to me the Todd Smith case was a
12 higher profile in terms of recent media attention than
l3 this case, so if it took you three days for Todd Smith, I
14 can't imagine that it would take us much longer to do in
15 this case, but I don't know. I'm curious to what your ——
16 what your feelings are about it.
17 What I was thinking is that we would just do
18 that first week for jury selection and the second week,
19 so that way you could schedule your witnesses for Monday
20 of the second week. Perhaps we could do opening
21 statements that Friday of that week if we got the jury in
22 three days because we are starting on a Tuesday. Maybe
23 we just do opening statements on that Monday also and
24 just use that Friday for other things like jury

instructions, preliminary conference, things like that.
I'm trying to make it as easy for you to
schedule your witnesses as possible, so that was a
thought I had, that we would take that first week for
jury selection and then let the jurors go until the
following Monday and tell them that's what we actually
start the trial. I don't like to have jurors just
hanging around for day after day, think about that, too,
and then we'll talk about that more at the end of the
10 session today.
ll All right. So with respect to the amended 34th
12 motion in limine, let's go ahead and hear arguments on
l3 that, then I'll read the whole Bill of Indictment to the
14 defendant, and then we'll take up those other two issues
15 after that.
16 MS. HITE ROSS: Judge, I —— I have that I ——
17 THE COURT: Have we argued this already? See, I
l8 lose track of what we've done and what we haven't done.
19 MS. HITE ROSS: Yes, it's been a while, your Honor,
20 but I'm looking at my notes and confirming with Mr. Brun
21 and Ms. Wells, and it looks like we did argue that.
22 THE COURT: Okay.
23 MS. HITE ROSS: We argued the amended one.
24 MR. SIMMONS: And, your Honor, that's our

recollection, as well, that it was argued, and the court
wanted clarification I think as to paragraph 18 of the
state's motion.
THE COURT: Okay.
MS. HITE ROSS: And that was the amended mo —— the
amended motion in limine clarifies paragraph ——
THE COURT: Eighteen.
MS. HITE ROSS: —— 18 after the court's inquiry.
THE COURT: Can you give me the original?
10 Let me take a look at it?
ll (Whereupon the court read the document.)
12 THE COURT: Did you attach Exhibit 4, page three, to
13 your amended motion?
14 MS. HITE ROSS: I did not reattach.
15 THE COURT: But that is attached to your original?
16 MS. HITE ROSS: Exhibit 4 I think was the reference
17 to the amended motion in limine 34, number —— paragraph
18 18. I did not reattach Exhibit 4.
19 THE COURT: Do you have it with you, Exhibit 4, page
20 three? We can just make a quick copy of it.
21 MS. HITE ROSS: Yes, I do, Judge.
22 THE COURT: Okay.

23 MS. HITE ROSS: I do have it.
24 THE COURT: Would you hand it to my bailiff? He'll

just go make a quick copy of it, and I can attach it to
this.
MS. HITE ROSS: It does have a highlight on it.
THE COURT: That's all right. It won't show up in
the copy probably.
MS. WELLS: Just the one page. Thank you.
THE COURT: Well, that's all that's referred to in
your motion, so
10 MS. HITE ROSS: Right.
ll THE COURT: All right. Well, then I'll start
12 reading the Bill of Indictment since we've got some time
13 while he makes that copy.
14 Mr. Wanke, there's a Superseding Bill of
15 Indictment in this file. I'm gonna read those charges to
l6 you. I'd like the parties to read along with me and tell
17 me if I state everything correctly, particularly as it
18 refers to the sentencing range on these offenses.
19 The Superseding Bill of Indictment in
20 2014—CF—922 says in Count 1 that on or about the 6th day
21 of February of 2008, in the County of Winnebago, State of
22 Illinois, Richard Wanke committed the offense of first
23 degree murder, in that the said defendant, without lawful
24 justification and with the intent to kill or do great

bodily harm to Greg Clark, shot Greg Clark with a
firearm, thereby causing the death of Greg Clark, in
violation of Illinois law.
And when I read a Bill of Indictment, I don't
read the specific statutory citation. I say in violation
of Illinois law.
All right. This is an offense for which the
sentencing range is 20 to 60 years in the Department of
Corrections. It's a non—probationable offense. That
10 means upon conviction the court could not sentence you to
11 anything but a term in the Department of Corrections,
12 anywhere from the minimum of 20 years up to the maximum
l3 of 60 years.
14 Truth in sentencing applies, which means there
15 is no day—for—day good time. There's no good time. It's
16 an actual term, so if you're sentenced to 20 years, you
17 would serve 20 years. If you're sentenced to 60 years,
18 you would serve 60 years. And I just use those examples
19 of what the actual time means, no good time calculation.
20 All right.
21 Count 2 of the Bill of Indictment says that on
22 or about the 6th day of February, 2008, in the County of
23 Winnebago and State of Illinois, Richard Wanke committed
24 the offense of first degree murder, in that the said
lO
defendant, while armed with a firearm, without lawful
justification and with intent to kill or do great bodily
harm to Greg Clark, shot Greg Clark with a firearm,
thereby causing the death of Greg Clark in violation of
Illinois law.
This again is a murder case for which the
sentencing range is 20 to 60 years in the Department of
Corrections. Mandatory Supervised Release is three
years.
10 On this particular charge if the -- if the
ll firearm enhancement was proven, then it would be —— an
12 additional firearm enhancement of 15 years would be added
13 to any sentence in the Department of Corrections.
14 Truth in sentencing applies, which means no
15 credit for any good time. The sentence is the actual
16 sentence that you would receive.
17 Do you have a copy of the Bill of Indictment
18 that you're reviewing as we go through this in front of
19 you?
20 MR. SIMMONS: Yes.
21 THE COURT: Mr. Wanke, you?
22 THE DEFENDANT WANKE: I've —— I've —— I've got a
23 copy back in my room.
24 THE COURT: Do you have it in front of you at this
ll
moment?
THE DEFENDANT WANKE: Yes.
THE COURT: That's what I'm asking you.
THE DEFENDANT WANKE: Yes.
THE COURT: All right. If you have any questions
about this, then ask me as we go through it.
Count 3 of the Bill of Indictment says that on
or about the 6th day of February of 2008, County of
Winnebago and State of Illinois, Richard Wanke committed
10 the offense of first degree murder, in that the said
ll defendant, without lawful justification and with the
12 intent to kill or do great bodily harm to Greg Clark,
13 shot Greg Clark with a firearm, thereby causing the death
14 of Greg Clark, and during the commission of the offense
15 the defendant personally discharged a firearm, in
l6 violation Of Illinois law.
17 Again, this murder case has a sentencing range
18 of 20 to 60 years in the Department of Corrections plus
19 three years Mandatory Supervised Release or parole.
20 If the firearm language was proven, you would be
21 eligible for a firearm enhancement of 20 years, which
22 would be added to any sentence given to the court, given
23 by the court.
24 Truth in sentencing applies, which means no
l2
calculation of any day—for—day. Any sentence given plus
the enhancement term would be served at full -— at full
sentence.
Count 4 of the Bill of Indictment says that on
or about the 6th day of February, 2008, in the County of
Winnebago and State of Illinois, Richard Wanke committed
the offense of first degree murder, in that the
defendant, without lawful justification and with the
intent to kill or do great bodily harm to Greg Clark,
ll of Greg Clark, and during the commission of the offense
12 the defendant personally discharged a firearm proximately
l3 causing the death of Greg Clark, in violation of Illinois
14 law.
15 This count is also a murder case for which the
16 sentencing range if all the allegations were proven would
17 be 45 years up to natural life. Mandatory Supervised
18 Release would be for an additional three years.
19 That's with the enhancement added to it, right,
2O the 25 years enhancement? So that's the enhancement.
21 The minimum is raised, and as it is in all the
22 cases, if the enhancement is proven and applies to this
23 sentence —— to this case, then the sentence would go
24 from —— to 45 years to natural life.
13
Truth in sentencing applies. That means that
you are not eligible for any good time calculation.
Is that clear to you, Mr. Wanke?
THE DEFENDANT WANKE: Yes, ma'am.
THE COURT: Any questions about that or anything so
far?
THE DEFENDANT WANKE: (Indicated negatively with
shake of head.)
THE COURT: You have to say out loud.
10 THE DEFENDANT WANKE: No, I have no questions.
11 THE COURT: All right. Count 5 say that on or about
12 the 6th day of February, 2008, in the County of Winnebago
l3 and State of Illinois, Richard Wanke committed the
14 offense of first degree murder, in that the said
15 defendant, without lawful justification, shot Greg Clark
16 with a firearm, knowing that such acts would cause death
17 to Greg Clark, thereby causing the death of Greg Clark,
18 in violation of Illinois law.
19 This again, this murder case carries with it a
20 sentencing range of 20 to 60 years in the Department of
21 Corrections. Mandatory Supervised Release or parole
22 would be an additional three years.
23 Truth in sentencing applies, and that means that
24 no calculation for good time would be made. You would
l4
serve an actual sentence that is exactly the same as the
sentence the court imposed.
Count 6 says that on or about the 6th day of
February, 2008, in the County of Winnebago and State of
Illinois, Richard Wanke committed the offense of first
degree murder, in that the said defendant, while armed
with a firearm, without lawful justification shot Greg
Clark with a firearm, knowing that such acts would cause
death to Greg Clark, thereby causing the death of Greg
10 Clark, in violation of Illinois law.
ll This murder case carries with it a sentencing
12 range of 20 to 60 years in the Department of Corrections
l3 and an additional three years of Mandatory Supervised
14 Release or parole.
15 The firearm enhancement that is applicable to
l6 this case if the state proves their allegations would be
17 for an additional 15 years.
18 Truth in sentencing applies. You would serve
19 the full sentence imposed by the court with no good time
20 calculation.
21 Do you understand all that I've said so far,
22 Mr. Wanke?
23 THE DEFENDANT WANKE: Yes, ma'am.
24 THE COURT: Count 7 says that on or about the 6th
15
day of February, 2008, in the County of Winnebago, State
of Illinois, Richard Wanke committed the offense of first
degree murder, in that the said defendant without lawful
justification shot Greg Clark with a firearm, knowing
that such acts would cause death to Greg Clark, thereby
causing the death of Greg Clark, and during the
commission of the offense the defendant personally
discharged a firearm in violation of Illinois law.
This murder case carries with it a sentencing
ll plus three years Mandatory Supervised Release.
l2 The firearm enhancement in this case would add
l3 an additional 20 years to the sentence.
14 Truth in sentencing applies, which means that
15 any sentence imposed by the court would be the actual
16 sentence served. No good time would be calculated.
17 Do you understand that, Mr. Wanke?
19 THE COURT: Count 8 of the Bill of Indictment says
20 that on or about the 6th day of February of 2008, in the
21 County of Winnebago and State of Illinois, Richard Wanke
22 committed the offense of first degree murder, in that the
23 said defendant without lawful justification shot Greg
24 Clark with a firearm, knowing such acts will cause death
16
to Greg Clark, thereby causing the death of Greg Clark,
and during the commission of the offense the defendant
personally discharged a firearm proximately causing the
death of Greg Clark, in violation of Illinois law.
range that is 20 to 60 years, but, of course, with the
enhancement the minimum would be raised up to 45 years,
and the maximum on this case is not 60 years but rather
natural life in the Department of Corrections, so if the
10 enhancement is proven here, it would be 45 to natural
ll life in the Department of Corrections. Three years
12 Mandatory Supervised Release would apply to this
l3 sentence.
14 Truth in sentencing applies, which means any
15 sentence imposed by the court would be, in fact, the
16 actual sentence that is served with no calculation for
17 any good time credit given.
18 Do you understand that, Mr. Wanke?
19 THE DEFENDANT WANKE: Yes, ma‘am.
21 that on or about the 6th day of February, 2008, in the
23 committed the offense of first degree murder, in that
24 said the defendant, without lawful justification,
l7
knowingly shot Greg Clark with a firearm, knowing such
acts created a strong probability of death or great
bodily harm to Greg Clark, thereby causing the death of
Greg Clark, in violation of Illinois law.
range of 20 to 60 years in the Department of Corrections
plus a Mandatory Supervised Release term of an additional
three years.
Truth in sentencing applies. Therefore, if you
10 were sent -— upon sentencing by the court if you were
ll convicted, you would have to serve the full sentence the
12 court imposes with no calculation for any good time
13 credit.
14 Do you understand that, sir?
2O said defendant, while armed with a firearm, without
21 lawful justification knowingly shot Greg Clark with a
22 firearm, knowing such acts created a strong probability
23 of death or great bodily harm to Greg Clark, thereby
24 causing the death of Greg Clark, in violation of Illinois
18
law.
range 20 to 60 years in the Department of Corrections
plus three years Mandatory Supervised Release.
The additional firearm's enhancement would add
an additional 15 years to this, so it would be an
additional 15 years added to the 20 years and on up
depending upon the sentence that the court would impose,
so it would raise the minimum sentence as it would be in
10 the other cases.
11 Truth in sentencing applies. That means no
12 credit for good time would be given. You would have to
l3 serve the actual sentence imposed by the court without
14 any calculation for good time.
15 Do you understand that charge?
18 day of February, 2008, in the County of Winnebago and
19 State of Illinois, Richard Wanke committed the offense of
2O first degree murder, in that the said defendant without
21 lawful justification knowingly shot and killed Greg Clark
22 with a firearm, knowing such acts created a strong
23 probability of death or great bodily harm to Greg Clark
24 and thereby causing the death of Greg Clark, and during
l9
discharged a firearm, in violation of Illinois law.
This is a murder case. Because the sentencing
enhancement for the firearm of 20 years that would be
added, the sentencing range is 40 to 80 years in the
Department of Corrections plus three years of Mandatory
Supervised Release or what's more commonly referred to as
parole.
Truth in sentencing applies, which means that
10 the sentence of the court would have to be served in
ll full, no calculations for good time credit would be ever
l2 given.
l3 Do you understand the sentencing range on this
14 case?
16 THE COURT: Count 12 says that or about the 6th day
17 of February of 2008, in the County of Winnebago and State
18 of Illinois, Richard Wanke committed the offense of first
2O justification, knowingly shot Greg Clark with a firearm,
21 knowing such acts created a strong probability of death
22 or great bodily harm to Greg Clark, and during the
23 commission of the offense the defendant personally
24 discharged a firearm that proximately caused the death of
20
Greg Clark, in violation of Illinois law.
The sentencing range on this, of course, again
is the 20 to 60 years in the Department of Corrections
plus three years Mandatory Supervised Release with the
firearm enhancement of 25 years. That would raise that
up from 20 to 45 years to natural life as the maximum
penalty.
the sentence imposed by the court would be the actual
IO sentence served by the defendant. No calculation for
11 good time could be imposed.
12 Do you understand this charge and the sentencing
13 range?
15 THE COURT: COunt 13 of the Bill of Indictment says
16 that on or about the 6th day of February of 2008, in the
19 said defendant without lawful justification and with the
2O intent to kill or do great bodily harm to Greg Clark,
22 of Greg Clark, and the state shall seek an extended
23 sentence as the defendant committed the murder with the
24 intent to prevent Greg Clark from participating in any
21
criminal investigation or prosecution, in violation of
Illinois law.
On this charge the sentencing range is 20 to 60
years on the murder case, but the —— because of the
extended sentencing range that the state is seeking if
the court found that —— if that was proven, the
sentencing range would be extended to 60 years to natural
life.
I think I said Mandatory Supervised Release of
10 three years, but that would apply.
ll Truth and sentencing applies. What that means
12 is if you were convicted of this charge and sentenced,
l3 you wOuld have to serve the sentence the court imposed
14 without any calculation for good time.
15 Do you understand that charge and the sentencing
16 range?
21 first degree murder, in that the said defendant, without
22 lawful justification and with the intent to kill or do
23 great bodily harm to Greg Clark, shot Greg Clark with a
24 firearm, thereby causing the death of Greg Clark, and
22
during the commission of the offense the defendant
personally discharged a firearm that proximately caused
the death of Greg Clark, and the state will seek an
extended sentence as the defendant committed the murder
with the intent to prevent Greg Clark from participating
in any criminal investigation or prosecution, in
violation of Illinois law.
This murder case carries with it a range from 20
to 60 years but because of the enhancement it would
10 increase that 25 years to natural life, so what that
11 means is the minimum would go from 20 to 45, and it will
l2 go up to natural life as a maximum penalty.
13 Truth in sentencing applies. The sentence of
14 the court would be the full sentence served by the
15 defendant with no calculation for good time.
l6 Do you understand this charge and the sentencing
17 range?
20 day of February, 2008, in the County of Winnebago, State
23 justification and with the intent to kill or do great
24 bodily harm to Greg Clark, shot Greg Clark with a
23
firearm, thereby causing the death of Greg Clark, and the
state will seek an extended sentence as the murder was
committed in a cold, calculated, and premeditated manner
pursuant to a preconceived plan, scheme or design to take
a human life by unlawful means, and the conduct of the
defendant created a reasonable expectation that the death
of a human being would reSult therefrom, in violation of
Illinois law.
This murder case normally carries with it a
10 range from 20 to 60 years with Mandatory Supervised
11 Release of an additional three years. If the state
l2 proves the extended sentencing claim, then it would be ——
l3 the sentence would be extended from 60 years to natural
14 life.
15 Truth in sentencing applies. That means that
l6 you would have to serve the full sentence without any
17 calculation for good time in the Department of
18 Corrections.
19 Do you understand that?
2O THE DEFENDANT WANKE: Yes, ma'am.
24 first degree murder, in that said defendant, without
24
lawful justification and with the intent to kill or do
great bodily harm to Greg Clark, shot Greg Clark with a
firearm, thereby causing the death of Greg Clark, and
during the commission of the offense the defendant
personally discharged a firearm that proximately caused
the death of Greg Clark, and the state shall seek an
extended sentence as the murder was committed in a cold,
calculated, and premeditated manner pursuant to a
preconceived plan, scheme or design to take a human life
10 by unlawful means, and the conduct of the defendant
ll created a reasonable expectation that the death of a
l2 human being would result therefrom, in violation of
13 Illinois law.
14 While the murder range is normally 20 to 60
15 years in the Department of Corrections plus three years
16 Mandatory Supervised Release, proof of the terms that the
17 state has added for the extended sentence would raise
18 this from —— to an additional 25 years to the minimum up
19 to and including a natural life sentence.
20 Truth in sentencing applies, which means you
21 would have to serve the entire sentence before —— and no
22 good time. You would have to serve the entire sentence.
23 No good time would ever be given to you.
24 Do you understand this charge?
25
THE COURT: Count 17 says that on or about the 6th
day of February, 2008 in the County of Winnebago, State
of Illinois, Richard Wanke committed the offense of first
degree murder, in that the said defendant, without lawful
justification and with the intent to kill or do great
bodily harm to Greg Clark, shot Greg Clark with a
firearm, thereby causing the death of Greg Clark, and the
defendant —— or the state shall seek an extended sentence
10 as the victim was 60 years of age or older, and the death
ll resulted from exceptionally brutal or heinous behavior
12 indicative of wanton cruelty, in violation of Illinois
l3 law.
14 On this murder case, the range is from 20 to 60
l6 Mandatory Supervised Release. If the extended sentence
l7 terms as set forth by the state in this count are proven,
l8 then it would extend the sentence to 60 years to natural
19 life. That's 60 years for the minimum to natural life.
20 Truth in sentencing applies. That means you
21 would serve the actual sentence imposed by the court with
22 no calculation for good time.
23 Do you understand the sentence of the ~u or the
24 Bill of Indictment?
26
THE COURT: Count 18 of the Bill of Indictment says
that on or about the 6th day of February, 2008, in the
County of Winnebago, State of Illinois, Richard Wanke
committed the offense of first degree murder, in that the
said defendant, without lawful justification and with the
intent to kill or do great bodily harm to Greg Clark,
shot Greg Clark with a firearm, thereby causing the death
of Greg Clark, and during the commission of the offense
10 the defendant personally discharged a firearm that
ll proximately caused the death of Greg Clark, and the state
12 shall seek an extended sentence as the victim was 60
13 years of age or older, and the death resulted from
14 exceptionally brutal or heinous behavior indicative of
15 wanton cruelty, in violation of Illinois law.
l6 This Class M murder case normally carries with
17 it a sentencing range of 20 to 60 years in the Department
18 of Corrections plus three years Mandatory Supervised
19 Release. The extended term would extend the minimum
20 sentence up to 45 years to natural life as a maximum
21 sentence.
23 the sentence imposed by the court would be the actual
24 sentence served with no calculation for good time.
27
Do you understand Count 18?
day of February, 2008, in the County of Winnebago and
State of Illinois, Richard Wanke committed the offense of
first degree murder, in that the said defendant, without
lawful justification, shot Greg Clark with a firearm,
knowing that Such acts would cause death to Greg Clark,
thereby causing the death of Greg Clark, and the state
10 shall seek an extended sentence as the defendant
ll committed the murder with the intent to prevent Greg
12 Clark from participating in any criminal investigation or
l3 prosecution, in violation of Illinois law.
14 This Class M felony carries with it a normal
l6 plus three years Mandatory Supervised Release. Upon
l7 proof of the extended sentencing terms that are set forth
l8 in this Bill of Indictment, that would extend the
19 sentence up to a 60 to natural life term.
2O Truth in sentencing applies, which means that
21 you would have to serve the entire sentence without any
22 calculation for good time.
23 Do you understand that count?
28
day of February of 2008, in the County of Winnebago and
knowing that such acts would cause death to Greg Clark,
thereby causing the death of Greg Clark, and during the
discharged a firearm that proximately caused death of
10 Greg Clark, and the state will be seeking an extended
ll sentence as the defendant committed the murder with the
l2 intent to prevent Greg Clark from participating in any
l3 criminal investigation or prosecution, in violation of
14 Illinois law.
15 This murder case carries with it a normal range
16 of 20 to 60 years in the Department of Corrections plus
17 three years Mandatory Supervised Release. However, if
18 the extended sentencing terms are proven, that would
19 extend the sentence from a minimum of 20 to a minimum of
20 45 years, up to and including a natural life as a maximum
21 sentence.
22 Truth in sentencing applies. That means if the
23 court imposed a sentence on this count, you would have to
24 serve the entire sentence without any calculation for
29
good time.
THE COURT: Count 21, it says that on or about the
6th day of February of 2008, in the County of Winnebago
and State of Illinois, Richard Wanke committed the
offense of first degree murder, in that the said
defendant, without lawful justification, shot Greg Clark
with a firearm, knowing that such acts would cause death
10 to Greg Clark, thereby causing the death of Greg Clark,
11 and the state will seek an extended sentence as the
12 murder was committed in a cold, calculated, and
13 premeditated manner pursuant to a preconceived plan,
14 scheme or design to take a human life by unlawful means,
15 and the conduct of the defendant created a reasonable
16 expectation that the death of a human being WOuld result
17 therefrom, in violation of Illinois law.
18 This Class M murder case normally carries a
2O plus three years Mandatory Supervised Release. Upon
21 proof of the extending sentencing terms, the sentence
22 range than would increase to 60 years to natural life in
23 the Department of Corrections.
30
any sentence given by the court would be the actual
sentence served with no calculation for good time.
day of February of 2008, in the County of Winnebago and
10 knowing that such acts would cause death to Greg Clark,
ll thereby causing the death of Greg Clark, and during the
14 Greg Clark, and the state shall seek an extended sentence
15 as the murder was committed in a cold, calculated, and
l6 premeditated manner pursuant to a preconceived plan,
17 scheme or design to take a human life by unlawful means,
18 and the conduct of the defendant created a reasonable
19 expectation that the death of a human being would result
2O therefrom, in violation of Illinois law.
21 The normal range on a Class M murder case is 20
22 to 60 years in the Department of Corrections with three
23 years Mandatory Supervised Release. Upon proof of the
24 extended sentencing factors that are set forth in Count
3l
22, that would increase the sentence range from 20 years
to 45 years up to and including natural life in the
Department of Corrections.
any sentence imposed by the court would have to be the
actual sentence served by the defendant without any
calculation of any good time credit.
Do you understand Count 22 of the Bill of
Indictment?
ll THE COURT: Count 23 of the Bill of Indictment says
l2 that on or about the 6th day of February, 2008, in the
13 County of Winnebago, State of Illinois, Richard Wanke
15 said defendant, without lawful justification, shot Greg
l6 Clark with a firearm, knowing that such acts would cause
17 death to Greg Clark, thereby causing the death of Greg
18 Clark, and the state shall seek an extended sentence as
19 the victim was 60 years of age or older, and the death
20 resulted from exceptionally brutal or heinous behavior
21 indicative of wanton cruelty, in violation of Illinois
22 law.
23 The normal range on a murder case is 20 to 60
32
Mandatory Supervised Release. Upon proof of these
factors which would extend the sentencing term, that
would go from 60 years to a natural life sentence.
Truth in sentencing applies, which means you
would have to serve the full sentence imposed by the
court with no calculation for good time.
ll State of Illinois, Richard Wanke committed the offense of
l3 lawful justification, shot Greg Clark with a firearm,
l4 knowing that such acts would cause death to Greg —— Greg
l5 Clark, thereby causing the death of Greg Clark, and
l6 during the commission of the offense the defendant
17 personally discharged a firearm that proximately caused
18 the death of Greg Clark, and the defendant (Sic. state)
2O years of age or older, and the death resulted from
22 wanton cruelty.
23 The normal range on a murder case is 20 to 60
33
Mandatory Supervised Release. Proof of the factors set
forth for the extended term would raise that minimum an
additional 25 years, so it would be 45 years to a natural
life sentence that would have to be imposed. Truth in ——
a term of that.
Truth in sentencing applies. That means any
sentence imposed by the court would have to be served at
its full strength with no credit for good time given.
Do you understand the sentencing range on Count
10 24?
l3 day of February, 2008, in the County of Winnebago, State
16 justification, intentionally shot Greg Clark with a
19 causing the death of Greg Clark, and the state shall seek
20 an extended sentence as the defendant committed the
21 murder with the intent to prevent Greg Clark from
22 participating in any criminal investigation or
23 prosecution, in violation of Illinois law.
24 The normal range on a murder case, sentencing
34
range on a murder case is 20 to 60 years in the
Department of Corrections plus three years Mandatory
Supervised Release. Upon proof of the extended
sentencing range term, that would raise that to 60 years
to natural life in the Department of Corrections.
Truth in sentencing applies. That means any
sentence served must be served at a full level without
any calculation for good time given.
12 day of February of 2008, in the County of Winnebago and
15 lawful justification, intentionally shot Greg Clark with
16 a firearm, knowing such acts created a strong probability
18 causing the death of Greg Clark, and during the
21 Greg Clark, and the state shall seek an extended sentence
22 as the defendant committed the murder with the intent to
23 prevent Greg Clark from participating in any criminal
24 investigation or prosecution, in violation of Illinois
35
law.
The normal murder range upon conviction would be
20 to 60 years in the Department of Corrections plus
three years Mandatory Supervised Release. Upon proof of
the extended sentencing terms that are set forth in this
count, that would change to a minimum of 45 years to
natural life.
Any sentence imposed by the court would have to
be served at the full sentence without any calculations
10 for good time credit.
ll Do you understand Count 26?
l3 THE COURT: Count 27 says that on or about the 6th
14 day of February, 2008, in the County of Winnebago, State
16 degree murder, in that the defendant, without lawful
17 justification, intentionally shot Greg Clark with a
2O causing the death of Greg Clark, and the state shall seek
21 an extended sentence as the murder was committed in a
22 cold, caICulated, and premeditated manner pursuant to a
23 preconceived plan, scheme or design to take a human life
24 by unlawful means, and the conduct of the defendant
36
created a reasonable expectation that the death of a
human being would result therefrom, in violation of
Illinois law.
The normal range for a conviction on murder is
20 to 60 years in the Department of Corrections plus
three years Mandatory Supervised Release. If the
extended sentencing terms were proven that would add ——
sentencing range would go then to a term of 60 to natural
life, 60 years to natural life in the Department of
10 Corrections.
ll Truth in sentencing applies, which means that
12 the full sentence would have to be imposed —— would have
13 to be served with no calculation for good time credit.
14 Do you understand Count 27 of the Bill of
15 Indictment?
19 County of Winnebago, State of Illinois, Richard Wanke
2O committed the offense of first degree murder, in that
21 said defendant, without lawful justification,
22 intentionally shot Greg Clark with a firearm, knowing
23 such acts created a strong probability of death or great
24 bodily harm to Greg Clark, thereby causing the death of
37
Greg Clark, and during the commission of the offense the
defendant personally discharged a firearm that
proximately caused the death of Greg Clark, and the state
shall seek an extended sentence as the murder was
committed in a cold, calculated, and premeditated manner
pursuant to a preconceived plan, scheme or design to take
a human life by unlawful means, and the conduct of the
defendant created a reasonable expectation that the death
of a human being would result therefrom, in violation of
10 Illinois law.
ll The normal range in sentencing on a murder case
12 is 20 to 60 years in the Department of Corrections plus
13 three years Mandatory Supervised Release. Upon proof of
14 the extended term —— or extended sentencing terms as set
15 forth in Count 28, that would raise that sentence to 45
l6 years to a natural life sentence in the Department of
17 Corrections.
19 any sentence given by the court would be the actual
2O sentence served with no calculation for good time credit.
22 Indictment.
38
County of Winnebago and State of Illinois, Richard Wanke
said defendant, without lawful justification,
intentionally shot Greg Clark with a firearm, knowing
such acts created a strong probability of death or great
Greg Clark, and the state shall seek an extended sentence
as the victim was 60 years of age or older, and the death
10 resulted from exceptionally brutal or heinous behavior
ll indicative of wanton cruelty, in violation of Illinois
12 law.
l3 The normal sentencing range on a murder case is
l4 20 to 60 years in the Department of Corrections plus
15 three years Mandatory Supervised Release. Upon proof of
16 the additional extended sentencing range factors that are
17 set forth in Count 29, that w0uld increase the range from
18 60 years to 100 years in the Department of Corrections.
19 Truth in sentencing applies. That means a
2O sentence given by the court must be served fully without
21 any calculation for good time credit given.
23 Indictment?
39
THE COURT: Count 30 of the Bill of Indictment says
County of Winnebago and State of Illinois, Richard Wanke
said defendant, without lawful justification,
intentionally shot Greg Clark with a firearm, knowing
such acts created a strong probability of death or great
Greg Clark, and during the commission of the offense the
10 defendant personally discharged a firearm that
ll proximately caused the death of Greg Clark, and the state
l3 years of age or older, and the death resulted from
15 wanton cruelty, in violation of Illinois law.
16 This normal sentencing on a murder case is 20 to
17 60 years in the Department of Corrections plus three
18 years Mandatory Supervised Release. Upon proof of the
19 extended sentencing factors that are set forth in Count
2O 3, that would enhance the sentence from 20 years to 45
21 years up to and including natural life.
22 Truth in sentencing applies, which means any
23 sentence given by the court must be served in full,
24 without any calculation for good time credit given.
4O
Do you understand the sentence —— the charge and
the sentencing range in Count 30 of the Bill of
Indictment?
THE COURT: All right.
MS. WELLS: Judge, if I may?
THE COURT: Yes.
MS. WELLS: We also filed a notice of intent to seek
extended term, natural life.
10 One of the Apprendi factors we alleged in that
ll notice is not in the Bill of Indictment. It's paragraph
12 five of that notice that was filed on September 21, so
13 given that you're going through all the sentencing
14 ranges, I did not know if you wanted to address that.
15 THE COURT: I do want to address that. Thank you
16 for bringing it to my attention.
17 MS. WELLS: Do you want me to print it if it's
18 easier for you to locate?
19 THE COURT: She can print it.
2O MS. HITE ROSS: We have it up, Judge, on our screen.
21 THE COURT: I think she can print it. You gave her
22 the date.
23 Do you need her to repeat it?
24 MS. WELLS: September 21 of 2016 is when it was
41
filed.
MR. ZIMMERMAN: Judge, I don't believe we have a
copy of that with us. Is it possible to print a copy?
THE COURT: We'll print another one.
THE COURT: Did you say September 5?
MS. WELLS: September 21.
THE COURT: Twenty—first.
MS. WELLS: Yes.
10 THE COURT: She's having a little trouble finding
ll it.
12 MS. WELLS: I have it on the computer. I can just
13 print it.
14 THE COURT: Oh, yeah, just do that.
15 MS. WELLS: Okay.
16 MR. ZIMMERMAN: Judge, while —— while we're waiting,
17 with regard to what gets read to the jury, it would be
18 our suggestion that just one count, Count 1, for example,
19 be read to the jury.
2O It's our position it's not necessary for the
21 jury to hear each and every factor at that point in time.
22 They'll hear those, obviously, once the jury instruction
23 —- once they get the jury instructions and the verdict
24 forms, but for purposes of reading it to the, you know,
42
potential jurors, it's our position that you can just
read Count 1 to them without any other of the factors
being read to them at that point in time.
THE COURT: Only read Count 1 and not refer to any
other of the counts in the Bill of Indictment?
MR. ZIMMERMAN: Yes.
MS. HITE ROSS: Judge, our position would be the
court should at least apprise the jury of the various
theory under the first degree murder statute that the
10 people have alleged, which would be intentional, knowing,
ll and strong probability.
l2 So, if the court wants to, you know, summarize
13 that, you know, by —— and the court knows how to do it,
14 but by just indicating different ways or different
15 theories, that's fine, but I think that they need to be
16 apprised of that, because, obviously, when you get to
17 jury instructions, they're gonna have multiple ——
18 THE COURT: I think it might be confusing to the
19 jury, just as if I read all 30 counts to them, if I just
20 read one count, and then all of a sudden at the end
21 they're like, whoa, where did these other things come
22 from that were never referred to them.
23 So I would not follow your suggestion, but I
24 would be willing to have you give me further suggestions
43
as to how we can do that, but I don't intend to just
refer to the first count, and that's it.
MR. ZIMMERMAN: Well, ——

THE COURT: If we can't come up with an agreement
about what I'll read, I'll read all 30 counts to them,
but —— but I think we can do exactly what counsel
suggested, that we summarize them and group them
together, you know, come up with a way that will be clear
to the jury that the defendant is being charged with the
10 murder of the one person in different ways, and these
ll different ways include, and then we set forth the
12 factors.
13 MR. ZIMMERMAN: Judge, and I guess what the —— if I
14 understand what the state's suggesting, if the court's
15 not inclined to just read one count, then I think what
16 they're suggesting would be to read Counts 1, 5 and 9,
17 which are the three different ways they've charged the
18 offense, not including all the extending factors.
19 THE COURT: Well, I don't know if they've made that
20 decision or if they're just —— if they're just having
21 conversation about that, too.
22 That's —— I'm not asking either side now to give
23 me your final version on what you want me to read to the
24 jury. I'm just telling you to think about it, and I want
44
something, and I prefer to have your input and assistance
on this, so -— so I'd like all of you to work on that
because I don't want to read all 30 counts to the jury,
but I do think I need to apprise them of the different
ways that this murder is being charged, and some of the
different factors that, of course, apply to each way so
that the jury is not surprised when it comes to time for
deliberations when they go from one count to 30 counts.
I don't want them to think the court added anything
10 throughout the case.
ll You know, they get confused sometimes no matter
12 what we do, but if we told them there's one count of
13 murder, and then at the end they have 30 counts in front
14 of them, I am sure they would have a great deal of
15 confusion as to where those other counts came from, so
16
17 All right. The state has also filed a Notice of
18 Intent to Seek an Extended Term or Natural Life Sentence.
19 You've had a copy of this before, but a copy has just
2O been given to you now at this time, too.
21 In this Notice to seek an extended term or
22 natural life sentence, the people have served you with
23 the Notice of Intent to Seek an Extended Term or Natural
24 Life Sentence in the above—caption case.
45
The state intends to introduce the following
statutory aggravating factor, that the defendant
committed the offense while armed with a firearm.
Fifteen years will be added to the term of imprisonment
imposed by the court.
In three it says the state intends to introduce
the following statutory aggravating factor under the law,
that the defendant during the commission of the offense
personally discharged a firearm, which wOuld add 20 years
10 to any term of imprisonment imposed by the court.
ll In four it says the state intends to introduce
l2 the following statutory aggravating factors under
l3 Illinois law, that the defendant during the commission of
14 the offense, personally discharged a firearm that
15 proximately caused the death of Greg Clark, which would
l6 add 25 years or up to a term of natural life to any term
17 of imprisonment imposed by the court.
18 Five said that under Illinois law this offense
19 is a felony alleged to be committed against —— well, it
20 said this is a felony committed against a person 60 years
21 of age or older at the time of the offense, which would
22 extend the term applicable under the sentencing range up
23 from 60 to 100 years in the Department of Corrections.
24 Number six says that the defendant —— under
46
Illinois law the defendant committed the murder with the
intent to prevent the murdered individual from testifying
or participating in any criminal investigation or
prosecution either against the defendant or another.
Participating in any criminal investigation or
prosecution is intended to include those appearing in the
proceedings in any capacity such as trial judges,
prosecutors or defense attorneys, investigators,
witnesses or jurors.
10 Proof of this sentencing factor would increase
11 the sentencing range up to 60 years to natural life.
12 Number seven says under Illinois law the murder
13 was committed in a cold, calculated and premeditated
14 manner pursuant to a preconceived plan, scheme or design
15 to take a human life by any unlawful means, and the
16 conduct of the defendant created a reasonable expectation
17 that the death of a human being would result therefrom.
18 This would —— this —— proof of this would make
19 you eligible for extended term 60 years to a natural life
20 sentence.
21 Under Count 8 it says the murdered individual
22 was 60 years of age or older and the death resulted from
24 wanton cruelty, which would make you eligible for an
47
extended term of 60 years to natural life upon proof of
those factors.
So the Notice of Intent to Seek an Extended Term
or Natural Life Sentence has been read to the defendant,
and the defendant is on notice.
MS. WELLS: Thank you, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. So the court needs to review
then this 34th motion in limine. I'll try to get that
done as quickly as possible.
10 I've got the list of witnesses. I want the
ll defense to look through them and make sure that's
12 complete, too. I think the state has done that, a
l3 complete list here. That includes everyone, but just
14 take a moment to look at it because, of course, that will
15 be passed out to the jurors. The -—
l6 MS. WELLS: Judge, in 34 I believe you've ruled on
17 everything but paragraph 18.
18 THE COURT: Yeah.
19 MS. WELLS: I just wanted to remind you of that, so
20
21 THE COURT: I appreciate that because, you know, it
22 has been quite some time since we've
23 MS. WELLS: Yes.
24 MS. HITE ROSS: And, Judge, there were pages three,
48
four, and five referred to in paragraph 18, so I asked
your bailiff to copy those pages for the court, as well.
THE COURT: And they have been copied and have been
added to this.
MS. HITE ROSS: Thank you, your Honor.
THE COURT: So we'll set this over.
All right. Any surprise with the witnesses,
we're bringing in extra jurors, so I want to make sure we
don't have any last minute surprises. Everything seems
10 to be fine now. I know sometimes things come up at the
11 last minute, but everything is fine from both the state
12 and the defense with scheduling the trial?
13 MR. ZIMMERMAN: Yes.
14 THE COURT: All right. So take a look at it and see
15 on your calendar what you think. I think we should
16 probably try to just do the jury the first week and then
17 start with the actual trial testimony the second week.
18 I want you to schedule your witnesses heavy
19 because I intend to move a lot and go quickly through
2O this matter, so I don't want to have a situation where
21 2:30 in the afternoon the attorneys say we have our next
22 witness scheduled for tomorrow morning. I don't want
23 that to happen.
24 MS. HITE ROSS: Understood, your Honor.
49
THE COURT: So by giving you this time to schedule
the witnesses, definitely we should be able to move as
quickly as possible.
I anticipate we'll be able to finish the trial
the week of February 27.
Do the parties agree with the court's
assessment?
MR. BRUN: Your Honor, if we were to start our
evidence on the Monday of the 27th, we'll certainly have
10 all witnesses available. I would expect depending upon
ll the defense case we could easily flow into the following
12 week, however. Again, I'm not sure how many witnesses
13 they propose.
14 Your Honor, I did have one other question
15 regarding —— an issue recently came up before Judge
16 Engelsma regarding jury selection and availability of
17 jurors on Thursday of that week.
18 Does the court propose or do you know if there
19 will be jurors ——
20 THE COURT: It's a short week. Because of that, we
21 do have jurors available on Thursday.
22 MR. BRUN: Thank you very much.
23 THE COURT: So normally they don't call them in on
24 Thursday, but we do. Our Thursday of that week is
50
actually a Wednesday.
So now we won't have jurors available for Friday
unless I ask for jurors, but, frankly, after watching our
hearing about the jury selection in the recent case that
you did that got a lot of publicity and fairly recent
publicity, I feel much more confident that we are going
to be able to quickly pick a jury without a lot of issues
of pretrial publicity. This case is older and hasn't
received the same level of publicity I think as the other
10 case, at least that's my assessment. I could be wrong,
ll but
12 MS. HITE ROSS: What I -— What I will share with the
l3 court is I think one of —— and I don't think either side
14 anticipated it would have taken that long to get the
15 jury, neither defense or the state or the judge, but
16 there was like recent re—interest in the case, ~-
17 THE COURT: Uh—huh.
18 MS. HITE ROSS: —- and I'm just sharing that with
19 the court and COunsel, and I think that's what generated
2O the length in selecting the jurors.
21 THE COURT: And that always, unfortunately, happens.
22 Right before a jury trial the media starts bringing it
23 back up again, so that's always a problem.
24 But —- all right. I do anticipate we should be
51
able to finish, so we go through witnesses, I don't take
a lot of recesses. I'll take recesses. I've shortened
up lunch hours just so you know now so it's not a
surprise to you, so we'll try to get in as many as we can
as quickly as we can, and so if we do go over, we
probably would just go over maybe one day for argument or
something but probably not. I don't know. We‘ll see.
We'll see how it goes.
The next week, that is a jury week for me, so I
10 have more cases starting then, so I'm sure you do, too.
ll All right. So let's bring you all back and see
12 how things are going, and I'll get through this other
13 stuff with you.
14 How about —— is Thursday, February 9, an option
15 for you?
16 MS. WELLS: We already have two dates set, your
17 Honor.
18 THE COURT: Okay. What are those dates?
19 MS. WELLS: We have the 15th at 1:30, and we have
20 the 17th at 2:30.
21 THE COURT: All right. Do you want an earlier date
22 or —— because I could also set it February 9 if you
23 wanted, but you may be busy then. I don't know.
24 MS. HITE ROSS: That will be fine with the state,
52
Judge. I prefer an earlier date because the closer we
get to trial, things may come up, so
THE COURT: Is the defense team available on
February 9 in the afternoon?
MR. ZIMMERMAN: Yes, Judge, yes.
THE COURT: I can also do it in the morning
actually. That's a jury week for me, and I expect to be
done, but I prefer to set things in the afternoon just if
I do have a jury trial going.
10 MS. HITE ROSS: Judge, if we do the afternoon, could
ll we do after 3:30 ——
12 THE COURT: Yes.
l3 MS. HITE ROSS: —— or thereabouts?
14 THE COURT: How about 3:30 or I could set it in the
15 morning?
16 MS. HITE ROSS: I'm open in the morning.
17 MR. SIMMONS: Your Honor, I don't anticipate the
18 trial we have set next week will last until Thursday.
19 THE COURT: Okay.
2O MR. SIMMONS: I don't think that will be an issue.
21 THE COURT: Well, let's set it for the morning then.
22 MR. ZIMMERMAN: I have three matters at 8:30. Could
23 I we do it at 9:30?
24 THE COURT: Sure or 10:00. I mean I can do it
53
whenever. I don't have anything set Thursday morning
right now, so
MR. ZIMMERMAN: Whatever works.
THE COURT: You want 9:30 or 10:00?
MR. ZIMMERMAN: 9:30 is fine.
THE COURT: Okay. 9:30 available?
MS. WELLS: I have a case over in D. Can we do
10:00 or 10:30?
THE COURT: Sure.
10 MS. WELLS: And that way I know I'll be able to make
ll it back.
12 THE COURT: All right. Let's say 10:30.
13 MS. HITE ROSS: Thank you, your Honor.
14 THE COURT: And then actually we'll say on the jail
15 order 10 00. Actually, we'll say on the jail order 9:30,
16 so that way the jail will bring over, and then you'll
17 have ample opportunity to speak to him before we actually
18 start the proceedings, so won't have to wait to give you
19 time to talk him.
20 MS. HITE ROSS: Okay.

21 THE COURT: So we'll have —~ Mr. Wanke will be here
22 at 9 30. It will say 9:30 on the docket, -—
23 MS. WELLS: Yes, ma'am.
24 THE COURT: —— but we understand.
54
MS. WELLS: And Jamie will notify me in D if I'm
running late, but I should be here by 10:30 easily.
Thank you.
THE COURT: All right. Is there any other matters
to take care of today before we recess for the day?
MS. HITE ROSS: No, your Honor.
THE COURT: Mr. Wanke, anything?
THE DEFENDANT WANKE: No.
THE COURT: I'm sorry. I just didn't hear.
10 THE DEFENDANT WANKE: NO.
ll THE COURT: No. All right. Thank you.
12 MR. ZIMMERMAN: Thank you, Judge.
l3 THE COURT: Uh—huh.
14 (Defendant remanded.)
15 (Which were all the proceedings of record heard
16 in this cause on this date.)
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
55
STATE OF ILLINOIS
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 17TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
COUNTY OF WINNEBAGO
C E R T I F I C A T E
I, Joyce M. Olson, CSR, RPR, Official Court
Reporter, Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, State of
Illinois, do hereby certify that I reported in stenograph
the testimony given at the hearing of the said cause, and
that the foregoing transcript is a true and correct
transcription of my stenographic notes so taken as
10 aforesaid, and contains all the testimony given at the
ll hearing of the said cause to the best of my ability.
l2 I further certify that I am not connected by blood
13 or marriage to any of the parties in this action, nor am
14 I a relative or employee or attorney or counsel of any of
15 the parties, nor am I a relative or employee of such
16 attorney or counsel, or financially interested in said
17 action, or interested directly or indirectly in the
18 matter in controversy.
19 IN WITNESS WHEREOF I have hereunto set my hand
2O this 28th day of June, A.D., 2017.
21
22 ﬂit... 777 //w

Oigﬂal Court ReporterW
23
24
56

02-01-17 Transcript Case 922

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

02-01-17 Transcript Case 922

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

STATE OF ILLINOIS

THE PEOPLE OF THE

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS at the hearing of the

above-entitTed cause before the HonorabTe ROSEMARY

THE COURT: All right. We're on the record on

People versus Richard Wanke.

I'm sorry. You've all been very patiently

waiting since 1:30, but I just finished my 1:30 call.

Before we go any further, the court reporter

that is in the courtroom today is on the list of

witnesses, so what I need to know is if the parties wish

10 me to get another court reporter because the list of

ll witnesses, obviously, I had entered an order saying the

12 witnesses should be barred from all these matters, and,

13 you know, I know, at least I‘m pretty confident as to why

14 she's listed as a witness. I think it's more in line

15 with her official duties as opposed to any other issue,

16 but we do have other court reporters available.

17 So I need to have a statement from each side if

18 they wish this court reporter to be replaced for the

19 purposes of today's hearing with another court reporter

20 or if they waive any Such issue and understand that that

21 would be waiving it.

22 She won't be taking the trial, but that would be

23 waiving it for trial. They can't —— no party will be

24 able to object to her testifying then because she was

So if you want a minute to talk about that with

Mr. Wanke, that would be fine.

(Whereupon a discussion was had off the record.)

THE COURT: Let me know when you're ready so I don't

just sit up here and not know if you're ready.

(Whereupon a discussion was had off the record.)

MR. ZIMMERMAN: Unless I'm missing it, I see several

court reporters on the list, but I don't see this

10 particular court reporter.

12 so I assume she knows.

13 MR. BRUN: Also, for the court's understanding, the

14 last court date the court requested a comprehensive

15 witness list including the judges that were —— that have

l6 been part of this. That has been completed, and Ms.

17 Olson's name is on this witness list. I have provided

18 this to counsel, provide the court's courtesy copy.

19 THE COURT: Thank you very much.

20 So this is my curtesy copy?

21 MR. BRUN: Yes.

22 THE COURT: Thank you.

23 MR. ZIMMERMAN: I do see it, Judge. I'm sorry.

24 (Whereupon a discussion was had off the record.)

THE COURT: State.

MS. HITE ROSS: No objection.

THE COURT: All right. Then this court reporter

will be able to remain for this session. She will be my

court reporter for the month of February, but as I said,

she's not going to be the court reporter for the trial.

I already have those court reporters scheduled, and the

court reporters we have for the trial on none of the

10 court reporters who have been listed as witnesses.

ll So we're here today to argue the people's

12 amended 34th motion in limine, the motion to admit

13 statements of the defendant.

14 There maybe another thing that I can't remember.

15 It's been a while since we've been here.

l6 The Bill of Indictment I did want to talk to you

17 about. I'm going to read the Bill of Indictment to the