1

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
STATE OF ILLINOIS
COUNTY OF COO K
)
)
)
SS.
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS
COUNTY DEPARTMENT - CRIMINAL DIVISION
THE PEOPLE OF THE )
STATE OF ILLINOIS )
)
vs. ) 10 CR 8092
) 08 CR 10502
ANNABEL MELONGO )
REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS
BE IT REMEMBERED that on the 12th day of
January, 2011, this cause came on for hearing
before the Honorable MARY M. BROSNAHAN, Judge of
said Court, upon the indictment herein, the
Defendant having entered a plea of not guilty.
APPEARANCES:
HON. ANITA M. ALVAREZ, State's
Attorney of Cook County, BY:
MR. ROBERT PODLASEK,
MS. JULIE GUNNIGLE AND
MR. LUKA JANKOVIC (711 Student),
Assistant State's Attorneys,
on behalf of the People;
MR. NICK ALBUKERK and
MR . MATT PRENGAMAN,
on behalf of the Defendant.
ROBERT J. MADOCH
Official Court Reporter
Circuit Court of Cook County
County Department - Criminal Division
C.S.R. 84-1194
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
I N D E X
People v Annabel Melongo
DATE: January 12, 2011
PAGES: 1 through 200
VOIR DIRE
Opening Statement By Ms. Gunnigle 175
Opening Statement By Mr. Albukerk 184
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
THE CLERK: Annabel Melongo.
THE COURT: Good morning. Annabel Melongo
is present, dressed in civilian clothes, pursuant
to the order.
Counsel, your name.
MR. PODLASEK: For the record, Robert
Podlasek.
MS. GUNNIGLE: Julie Gunnigle.
MR . JANKOVIC: Luka Jankovic, practicing
under Supreme Court Rule 711 .
MR. ALBUKERK: For the record, Nick
Albukerk.
THE COURT: This matter is set down for
jury trial. The parties have informally off the
record indicated they are both ready to proceed.
That is still the case?
MR. ALBUKERK: Right .
MR . PODLASEK: Yes.
THE COURT: Any preliminary issues or
motions before we get started?
MR. PODLASEK: One motion in limine, Judge.
I've already tendered a copy to Counsel.
MR . ALBUKERK: Can I have one second?
(Brief pause.)
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
MR. ALBUKERK: Judge, I have received that
motion in limine today. I have reviewed it. I
would object. The only part of it I would object
to --
THE COURT: Let me take it one by one, so
the record is clear. With respect to the motion in
limine, point one, the State is asking the defense
be precluded from making any reference to possible
sentencing or punishment options if the Defendant
is convicted. Do you intend on doing that, sir?
MR. ALBUKERK: Judge, you know, the only
thing I might do is make a reference that this is a
felony. And that, you know, potentially it could
result in consequences for her, maybe deportation
or worse.
THE COURT: I'm going to preclude you from
doing that. I think case law is very clear you
cannot make any reference to sentencing and
punishment. That is obviously the purview of the
Court, should there be a finding of guilt.
In the closing instructions that is
one of the paragraphs and one of the points of law
I instruct the jury on. They are not to consider
possible punishment. Not to weigh in their
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
decision.
Certainly, we're in a felony
courtroom. They will know it is a felony. They
know that. Beyond that, I'm going to preclude you
from making comments regarding immigration
consequences, time in jail, etc. Nothing of that
nature.
Point one is going to be granted, in
part, over defense objection.
Number two, they are asking the
defense be prohibited from introducing defendant's
prior statements through her testimony or
examination of witnesses. I guess if you choose
to call Miss Melongo to the stand, certainly she
can testify.
MR. ALBUKERK: Right.
THE COURT: I wouldn't make any rulings what
she can or can't say. It appears to me the State
is asking you be precluded from buttressing her
in-court testimony with prior consistent
statements. If she said the same thing to other
people.
Am I reading that right?
MR. PODLASEK: Yes, your Honor.
5
----
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
MR. ALBUKERK: To that extent, I don't
object. The law is clear on that point. However,
I think the way it is written, it may go further.
We certainly -- There are e-mails,
there are other statements between parties that I
may have to use in cross examination on certain
witnesses. I know formally I have spoken to the
State. It sounds like it is not going to come up.
For the record, I would reserve the
right to use, you know, previous statements of my
client, if they were with other witnesses, to
cross examine those other witnesses.
MR. PODLASEK: I'm not sure I understand what
Counsel is saying.
MR. ALBUKERK: In other words, let's say I
had to impeach a witness. The way I would impeach
that witness, I would have to read both my
client's previous statement and that witnesses
statement, because it would be an interchange,
back and forth.
THE COURT: So I am clear, you are talking
about a conversation ongoing basically during the
course of the entire eavesdropping, while the case
is going on. Nothing post arrest.
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
MR. ALBUKERK: Nothing post arrest.
Everything would be before the arrest. You know,
around the time.
In other words, if there was a
witness which, you know, said something to my
client, which, you know, bore on my client's
understanding of what was going on, you know,
as far as the criminal activity that she is
alleged to--
THE COURT: The one simple point we already
addressed, you have no objection to not introducing
through Miss Melongo, should she choose to take the
stand any of her own prior consistent statements.
MR. ALBUKERK: Correct.
THE COURT: That will be granted, without
objection. That's regarding Defendant on the
stand. And prior consistent statements of
Defendant.
There seems then another part. I
don't know if the State is addressing that. Are
you talking about, State, any communications by
Miss Melongo via e-mail or anything on tape, etc.?
MR. PODLASEK: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: You are going to ask he be
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
precluded from using that? Isn't that part of the
case though, what she said and how she went about
the eavesdropping.
MR. PODLASEK: The e-mails that are
pre-eavesdropping. I have no objection to the ones
post eavesdropping. We have many objections
because they go to the other case, which your Honor
already told us we can't comment on.
THE COURT: Here's the thing. I can't rule
in a vacuum. I don't know what the witnesses are
going to testify to. So, State, you are not
intending on getting into any of those e-mails.
MR. PODLASEK: No.
THE COURT: At all.
MR. PODLASEK: No.
THE COURT: On any level. Post charge, pre
charge, anything she said to the victim in this
case. No conversations at all.
MR. PODLASEK: She didn't send any to the
victim. The only thing is conversations that were
recorded.
THE COURT: Okay. Defense, if you feel some
point it is relevant, during cross examination of
any of these witnesses, to touch upon any of the
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
e-mails, I'm going to require you ask for a side
bar.
MR. ALBUKERK: Okay.
THE COURT: I'll deal with it at that time
and give you my ruling then. Right now, I'm not
quite clear on what the testimony is going to be.
I don't know if they would be relevant or not.
Number three, the State is asking that
you be precluded from arguing personal opinions or
telling personal stories.
Did you intend on doing either of
those?
MR. ALBUKERK: I didn't.
THE COURT: Okay. Number three will be
granted then without objection.
MR. ALBUKERK: I hope I have some leeway in
closing argument, of course. I mean if you are
talking about the testimony, obviously not.
THE COURT: All right, I'll grant it without
objection.
Number four, that you be prohibited
from making any reference to possible ongoing
investigations. Through her testimony or
examination of witnesses. Is there any ongoing
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
investigation?
MR. PODLASEK: That we don't know, Judge.
MR. ALBUKERK: Well
MR. PODLASEK: There i s going to be - -
MR. ALBUKERK: Well, the truth of the matter
i s we don't know. We have been told that the
attorney general is looking into save a life
foundation. Of course, that covers your previous
ruling, saying we can't go into the eavesdropping,
the tampering case.
THE COURT: Neither of you are aware whether
or not it is going on. I'm not going to allow
anybody to comment on it. It wouldn't be relevant.
Nobody even knows if that is happening. I don't
see how it bears on this case. I'm going to grant
number four.
MR. PODLASEK: If I can make one observation
on number four. There is going to be, to my
understanding, a defense witness who is an FBI
agent. If Counsel were to ask that FBI agent are
there any ongoing investigations on --
MR. ALBUKERK: I'm not.
MR. PODLASEK: I'm not at liberty would be
the answer, mostly likely.
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
THE COURT: My rule is clear. I'm not
allowing anyone to get into it. If you have a
witness, warn him. I don't want it spilling out by
accident. I don't care if there is an ongoing
investigation. It is not linked to this case. I
don't want anybody talking about it by accident.
Please, you have the FBI agent that
possibly is testifying for you, you need to
admonish him, I don't want that coming out, period,
about ongoing investigations.
MR. ALBUKERK: She's already informed me.
Her name is Depooter. She's already informed me
she's not allowed to go into any of that. She's
not going to let it slip. Not going to be a
problem.
THE COURT: I don't want that answer, I
can't talk about it. Believing there is a lot to
talk about that I'm not at liberty to tell you.
Don't go there at all.
MR. ALBUKERK: Okay.
MR. PODLASEK: Second housekeeping, we do
have a stipulation we'd 1 i ke to read to the jury.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. PODLASEK: We'd 1 ike to make copies of
11
it
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
and present it to the jury.
THE COURT: Defense, any objection to this?
MR. ALBUKERK: I've gone over it. And the
problem is I haven't had a chance to go over it
with my client. I believe it is now only factual
that I --
THE COURT: All right, here's what I'll do.
We can deal with this after my opening remarks to
the jury. Here's what I'd like to do. I'll give
you a chance to go through it with her. And then
MR. PODLASEK: There is a problem. We're
going to not be allowed to use the stipulation,
we'll need a date because we need more witnesses.
We worked on this between ourselves.
MR. ALBUKERK: Right. Unfortunately, I had
a lot of trouble. I tried to get to visit her
several times. They barred me. Cook County barred
me a couple times.
THE COURT: Take time right now. I know you
have been working on stipulations. I assume there
is not a problem with it. Of course, I'm going to
allow you to go through that with Miss Melongo.
I'll bring you back out in ten minutes.
MR. ALBUKERK: Thank you.
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Judge.
MR. PODLASEK: We do have a witness list.
THE COURT: All right.
(Whereupon the above
entitled cause was
passed, after which the
following proceedings
were had outside the
presence and hearing
of the jury:)
THE CLERK: Melongo.
MR. ALBUKERK: We do have a stipulation,
THE COURT: Back on the record with
Mr. Albukerk. All parties are present in Court.
With respect to the stipulation, it is
basically a two-page stipulation with signatures on
page number three. Any changes or corrections to
it, typos, anything you saw.
MR. ALBUKERK: We did put a few little ones
in there. I initialed it. We added a little
something.
THE COURT: All right, we do have that
stipulation. With respect to the witness list, the
State has possibly four witnesses. Wo that you
13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
listed, of course, other than possibly Miss
Melongo.
MR. ALBUKERK: Correct.
THE COURT: Did you have motions in limine
we have to address?
MR. ALBUKERK: One moment. My client does
want me to make a motion regarding her earrings.
She would like to have her earrings, to be able to
wear those earrings. She believes it will help
her presentation before this jury.
THE COURT: Okay . It is my understanding,
and we do have a deputy. I may ask our deputy, as
Miss Melongo is in custody, there are certain
requirements that the sheriff has to follow with
respect to the Cook County Department of
Corrections guidelines. And it is my understanding
that one of those guidelines is that defendants in
custody, females or males , cannot have earrings.
Am I right?
DEPUTY MORENO: You a re co r rect . I checked
with my supervisor , Sergeant Widarza.
THE COURT: Your name for the record?
DEPUTY MORENO: Alice Moreno.
THE COURT: Okay. That's our regular deputy
14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
in the courtroom. Based on that, it is one of the
policies of the Cook County Department of
Corrections, I find that it will have no bearing
one way or the other on her appearance in front of
the jury.
I would note she has on a beautiful
light pick silk shirt and a very tailored and
professional looking business suit, dark gray or
black, pin stripe. She looks pretty much like a
lawyer. So, I don't think that earrings one way or
the other are going to effect the outcome of this
case. Your motion to have her wear the earrings
or any jewelry will be respectfully denied.
MR. ALBUKERK: If I can have one more
minute.
THE COURT: Sure.
MR. ALBUKERK: Judge, the only other thing
we need to cover, this is something we brought up
to you before. That is that we have a non IPI jury
instruction, which is really pretty instrumental in
the case. It encompasses the defense.
I don't know if you have a copy of it.
I'd like to be able to give that to you to look at.
If nothing else, to consider eventually. You will
15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
have to rule on it.
THE COURT: If you have it, I'll take it
under advisement. Also, pursuant to statute, which
is 720 ILCS 5/14-5, under the eavesdropping section
of the statute, it talks about evidence being
admissible. It goes on to basically say that
evidence of eavesdropping can't be permitted in any
type of administrative court, civil or criminal
proceeding, without it being determined as a matter
of law by the Court in chambers that it is clearly
relevant to the proof of the allegations.
Therefore, it would be admitted.
So, during the lunch break, I will
listen to the proffered recording, eavesdropping,
and discuss specifically what part or if all
parties will be admissible.
Let he just get the position of the
parties, since you heard the conversation. Of
course, I haven't. State, what are you seeking to
be admitted with respect to the conversations you
are going to be tendering to me?
MR. PODLASEK: We would seek to admit the
three phone conversations recorded between Miss
Melongo and Pamela Taylor.
16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
In addition, there is a message left,
I believe by Pam Taylor, on Miss Melongo's
voicemail or some kind of recording device, which
preceded these three phone conversations. We can
probably put those in for continuity.
THE COURT: Are you in agreement with the
State's position?
MR. ALBUKERK: Yes, Judge.
THE COURT: All right. Then I will take
that under advisement and here would be my plan for
selecting the jury. They should be up momentarily.
It is now twelve o'clock. I'll bring
them in, give my opening remarks. Probably takes
thirty minutes, give or take. Thirty to forty
minutes. I'll send them to lunch.
We'll then have the cards. They will
be numbered one through fifty or however many we
get. The parties will be provided a list of the
jurors. And in what order we'll be getting them.
That will be there on the list.
I shuffle the cards personally and
they go numbered one through whatever. Say fifty.
They are put on so you know who is coming. I'm
going to seat them twenty at a time in front of me
17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
and talk to them in panels of twenty.
I'll do the general questions. Pretty
much I go through the jury cards. I'll tender the
first panel to the State for followup questions.
You will get followup questions next.
With the second panel, if we don't get
our jury, the followup questions will start with
you first. We go in the back. Miss Melongo will
be in the back. We'll pick in panels of four. No
back strikes. The first panel will be tendered to
the State . You can keep challenging until you are
satisfied with the panel. Then it goes to the
defense. You will then get to dismiss anybody.
We'll proceed that way. Seven strikes per side.
MR. ALBUKERK: Seven?
THE COURT: Seven strikes per side.
MR. PODLASEK: All right .
THE COURT: The parties are in agreement
then. Anybody have any questions? If you have
something you want to be heard on, let me know.
If I deny it, I'll let you make a record when we
take a break. The parties are confident we'll
finish tomorrow completely?
MR. ALBUKERK: I would think so.
18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
THE COURT: When I'm talking to the jurors
about the schedule, the plan is to select today, do
opening and possibly stipulations and possibly even
a State witness, depending on how fast we move.
Then if you are ready with your witnesses,
depending on how fast we go, we can do that. We
should finish tomorrow without a doubt then.
MR. ALBUKERK: Yes.
MR. PODLASEK: When would you anticipate
coming back tomorrow?
THE COURT: You know, actually ten-thirty.
That will give me time to get through the regular
call.
MR. ALBUKERK : I told my witnesses to be
here at one-thirty tomorrow.
THE COURT: I think that will be --
MR. ALBUKERK: I can call them and tell them
different. I assumed they would take the first
part of the day. We'd take the second part of the
day. Maybe you can check back with them. But we'll
see. A lot of this we're talking in a vacuum. I
don't know how long it will take to pick. We
finish quickly , then we should be able to get at
least opening and a State witness and stipulation
19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
in without a problem. That's if you pick quickly.
If it goes longer, that may change.
MR. PODLASEK: How long do you normally go,
Judge?
THE COURT: If we're not going to argue, we
can go to six. If we have to go longer, we can.
I don't have any constraints.
MS. GUNNIGLE: I have a child care conflict.
If we can break at five or 5:15. I apologize.
THE COURT: We can do that. We'll move
through jury selection and see where we're at.
MR. PODLASEK: As far as the CD, Judge,
these are all part of one large file.
know if you want
I don't
THE COURT: Here's what I'll do.
MR. PODLASEK: We do have a transcript.
THE COURT: Give me the CD as well as the
transcript to review. I'd ask when I break for
lunch, after opening, that the parties stay in the
courtroom for a few moments to make sure I don't
have any technical difficulties getting it to play.
Our deputy is here. I take it we have
the jurors in the hallway. Now I need to see the
cards. Everybody take a seat at Counsel table.
20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
MR. ALBUKERK: Thank you, Judge.
THE COURT: State, there are currently six
counts in the indictment. Are you going to be
proceeding on all six counts?
MS. GUNNIGLE: We are, Judge.
THE COURT: Ready? Let's bring in the
jurors.
THE COURT:
(Whereupon the following
proceedings were had in
the presence and hearing
of the jury:)
Good afternoon, ladies and
gentlemen. My name is Mary Margaret Brosnahan.
I'm the Circuit Judge presiding over the jury you
were called here for today.
Counsel, if I could just ask you,
please, could you move that to the side so I can
see some of the jurors.
MR. ALBUKERK: Sorry.
THE COURT: This is obviously a criminal
case, folks, since we are in the criminal court's
building. The People of the State of Illinois are
represented by two Assistant State's Attorneys,
prosecutors. At this time, State, I'd ask you to
21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
please introduce yourselves, as well as any members
of your team you want to introduce to the jury.
MR. PODLASEK: Good afternoon, ladies and
gentlemen. My name is Robert Podlasek. I'm an
Assistant State's Attorney.
To my left is my partner, Julie
Gunnigle. Luka, stand up.
MR. JANKOVIC: Luka Jankovic. I'm a law
clerk.
THE COURT: The Defendant in this case is
represented by a defense attorney. Counsel,
please introduce yourself as well as your client to
the jury.
MR. ALBUKERK: Good morning. My name is
Nick Albukerk . I'm defending Annabel Melongo.
THE COURT: Thank you.
Ladies and gentlemen, the Defendant is
charged as follows: The grand jurors, selected,
sworn, in and before the County of Cook and State
of Illinois, in the name and by the authority of
the People of the State of Illinois, upon their
oaths present that on or about December 15, 2009
continuing on through December 21, 2009, at and
within the County of of Cook, Annabel Melongo
22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
committed the offense of eavesdropping without
consent, in that she knowingly and intentionally
used an eavesdropping device, to wit: An audio
recording device for the purpose of recording a
conversation, to wit: Recording a conversation
conducted by telephone between Annabel K. Melongo
and Pamela Taylor of the Cook County Court
Reporter's office, and without the consent of all
parties to such conversations, and without
authorization provided by article 108A, or Article
108B of the code of criminal procedure of 1963,
approved August 14, 1963 as amended in violation of
Chapter 720, Act 5, Section 14-2A1 of the Illinois
Compiled Statutes 1992 as amended and contrary to
the statute and against the peace and dignity of
the same People of the State of Illinois.
It is further alleged that on or
about December 15, 2009, continuing on through
December 21, 2009, at and within the County of
Cook, Annabel K. Melongo committed the offense of
eavesdropping without consent in that she
knowingly and intentionally used an eavesdropping
device, to wit: An audio recording device, for
the purpose of recording a conversation, to wit:
23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Recording a conversation conducted by telephone
between Annabel K. Melongo and Pam Taylor of the
Cook County Court Reporter's office and without
consent of all parties to such conversations and
without authorization provide by Article 108A or
Article 108B of the Code of criminal procedure of
1963, approved August 14 , 1963 as amended, in
violation of Chapter 720 , Act 5, Section 4-2A1 of
the Illinois compiled statutes, 1992 as amended and
contrary to the statute and against the peace and
dignity of the same People of the State of
Illinois.
It is further alleged that on or about
December 15, 2009 and continuing on --
back up.
Let me
On or about December 15, 2009 and
continuing on through December 21, 2009, at and
within the County of Cook, Annabel Melongo
committed the offense of eavesdropping without
consent in that she knowingly and intentionally
used an eavesdropping device, to wit: An audio
recording device for the purpose of recording a
conversation , to wit: Recording a conversation
conducted by telephone between Annabel K. Melongo
24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
and Pamela Taylor of the Cook County Court
Reporter's office , and without the consent of all
parties to such conversation and without
authorization provide by Article 108A or Article
108 B of the code of criminal procedure of 1963,
approved August 14, 1963 as amended, in violation
of Chapter 720, Act 5, Section 14-2A1 of the
Illinois compiled statutes, 1992 as amended and
contrary to the statute and against the peace and
dignity of the same People of the State of
Illinois.
It is further alleged that on or about
December 15, 2009, and continuing on through
December 21, 2009, at and within the County of Cook
Annabel K. Melongo committed the offense of
eavesdropping, divulging information in that she
used or divulged any information which she knew or
reasonably should have known was obtained through
the use of an eavesdropping device, to wit:
Divulge an audio recording of conversations between
Annabel K. Melongo and Pamela Taylor of the Cook
County Court Reporter's office in the form of an
audio file and accompanying transcript and
published said file and transcript on the web site
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
www.Illinoiscorruption.net. knowing such a
recording was obtained without Pamela Taylor's
consent and without authorization provided by
article 108A or Article 108B of the code of
criminal procedure of 1963, approved August 4, 1963
as amended in violation of Chapter 720, Act 5,
Section 14-2A3 of the Illinois compiled statutes,
1992 as amended and contrary to the statute and
against the peace and dignity of the same People of
the State of Illinois.
It is further alleged that on or about
December 15, 2009 and continuing on through
December 21, 2009 at and within the County of Cook,
Annabel K. Melongo committed the offense of
eavesdropping, divulging information in she used or
divulged any information which she knew or
reasonably should have known was obtained through
the use of an eavesdropping device, to wit:
Divulged an audio recording of a conversation
between Annabel K. Melongo and Pamela Taylor of the
Cook County Court Reporter's office in the form of
an audio file and accompanying transcript and
published said file and transcript to the web site,
www.Illinoiscorruption.net. knowing such a
26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
recording was obtained without Pamela Taylor's
consent and without authorization provided by
Article 108A or Article 108B of the code of
criminal procedure of 1963, approved August 14,
1963 as amended, in violation of Chapter 720, Act
5, Section 14-2A3 of the Illinois compiled
statutes, 1992 as amended and contrary to the
statute and against the peace and dignity of the
same People of the State of Illinois.
It is lastly alleged that on or about
December 15, 2009 and continuing on through
December 21, 2009 at and within the County of Cook,
Annabel K. Melongo committed the offense of
eavesdropping, divulging information in that she
informed or divulged any information which she knew
or reasonably should have known was obtained
through the use of an eavesdropping device, to wit:
Divulged an audio recording of a conversation
between Annabel K. Melongo and Pamela Taylor of
the Cook County Court Reporter's office in the form
of an audio file and accompanying transcript and
published said file and transcripts to the web site
www.Illinoiscorruption.net. knowing that such
recording was obtained without Pamela Taylor's
27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
consent and without authorization provided by
Article 108A or Article 108B of the code of
criminal procedure of 1963 , approved August 14,
1963 as amended in violation of Chapter 720, Act 5,
Section 1402A3 of the Illinois compiled statutes,
1992 as amended and contrary to the statute and
against the peace and dignity of the same people
of the State of Illinois.
The Defendant has pleaded not guilty .
At this time I'm going to read a list
of possible witnesses who may be called to testify.
I'm going to ask you to raise your hand if you
believe you know any of these witnesses . For those
of you on my far left, some of you I can't see,
maybe the last couple of people. That's okay. But
if you want to raise your hand and I'm missing
it, I'm going to ask you climb over and make sure I
don't miss it.
Here are possible witnesses that may
be called to testify. Cook County State's
Attorney's Office investigator Kate O'Hara, Pamela
Taylor, James Flood, Assistant State's Attorney
Paul Chevlin, Court Reporter Laurel Laudien, Dana
Depooter from the FBI, Robyn Suklao, who worked for
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
the clerk's office. Please raise your hand if you
think you may know any of those folks.
No hands are up, indicating for the
record nobody has their hand up.
At this time I want to let you know
how the day is going to go. I'm going to talk with
you now about jury service in general. Before we
actually get into the individual questioning of you
folks, I'm going to take a lunch break. You will
be allowed to go and get a bite to eat. When you
come back we'll start with the actual jury
selection.
The reason we bring you over before
twelve, they give you a long lunch over there,
about an hour and a half. By the time we get you
again, it is close to two o'clock and it really
delays the day. This will speed it up some
fashion.
I want to talk with you now about the
qualifications to act as a juror and tell you that
you do have them. This call upon your time does
not come frequently, but it is a part of your duty
and obligations as a citizen of the United States
of America.
29
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Nobody should avoid fulfilling their
jury service except under the most pressing of
circumstances. I'll give you an idea of what I
consider to be a pressing circumstance.
If you got one of those hospital tests
scheduled in the next couple of days that takes two
or three months to get in, again, if you have proof
or a phone number if the attorneys need to verify,
let me know about something like that. You have
non refundable plane tickets for a trip and you
have them with you, there is a number that can be
called and you are going to be going the next
couple of days, let me know about that.
Other than those typo of scenarios,
there is nothing too much that would qualify as a
pressing circumstance.
Service on a jury affords each of you
the opportunity to be part of the administration of
justice. The way in which the legal affairs of
your fellow citizens are carried out here in this
building on a daily basis.
Now, I'll make every effort to make
sure that we don't waste your time. We'll move the
case along as quickly as possible. To that end I
30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
talked with the attorneys about the length of time
they anticipate this case taking. I know some of
you have followed cases in federal court that have
been going on the past year. They go on for months
and months at a time. It is not unusual for cases
in this building to sometimes go on for weeks at a
time.
By those standards this is a very
short case. It does not lessen itself for either
side. The attorneys have indicated to me that they
believe the case is going to go to the jury for
deliberations no later than some point tomorrow.
Basically, with respect to your time, we're talking
about two days. Which is about the shortest
possible service you could have.
Now, I'm going to tell you in advance
I will not ask any of you if you want to serve as
a juror. Frankly, because we're probably afraid of
what the response would be. That's not going to be
the line of questioning. I won't ask you if you
want to do it. Rather, the line of inquiry is
going to be could you do it, could you be the juror
both sides are looking for.
They are truly looking for the same
31
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
thing, a fair and impartial juror. Jurors who will
not prejudge the case. Will not prejudge any of
the witnesses. Will not prejudge the defendant.
Jurors who are just going to sit back and listen
to the evidence as it comes in.
When I say evidence, I mean witnesses
who testify here from the witness stand and any
exhibits, if there are any, that get admitted.
That's what evidence is.
People who will not make up their
mind. You want to keep an open mind at all times .
That's what both sides are looking for.
While this is a short case, I do want
to impart to you how important jury service is.
When you think about it, I know the country is not
in a great state right now, but neither is
anywhere. It still is quite simply the greatest
country in the world to live in.
How many new stories do you see where
people are literally dying trying to get into this
country. There is twenty people in the trunk of a
truck, trying to smuggle their way into the
country. Coming over on a boat and they get
drowned trying to get in here.
32
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
You never read stories about anyone
trying to smuggle themselves out of the county.
Because there is no place in the world that affords
everybody the freedom this country does. The only
thing that you have to do for the great privilege
of living in this country is you have to pay your
taxes, if you have a job. You can't get around
that.
There is such a small portion of
individuals who serve in the military. Maybe some
of your family members now serve. Maybe you are in
the reserves. Maybe you have served in past wars
or your mothers, fathers, brothers, aunts or uncle
have. If that's the case, we owe you a great debt
of gratitude.
A small small portion of people go out
and do that. The only other thing you are asked to
do maybe once or twice in a lifetime, for the great
privilege of living here is possibly serve on a
jury.
two days.
And this case, I'm telling you, is
In the great scheme of things, it is
not that much of an imposition upon your time as a
citizen of the United States . I do feel very very
33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
strongly that it is your duty.
I want to talk about a girl who is now
gone almost two years who I had in this courtroom
who impressed me. I now tell her story to all my
juries.
As you can imagine, when we select a
jury, they pretty much all get my same old remarks
you are getting. It doesn't matter what the
charge is. The duty is the same, regardless of the
charges or length of the case, etc.
So, we had gone into the individual
questioning after my opening remarks. It was a
girl sitting in the third chair in the front row.
I remember where she was sitting. She was
twenty-eight years old. So, after hearing the big
part of the talk, we got to her. I asked her about
her background, etc.
She told me that she had already
served two tours on the front lines as an medic in
Afghanistan. And in three or four weeks time she
was set to go back for her third tour of duty on
the front line.
I said to her, something I never said
to anyone before or since, on my own I said to her,
34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
you know, I want to thank you for your service.
Based upon everything you have done for the
country, it was going to be a longer jury, about a
week and a half jury we were picking . I said to
her based on everything you've done and what you
are going to be dong, I'll excuse you from service.
I was quite certain nobody coming
after her was going to have that kind of
background. I wasn't worried about a domino effect
happening. I gave her that option. I thought she
would do what I would have done if I was her. I
thought she would get a smile on her face, gather
her purse and coat, say thank you and skip out of
the courtroom. That's what I expected.
Much to my shock, without skipping
even a beat, she responded, you know , no, thank
you, your Honor. I would consider it an honor and
a privilege if the parties would have me serve on
the jury. I respectfully decline your invitation
to be excused.
So, here, you know, in every day terms
she blue me away. You know what, the parties did
pick her to serve on that jury . She was with us
over a week and a half. That's i s an example of
35
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
somebody who most people could not compare to.
I want you to keep something like that
in mind and put it in perspective when you are
being asked to step away from your regular life for
a total of only two days. That's what we're asking
here.
It used to be long ago, before any of
our times, the attorneys and mine, certain people
were excused from jury duty because their jobs were
too important. That's not the case any more.
Everybody gets called for jury duty.
Again, it is part of your duties as
citizenship. That case where we had the
twenty-eight year old I told you about, that same
jury we had an orthopedic surgeon serve on the same
jury. He had to cancel procedures coming up. He
was with us the week and a half.
I myself have been called to one of
our suburban courthouses. The fact that I knew the
people in the courtroom and handled the case on
trial or a couple of court dates, I knew I
wouldn't be picked. I knew something about the
case personally . It didn't save me from staying to
seven-thirty at night. I can promise you all you
36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
will be out long before seven-thirty.
That's my part of the talk where I
talk about citizenship and how important it is. At
all times I want you to know both parties are
seeking the same thing, fair and impartial jurors,
who are going to be free of bias, sympathy,
prejudice. Jurors who are not to speculate or
guess as to what might have happened during the
case.
You can only base the verdict on the
evidence here in court. That's it. So, while I
don't believe it would be relevant in this case,
but no independent crime scene investigation, if
you heard an address or something that was familiar
to you, you can't do your own drive-by to or from
court to assess what you think of the scene. I
don't think that will apply in this case.
The other thing is this, which would
be important. You can only confine your decision
to the evidence you hear in court or exhibits
admitted. Again, you can't do any kind of internet
search about anything. The fact that there is a
web site mentioned, absolutely you cannot go to it,
period. You cannot go to the web at all on any
37
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
level to look up anything at all about this case
while you are sitting as a juror.
Also, if you are a juror, you can't
communicate with anybody at all about the case. I
know it is only a couple of days. When you go home
tonight, rest assured if you have been selected as
a juror, and we'll see how long the jury selection
takes, but I do believe you are going to hear some
part of the case today, opening statements,
possibly evidence. We'll see.
When you get home, if you are
selected, those family members you live with, the
friends you talk to regularly are going to say what
were you picked on, what kind of case, what is it
about.
You can absolutely not tell them
anything about the case. Once the verdict has
been delivered in open court, then you can go
ahead and tell them whatever you like about the
case and what your experience was. Not before
then.
When I say you can't talk about it,
you can't e-mail about it, blog on it, can't go on
Facebook or Twitter. Or anything else, social
38
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
media. Rest assured you can't do that.
Basically, when you are picked, you
can't talk about the case at all. You cannot even
talk about the case with your fellow jurors. You
can talk with your fellow jurors about anything
else. You know, current events. You can't talk
about the case or start deliberating until all the
evidence is done and you get my jury instructions
on the law in Illinois that you swear to uphold and
to follow.
I'm going to talk with you a little
bit about the broad fundamental principles of law
that apply to all criminal cases that would assist
you in judging the law and evidence in this case.
Whenever I use the word jury
instructions or the law in Illinois, I want you to
understand those are interchangeable terms. The
law in Illinois is going to be read to you in jury
instructions. Conversely, the jury instructions
contain the law in Illinois that's going to apply
to this particular case. Those are called the jury
instructions.
The important thing about the law in
Illinois or the jury instructions is this. If you
39
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
raise your right hand and you take an oath to
become a juror in this case, you take an oath to
follow the law as it exists, as it is read to you.
That means even if you as a private citizen
disagree with it, you think to yourself I don't
like that law, that law doesn't seem right to me
or fair to me, doesn't matter. You've got to
follow it. And where the evidence takes you, it
takes you, along with your fellow jurors.
The only place to change laws is down
in Springfield. They are obviously doing quite a
bit of that lately. That's where the legislators
take old laws off the books and put new laws on the
books. That's the only place. It doesn't get
rewritten and does not get changed in a jury room.
Absolutely not.
When you think about it, the reasoning
is clear. We would have a system of justice unlike
anywhere in the world, if I were to be able to
read the law to you in Illinois and you as jurors
would be free to go in the back, toss them in the
air and make it up as you go.
Obviously, we'd have no system of
justice. There would be no reliability. We'd have
40
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
a system in shambles. Obviously, that is not what
we have.
So, I don't want to hit you over the
head with this. I say it so many times, so many
different ways because it is that important. You
raise your hand and you take an oath to follow the
law. Even if you don't like it or don't agree with
it. You must follow it.
Now, the charge I read to you a short
while ago, they are contained an indictment. That
was the People of the State of Illinois vs. Annabel
K. Melongo. That is nothing more than the title of
the case. The fact that somebody is charged is
not any evidence of proof, etc. It is simply the
way the prosecutors have not only in this state but
across the country of bringing an individual before
the fact finder, which is the jury in this case.
So, it is simply the legal mechanism to get
somebody in front of the jury to be tried on the
charges. It is no proof whatsoever.
Under our law a Defendant is presumed
to be innocent of the charges placed against them
in the indictment. That presumption of innocence
remains with the Defendant throughout all stages of
41
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
the trial and even in your jury deliberations on a
verdict and it must be kept in your mind at all
times during the presentation of evidence.
The presumption of innocence is not
overcome unless from all of the evidence in the
case you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt
that the defendant is guilty.
The defendant in this case, like every
other case across the land, is not required to
prove her innocence, nor is she required to testify
or put on any evidence whatsoever on her own
behalf. That's the law not only here, but across
the land, across the entire country.
The State always has the burden of
proving the guilt of the Defendant beyond a
reasonable doubt. That burden remains on the State
throughout every stage of the proceeding and during
your deliberations on a verdict.
Those of you that are picked as
jurors, you folks become the sole Judges, the only
Judges of the believability of the witnesses and
the weight that you are going to give to the
testimony of each of them.
When you consider the testimony of any
42
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
witness that testifies in court, you may take into
account their ability and opportunity to observe,
their memory, their manner while testifying, any
interest, bias or prejudice they may have, as well
as just the general reasonableness of the testimony
when you put it together with everything else that
you heard.
As I said before, it is essential you
not arrive at any decision or conclusion of any
kind until you heard all the evidence and the
attorneys get a chance to argue to you what they
think the evidence showed.
At the end of that, that's when I'm
going to read the law to you in the form of jury
instructions. Once you have those, that's when
deliberations begin. You then take the facts and
you determine them only from the evidence in the
case. You apply the law to the facts and as a jury
you come together and ultimately make your
decision. Along the way, neither sympathy nor
prejudice should influence you.
I want to tell you at this time, and I
know, as I said, it is going to be a couple days.
I'm going to ask you bring realistic expectations
43
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
here with you. It seems to me all these crime
shows are the rage on TV. I don't watch them.
Probably doctors don't watch doctor shows. This
is not realistic, if you know the profession.
Probably how lawyers feel about lawyer shows or
crime shows.
Having said that, if you like those
shows, of course, that is not a problem. That's
entertainment. Most of them are written by folks
that have never set foot in a courtroom. What you
see on TV bears little resemblance to real court
proceedings.
While I'll tell you I'm going to make
an effort to move the case along and not keep you
sitting back there too long, I can tell you we
won't be done in sixty minutes, including
commercials. All wrapped up to a tight
conclusion. That's not going to happen either.
Please be realistic.
It is funny, as I was flipping through
the channels, there is one show, I can't remember
what it is, but it is supposed to be set not only
in Chicago but here at 26th and California. I
happened to catch the inside of the courtrooms, how
44
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
they are supposed to look, as well as the jury
room. It was this beautiful, shiny, mahogany
paneled courtroom and some jury room with stylish
art deco type lighting and the jury room was huge,
like a giant suite. I was thinking oh, my God,
the poor Cook County jurors watching this and
coming to the building and thinking that's what
they are going to get are going to be
disappointed.
I think you have seen that's not what
the inside of the building looks like. It goes
along with my point, be realistic about your
expectations here, okay. Very different from TV.
When the trial is going, part of my
job is to tell you what evidence you may hear and
what evidence you may consider. I will always stay
the Judge of the law in the case. You as the
jurors will be the Judge of the facts. You will
determine what those facts are based on the
witnesses and testimony and what you think about
that testimony collectively as a jury.
While the case is going on Let me
back up. At the end of the case I'm going to give
you the law. You will go in the back and
45
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
deliberate and you will have written verdict form,
which all of you have to sign. It is your absolute
duty to accept the law as defined in the formal
instructions and follow it.
If you become convinced beyond a
reasonable doubt from all the evidence in the case
that the Defendant is guilty as charged, it is your
duty to find her guilty in this case.
So, in the instructions, my opening
remarks, I think I slipped out a him and her. If I
ever said him, it is a generic him. We're
obviously referring to Miss Melongo in this case.
On the other hand, if after hearing
all of the evidence in the case you are not
convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the
Defendant is guilty as charged, it is your duty to
find her not guilty.
During the trial, you may hear the
attorneys make objections. They do it in most
trials. It is a formal part of trial practice.
They are not trying to keep anything from you.
They are merely trying to make sure that you hear
only relevant and reliable evidence.
So, when an objection occurs, I might
46
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
rule from the bench and we'll go on. The attorneys
might ask for a sidebar. So, a couple of things
may happen. If I grant it, maybe you have been
sitting for a while and you to take 10 or 15
minutes. I'll send you back and we'll hear it out
here. Maybe we'll go off into a sidebar. So,
because it's so small, we'll huddle over in the
corner with the Court Reporter. The goal is you
are not supposed to hear us.
We'll try and deal with the issue in
the corner and come back into session. Anyone of
those things may happen during the course of the
trial. It is normal trial practice.
In a short while I'm going to be
asking you questions about yourself. It is funny.
My notes tell me to say we're not trying to pry
into your personal 1 i fe. Of course, we are.
We're trying to pry into your personal life to find
out a little bit about you, your family, your
background.
The attorneys really just have a few
minutes, as you will see when we come can from
lunch. We'll take up a large part of your day
being down here. Really, in terms of one on one
47
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
questioning of each juror, it is just a few
minutes. They don't really have much time to
assess whether or not you could be what they both
deserve, fair and impartial jurors.
So, again, I'll ask you to be open and
frank with your answers. Unfortunately, I
basically ask the questions off the juror cards.
There are people that have been perhaps victims of
crimes that are of a sensitive nature. I, of
course, I understand if you don't want to discuss
that in a room of strangers.
Again, our goal, while we need to find
out about you and you r fami 1 y 1 i fe, etc., what you
do in free time, our goal is not to make this a
horrendous experience for anybody.
If that's the case where you or a
family member have been the victim of a very
significant crime and you are uncomfortable, let me
know and we'll talk about it but we can do it more
privately. Our goal is not to make you feel
horribly uncomfortable. Hopefully, that may not be
the case. Sometimes we do, unfortunately have that
situation.
A couple of other thoughts before I
48
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
let you go to lunch. Even though we won't have you
that long, I want you to know the attorneys are
under orders from me not to have contact with you,
jurors that are selected. If you come to court
tomorrow, you might see the attorneys in the hall
or on the elevator. They are not going to be
engaging in pleasantries with you and asking you
how your evening was.
I don't want you to feel they are
being, you know, snooty or aloof or something like
that. It is because they are under orders not to
have contact with you.
You know, between tonight and
tomorrow, if you happen to hear anything about the
case, coming from court, or anyone tries to say
something, let myself or the deputy know, whoever
you see first. I don't anticipate that happens,
and it never happened in any of my cases, but you
need to know the procedure.
Generally speaking, when something
like that happens, it is inadvertent on an
elevator. And you know, everybody who works here
knows that they shouldn't say anything on an
elevator because you never know who is going to
49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
court and who is not or who is on what case or what
side, etc.
Once in a while you might be in the
back of an elevator. Low and behold, you hear
something about the case. No one knows you are
there. You have to let me know. I don't expect
it. You have to know the procedure on that long
shot that it would happen.
Now, before I let you break, what I'm
going to do is swear you all in. This will be to
answer all of the questions truthfully when you
return from the lunch break.
Could I please ask you all to stand
and face me. Raise your right hand for me.
(Venire sworn.)
THE COURT: Thank you, ladies and gentlemen.
It i s now quarter to one. We'll return at quarter
to two, back here i n room 303.
You can take any seat, but once I have
you all here, I'm basically going to be moving you
out of these seats because we have a particular
order we will sit you in.
jurors now.
We will excuse the
(Whereupon the following
50
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
proceedings were had
outside the presence and
hearing of the jury:)
MR. ALBUKERK: There is one little thing.
THE COURT: You want to put something on the
record before we break for lunch?
MR. ALBUKERK: Something to consider. I was
going to ask. I think this would be easier to show
them. One of the issues in this case --
THE COURT: Hold on.
(Brief pause.)
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. ALBUKERK: One of the issues in this
case is the arraignment and whether or not it took
place. You know, transcripts and all this.
Well, the quest i on becomes what is an
arraignment. Any way, I pulled some criminal
procedure, the actual statute. I'd ask you take
judicial notice of it. This way we can talk about
it. We can talk about what an arraignment is. It
is in the Constitution. Obviously it is in the
Code of Criminal Procedure. If you want to look at
what I'm talking about.
THE COURT: Okay. What I would think the
51
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
parties might want to consider between themselves
is there is no question it was an arraignment,
supposedly, right. The State is conceding it
occurred -- Not conceding. The State's position
is she was there for it and the transcript shows.
She has another position.
Perhaps the parties want to work on a
definition of an arraignment, as opposed to the
attorneys attempting to explain what that is. I
believe the Court Reporter is going to say it was
an arraignment transcript.
MR. ALBUKERK: Right.
THE COURT: Do you have any objection to
that, State?
MR. PODLASEK: No.
THE COURT: Okay. Why don't the attorneys
work on that. Perhaps you can have a stipulation
as to what an arraignment proceeding is.
Definition.
MR. ALBUKERK: Right.
THE COURT: You might want to show that to
the State and see what you can come up with.
We'll be in recess.
(Whereupon the above
52
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
entitled cause was
passed, after which the
following proceedings
were had outside the
hearing and presence
of the jury:)
THE COURT: All right, get the attorneys out
of the back, please.
(Whereupon the following
proceedings were had in
the presence and hearing
of the jury:)
THE COURT: We have everybody back present
in the courtroom now.
Defense, before you get started, I
believe you would like to introduce your partner.
MR. ALBUKERK: Judge, yes.
MR. PRENGAMAN: My name is Matt Prengaman,
and attorney with Mr. Albukerk in this matter.
THE COURT: For those of you in the first
row, gather your belongings, stand up here in the
well of the courtroom. Just stand up here and
we'll see if you get called. Bring your coats and
things.
53
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
In the first black chair, closest to
the lawyers, Lisa Lerose Hoerler. That will be
seat Number One.
Seat two is Cicily Kutty Elakatt.
Seat Number Two.
Seat three is Joann Brown Johnson.
Daniel Pizano is seat four, front row.
Seat five is Christopher Dozois.
The last chair in that front row is
Avelino Benzon.
Jurors in the second row, if I can ask
you to do the same. Sometimes you get called, but
we don't know. I don't want to send you allover
in the gallery and back up.
Second row, the seat closest to the
lawyers in the rose colored chair is Donald Hughes.
Mr. Hughes.
Next to Mr. Hughes is Donald Hampton.
Second seat in that row is Donald Hampton. Make
sure to stay in order. Mr. Hampton, Number Two.
Seat three is Daniel Dunne.
Fourth seat is Michelle Diaz.
Fifth seat is Daniel Rohrman.
The last seat in the second row,
54
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Richard Miller, please.
Those of you in the third row, do the
same for me. Thank you.
The chair all the way over in the
third row, Ashley Brumbaugh.
Next is going to be Diego Prado.
Second chair is Diego Prado.
Third is Brendan Sullivan. Third
chair.
Fourth chair, Garry Moye. Seat number
four.
Seat number five, Constance Crockett.
Now, Constance Crockett.
Then Carmen Claudio.
Brenda Reed Martin is second to the
last chair.
I'll read the last three names.
There we go. I think we're fine now.
Raymond Sabo is the last seat.
If we didn't call your name, folks,
have a seat in the gallery and we will get to you
in the next panel most likely.
For the twenty of you now in front of
me, I'm going to ask you about four separate
55
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
principles of law. I'm going to be asking you
first if you accept the principle that I talk
about. If not, I'm goi ng to ask you to rai se your
hand. I'll ask you about the same principle.
I'll ask you not only do you accept
it, do you understand it. Fi rst of all, do you
understand and then do you accept it. The first
principle I want to address with the twenty of
i s this. I already talked about it.
Under our system 1 aw, across the
country, state and federal court, all the same,
anybody charged with a crime, that's called the
Defendant, any Defendant and every Defendant is
presumed to be innocent of the charges placed
against him.
you
Do you all understand that?
raise your hand.
If not,
Nobody is raising their hand.
A slightly different question. Even
though you all understand it, is there anybody here
who cannot or will not accept that basic principle
of our justice system.
Raise your hand if you can't or won't
accept it.
56
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
No hands are up.
The second principle I want to discuss
is this. Again, all of these principles are part
of our criminal justice system, state and federal
courts across the country. Not just here in Cook
County.
The second principle is that before
any Defendant can be convicted in a criminal case,
the State has to prove that person guilty beyond a
reasonable doubt.
Does everybody understand that that is
also one of our cornerstones of criminal justice
here? Everyone is saying yes. If you do not
understand, raise your hand.
No hands are raised.
Again, slightly different. You all
understand it. Everybody here, will you and can
you accept that principle of law? Everyone is
shaking their head yes. Raise your hand if you
can't or will not accept that.
No hands up.
The third principle, again, this case
is like every case, ,across the land. The
Defendant is not required to offer any evidence on
57
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
her own behalf. Does everybody understand that
principle of law?
Okay.
Slightly different question, even
though you are all saying yes, shaking your head
and up and down. Anybody here who cannot or will
not accept that principle of law?
if you can't or won't accept it.
No hands are up.
Raise your hand
The last principle I want to discuss
before we get to individual questions is this. The
defendant's failure to testify cannot be held
against him. That goes along with the concept we
talked about. If you don't have to put on evidence
at all, that means you yourself do not have to
testify.
Everybody here understand that basic
principle of our criminal justice system?
Everybody is saying yes. Is there anybody here who
cannot or will not accept that principle of law?
Raise your hand if you can't or will not accept it.
No hands are raised.
Okay. I'm going to go into the
questions. There is one question I want to
58
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
explain. I think it is written rather inartfully.
So, if you didn't understand it or you
misunderstood it when we got to it, you can correct
your answer.
Here ' s the question. It says --
I'll tell you what it says and what we mean by it.
Have you ever been an accused, a complainant or a
witness in a criminal case. What we might mean by
that is when it says have you ever been an accused,
it means have you ever been arrested. Okay. It
doesn't -- If the case was thrown out or nobody
showed up, etc. We're not asking about that. It
means have you ever been arrested . So, even if you
are in your fifties now and when you were nineteen
years old you and your buddies got caught drinking
in a public park and got arrested and taken in and
they threw the case out, the answer to that
question is still yes.
The second part, have you ever been a
complainant, have you ever signed a complaint
against somebody. You know, to go to court.
The last one, have you ever been a
witness in a criminal case. That could be one of
two things . It could be that you literally
59
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
witnessed a crime like right in front of your eyes.
And/or, in addition to being a witness, you
testified in court. Sometimes it could be because
you saw a crime and you got called as a witness.
In other cases there is a small possibility maybe
as part of your job you testify in court regularly.
For example, chemists at the crime lab on narcotics
cases. They go to court all the time. They have
been a witness in a criminal case. It could mean
anyone of those things. That's what we mean by
that.
If you were confused, let me know and
I'll change it as I go through the answers.
Also, this is going to come up
probably with our first possible juror. If you
have children 18 or older, I'll be asking you what
that child is doing. If they are married, what
occupation their spouse is in. If the spouse is
working. I'll ask all of you what are your
hobbies, activities, interests, things you do
outside of work, if you are working.
Maybe you volunteer, maybe you are
involved in the PTA or little league or a church
group or book club. You know, a myriad of other
60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
thins. I'll be asking you about that.
We'll start there. Maybe a few things
I want to address with the rest of the group.
We'll see. We'll start with Miss Lerose Hoerler.
LIS A L E R 0 S E HOE R L E R,
a prospective juror, having been first duly sworn,
was questioned and responded as follows:
E X A MIN A T ION
BY
THE COURT:
Q. Miss Lerose Hoerler, you are living on
the south suburbs and you currently work as a
mortgage consultant for a company .
employed as a dock man.
I have to ask you this.
any up signs the Chicago housing is
or a lot of refis?
Your spouse is
Do you see
doing better
A. Refi s are gone. The rates went up.
We're hoping the market is going to pick up. Got
to be better than last year.
Q. The rates are going to come back down?
61
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
A. It will pretty much stay where it is
right now. They are not high. Below five. If you
can get four, you would like four.
Q. Right. You have five children. Is your
18 year old in school?
A. They are all in college. One is not in
college. The rest are.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
23?
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
The rest are in college?
Yes.
Are any of them married?
No.
You have five children, 18,20, 21,22,
Yes.
Which child is not in school, how old?
He's 21.
What is he doing?
A. He is a mechanic. He went to mechanic
school, looking for a job.
Q. Okay. It indicates you never served on
a jury, never been an accused, complainant or
witness in a criminal case, never been the victim
of a crime. Neither has anybody in your family.
All the other questions are answered no.
62
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Can you tell us, Ma'am, a little bit
about yourself; hobbies, activities, interests you
may have?
A. Very involved in my church. A lot of
event activities, where I run actual events. I
meet a lot of people, in charge of volunteering.
I enjoy that part of my life. I like to read and
my family.
Q. Thank you.
C I C I L Y K U TTY E L A KAT T,
a prospective juror, having been first duly sworn,
was questioned and responded as follows:
E X A MIN A T ION
BY
THE COURT:
Q. Next we have Cicily Kutty Elakatt?
A. Yes.
Q. You are living in a north suburb. How
long in that general vicinity?
63
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
How long?
About.
About approximately an hour and a half.
You are saying an hour and a half away.
I should be more clear. How long have you been
living in that general area?
A. I was living there for twenty years.
Q. You work as a staff nurse at one of the
hospitals. Is it one of the medical surgical
floors you are on?
29?
that
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
child
A.
Q.
I work on the heart, telemetry support.
For cardiac patients?
Yes.
Your spouse is employed as a technician?
Yes.
What type of technician?
Electronic .
I see. You have three children, 26, 28,
Yes .
Start with your youngest. What i s
doing?
He i s an auditor. He's working.
An auditor?
64
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
Yes.
Is he married?
No.
Your middle child is twenty-eight?
Yes. Computer consultant.
Is she married?
No.
Your oldest is 29?
Yes. She's a nurse. She's married.
All right.
They have a kid.
A child?
Yes.
Is her spouse working?
Yes.
What type of work?
He is also a computer consultant.
I see. It indicates you previously
served on a jury?
Yes. A.
Q. In one of the suburbs. Did you actually
get selected and sit and deliberate on a jury?
A. No.
Q. Like today?
65
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
A. No, no. I didn't get selected.
Q. You came down like today, but never made
it to the jury?
A. Right.
Q. We'll see if we can change your luck
today. It indicates you have never been an
accused, complainant or witness in a criminal case.
Never been the victim of a crime. Neither has
anybody in your family .
All the other questions are answered
no. Can you tell us a little bit about yourself,
hobbies, activities, interests that you have?
A. Besides working, now I'm enjoying more
of my life. A grandchild.
Q. How old is your grandchild?
Six weeks. A.
Q. All right, brand new then. Thank you.
J 0 ANN B ROW N J 0 H N SON,
a prospective juror, having been first duly sworn,
was questioned and responded as follows:
66
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Q.
E X A MIN A T ION
BY
THE COURT:
Next is Miss Joann Brown Johnson. You
are living on the south side of the city. How long
in that general vicinity?
A.
Q.
24 years.
You presently work as a teacher at one
of the high schools?
A.
Q.
No. El ementary school.
I'm sorry. My eyes are bad. One of
the elementary schools.
teach?
What grade level do you
A.
Q.
A.
to 2nd.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Second.
Have you always had the little ones?
No. I've had from 8th all the way down
What is your favorite ones?
Second.
Second?
Yes.
Q. They can't really get in too much
trouble yet, can they?
A. They can.
67
--- -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Q. Different kinds of trouble?
A. Different kinds. They are all the same
though. What they do in second grade, they
probably do in 8th.
Q. The trouble makers in second grade tend
to be the standouts in 8th grade too?
A. Absolutely.
Q. It indicates you yourself have one
child, 18. Is that child still in school?
A. Yes.
Q. And you have never served on a jury,
never been an accused, a complainant or witness in
a criminal case. However, you have been the victim
of a crime. So has a family member. Tell us
briefly about that.
A. Yes. My home was burglarized a couple
times. So was my sister's home.
Q. Anybody caught in any of those cases?
Yes. A.
Q. Okay. Out of the three cases, two with
you, one with your sister, how many times was
somebody apprehended?
A. In my case, twice.
Q. Really?
68
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
A. Two separate people. They weren't
connected at all.
Q. Did you have to go to court and testify?
A. I went to court, but it was always
continued. It is still being continued.
Q.
system?
The case is still pending in the
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know if it is in this very
building or do you have any idea?
A. No.
Q. Okay. You don't know or it is not here?
A. I don't think it is here. It was at
111th Street.
Q. I see. Is there anything about the fact
that that happened to you and your family, the
victims of burglar, that would stop you or prevent
you from being fair here in this unrelated case?
A. No.
Q. Okay. All the other questions are
answered no. Can you tell us a little bit about
yourself, hobbies, activities, interests?
A. Yes. I'm very active in my church. I
sing in the choir. I teach Sunday school. And I
69
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
work with the youth groups.
Q. What ages are they? Teenagers or
little ones?
A. I work with the 12 to 18 year olds.
THE COURT: Thank you.
DAN I E L P I ZAN 0,
a prospective juror, having been first duly sworn,
was questioned and responded as follows:
E X A MIN A T ION
BY
THE COURT:
Q. Next is Mr. Pi zano?
A. Yes.
Q. You are living on the south side of the
city. How long in that general vicinity?
A. Like 12 years.
Q. And you work for an established club.
What type of work do you do, sir?
A. I clean tables, serve tables.
Q. And your spouse is not working outside
70
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
the home, you have two children, nine years old?
A. Yes.
Q. It indicates you were at the Daley
Center in 2002. Did you actually get picked and
deliberate with a jury?
A. I got picked.
Q. So, did you deliberate and reach a
verdict in the case?
A. I'm sorry, I didn't get it. You know,
my English is not -- it is so-so.
Q. The acoustics in here are terrible also.
I'm going to miss some of what you say. I'll ask
you to repeat yourself. Back in 2002, did you get
picked for a jury?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Do you remember what ki nd of case
it was?
A.
Q.
Was it criminal or was it a car accident?
It was like a car accident.
Is there anything about your service on
that other jury that would stop you from being fair
here to both sides?
A. No.
Q. Okay. It indicates that you have never
been accused, complainant or witness in a criminal
71
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
case . You have never been the victim of a crime.
Neither has anybody in your family. Everything
else is answered no.
Can you tell us a little bit about
yourself, any hobbies, activities, things you do
outside of work?
A. No. Just play with kids.
THE COURT: Thank you, sir.
C H R 1ST 0 P HER D 0 Z 0 I S,
a prospective juror, having been first duly sworn,
was questioned and responded as follows:
E X A MIN A T ION
BY
THE COURT:
Q. Next is Mr. Dozois.
A. Yes.
Q . You are living in the city, or a
northwest suburb. How long in that vicinity?
A. Year and a hal f.
Q. You work as a manager for a company.
72
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Without the name of the company, tell me what type
of work with it does?
A. Manage network security services.
Hard compliance. The payment card industry,
compliance. For banks, shops. They have to be
compliant to the credit card in terms of security
and what not.
Q. Sounds like a hands on computer job over
my head.
It indicates your spouse is employed
in the field of medical billing. You have never
served on a jury, never been accused, complainant
or wi tness ina cri mi nal case, never been the
victim of a crime, neither has anybody in your
family. Everything else is answered no.
Tell us about yourself?
A. Marri ed, 1 ast year and a hal f, moved to
the city. Played with computers and technology, go
to church. About it.
Q. All right, thank you, sir.
73
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
A VEL I N 0 BEN Z 0 N,
a prospective juror, having been first duly sworn,
was questioned and responded as follows:
Q.
E X A MIN A T ION
BY
THE COURT:
Next ;s Mr. Benzon. Living on the
north side of the city. How long in that general
vicinity?
A. I've been living there since 1977. 33
years.
Q. You indicate you work in the fleet
service for one of the major airlines. I have to
ask you this. Do you get a lot of free trips all
over the place?
A. I guess so, but I don't do that much.
Q. You don't?
A. No.
Q. Your spouse i s employed as a medical
secretary. You have three children. The 17 year
old in school?
Yes. A.
Q. How about your next child, 29?
74
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
A. She's working for -- She's a web
designer, a certain company in the suburbs.
Q. Is she married?
A. This October.
Q. What field i s her fiance in?
A. The same field.
Q. Then your oldest child, 30, tell me
about that child?
A. She's married. She just got married six
months ago.
Q. What type of work does she do, if she is
working and her spouse?
A. She's a communications manager. A firm
in downtown, law firm.
Q. Do you know what kind of work the law
firm does, civil or criminal?
A.
Q.
I think it is civil.
Okay. Anything about any conversation
you had with her about the lawyers she works with?
A. No. Never mentioned anything about
those.
Q. Okay. The lawyers probably wouldn't be
happy to hear that.
A. I'm not interested in those things.
75
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Q. Okay. What about her spouse, what type
of work does her spouse do?
A.
the city.
Q.
He's a manager at the University near
You indicate you have never served on a
jury, never been an accused, complainant or witness
in a criminal case. But you as well as a family
member have been the victim of a crime. Tell me
briefly about it?
A. My car was stolen from my house. More
than a year ago.
from
from
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Anybody caught?
No, nobody.
How about the friend or family member?
My wife and daughter got mugged, a block
my house.
Q. About how long ago was that?
A. Five years ago.
Q. Were they injured in the case?
A. No.
Q. Anybody caught i n that case?
A. No.
Q. Anything about that which would stop you
being fair here to both sides?
76
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
A. No.
Q. The other questions are answered no.
Can you tell us a little bit about yourself,
hobbies, activities, interests that you have?
A. I work eveni ngs. I do all the work at
home during the day.
Q. Okay.
A.
Q.
I cook at home.
You do all the cooking at home?
A. Yes. I'm a home father.
THE COURT: All right. Thank you, sir.
DON A L D HUG H E S,
a prospective juror, having been first duly sworn,
was questioned and responded as follows:
Q.
E X A MIN A T ION
BY
THE COURT:
Next is Mr. Hughes, 1 i vi ng on the south
side of the city. How long in that general
vicinity?
77
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
A. Three years.
Q. And you work in the field of
housekeeping for a large company?
A. Yes.
Q. Two children, 24 and 26. Start with
your 24 year old. Tell us what that child is
doing?
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
He works with me.
Okay. Is he married?
No, he isn't.
How about your oldest, twenty-eight?
He's at Fed Ex.
Is he married?
A. No, he is not.
Q. It indicates you have never served on a
jury, never been an accused, complainant or witness
in a criminal case, never been the victim of a
crime. However, a family member has been. Can
you tell us briefly about that?
A. My mother, she got robbed one day .
Q. About how long ago was that?
A.
Q.
A.
That was back in the late nineties.
Was she hurt in that case?
No.
78
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Q. Anything about that case or the fact it
happened that would stop you from being fair here
to everybody?
A. No.
Q. The other questions are answered no.
Could you tell us a little bit about yourself, any
groups, hobbies, activities?
A. Besides playing in the over fifty
basketball tournament every year, that's about it.
Softball in the summer.
Q. Okay, thank you.
DON A L D HAM P TON,
a prospective juror, having been first duly sworn,
was questioned and responded as follows:
E X A MIN A T ION
BY
THE COURT:
Q. Next is Mr. Hampton. You are living in
the west suburbs. How long in that general
vicinity?
79
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
A.
Q.
About eleven years.
You are a package handler for a large
company. This one I have to ask you. It says your
spouse or domestic partner is employed and you said
yes. What type of work?
A. She's does medi cal records for a group .
Q. Medical r,ecords, all right. It
indicates you never served on a jury, never been
accused, complainant or witness in a criminal case.
Never been the victim of a crime. Neither has
anybody in your family. Everything else is
answered no. Tell me a little bit about yourself?
A. Free-lance photographer. Also I'm in
charge of audio and communicational system at my
church .
Q. With the photography, I'm curious, black
and white?
A. Portraits and weddings.
Q. Okay, thank you, sir.
80
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
DAN I E L DUN N E,
a prospective juror, having been first duly
was questioned and responded as follows:
E X A MIN A T ION
BY
THE COURT:
sworn,
O. Now Mr. Dunne. You are living in the
northwest suburbs. How long in that general
vicinity?
A. Little over 30 years.
O. And you are a certified public
accountant and your spouse is a retired teacher.
You have four children. Start with your youngest,
25?
A. 25, he's in education related coaching
type position. Next one, 27 or 28.
O. 27 according to this.
A.
IT person.
children.
She's a marketing person, married to an
Next is 33. Stay at home mom with two
Married to a high school teacher. The
last one, 35, community outreach program for a
university. Husband is sales.
O. Your youngest is not married, the 25
81
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
year old?
A. Correct.
Q. You indicate you have never served on a
jury, never been accused, complainant or witness in
a criminal case, never been the victim of a crime,
neither has anybody in your family. Everything
else is answered no. Tell me a little bit about
yourself, hobbies, activities, interests that you
have?
A. Church volunteering, reading, a small
CPA practice.
Q. Thank you, sir.
M I C H ELL E D I A Z,
a prospective juror, having been first duly sworn,
was questioned and responded as follows:
E X A MIN A T ION
BY
THE COURT:
Q. Next is Miss Diaz.
the south side of the city.
82
You are living on
How long in that
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
general vicinity?
A. Basically about probably most of my
life.
Q. All right.
A. There was a brief time I went to school.
Then I stayed in the area in Bloomington about
three years.
Q. Now you are back. This indicates, I
don't want the name of the company, but you said
occupation tell me what your occupation is?
A. It is basically an assistant manager.
Q. Assistant manager for like a cafe type
company?
A.
Q.
Right, a restaurant. Working.
It indicates you never served on a jury,
never been accused, complainant or witness in a
criminal case. However, you as well as a family
member have been the victim of a crime. Tell us
briefly about that. Start with you.
A. I've had my purse stolen before.
Q. Anybody caught in your case?
A. No.
Q. How about the friends or family members?
A. Family members, as well.
83
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
work.
Q.
A.
About how long ago?
It was within like half a year ago.
Okay . Was that person injured at all?
She was. She had to take time off
Was anybody caught in that case?
Yes.
Q. Have you ever gone to Court with your
family member, attended any court proceedings?
A. No. When I was very small, actually a
kid, my parents were divorced.
Court for that.
I had to go to
Q.
A.
Q.
That was the only thing?
Yes.
Anything about those experiences that
we discussed that would stop you from being fair
here to the State and the defense?
A.
Q.
No.
This indicates that all the other
questions are answered no. Can you tell us a
little bit about yourself?
A. I went to school for art. So, ki nd of
like drawing and stuff on the side too. Reading,
watching movies.
84
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Q. No groups or clubs or anything like
that?
A. No.
THE COURT: Thank you.
DAN I E L R 0 H R MAN,
a prospective juror, having been first duly sworn,
was questioned and responded as follows:
E X A MIN A T ION
BY
THE COURT:
O. Next, Mr. Rohrman. In the northwest
suburbs. You are in the field of sales. Generally
speaking, what type of things do you sell?
A. Parts for machine tools.
O. This indicates your spouse is employed
in document management, IT. Two chi 1 dren, 14 and
16. Never served on a jury, never been accused,
complainant or witness in a criminal case. However,
you have been the victim of a crime and so has a
family member. Tell me briefly about that?
85
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
Both just car vandalism, break-ins.
Anybody caught in those cases?
No.
Anything about those that would stop you
from being fair here?
A.
Q.
No.
The other questions are answered no.
Can you tell us a little bit about?
A. I work during the day in sales. I have
two web page businesses, a buddy of mine and I are
running. Anything outdoors, hunting, fishing,
camping, hiking.
team.
A member with the Palatine CERT
Q. The Palatine - - I'm not familiar with
the CERT team?
A. Community emergency response team. Like
the civil defense type of thing.
Q. Okay.
A. Emergency, you know, we help out police
and firemen.
Q. Okay. Is there anything about the fact
that I assume you must know some of the police,
police officers and fire fighters in the area that
would in any way impact your ability to be fair
86
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
here to both sides?
A. No.
Q. Thank you.
A. One fi nal note. I do have a fl i ght out
on Monday afternoon. I don't know if that's going
to affect anything.
Q. We will be done tomorrow.
what time. You can't hold me to time.
I don't know
But I
anticipate closing arguments tomorrow. You will go
into your deliberations. For sure Monday is not a
problem.
A. Okay.
THE COURT: Okay .
RIC H A R D MIL L E R,
a prospective juror, having been first duly sworn,
was questioned and responded as follows:
Q.
E X A MIN A T ION
BY
THE COURT:
Next is Mr. Richard Miller.
87
You 1 i ve
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
in the south suburbs.
vicinity?
How long in that general
A.
Q.
I lived there right at eight years now.
Currently retired. Tell us what field
you were in before?
A. I was in maintenance all my life. I was
a supervisor of maintenance for the last 25 years
before I retired.
Q. It indicates your wife is employed as a
medical coder. You have four children, 30, 35, 39,
40. Your youngest child, tell us about that child?
A. He works as a mechanic now for a Ford
dealer. Took him a long time to get there, but he
final got married, bot a good job and settled
down. Doing fine.
Q. All right. Is his wife working
outside the home?
A. His wife is a, what they call it,
phlebotomist. Takes blood.
Q. At the hospital?
A. And runs a home health care for the
same county she works in, County Hospital. She
runs a home health care for them also.
Q. Okay. Then your next child is 35?
88
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
A. He works for the city, in the electrical
department. He has his own lawn care business on
the side.
Is he married? Q.
A. Yes, he is married. His wife is a
surgical nurse at a hospital in the quad cities.
Emergency surgery.
Q. For emergency surgery, okay. Then your
second oldest is 39?
A. Correct. He is unemployed at the
present time. He had a brain aneurism here two
years ago, January 1st.
Q. So sorry to hear that.
A. He still is disabled right now and can't
go back to work. He's getting there. He improved
tremendously. He still has trouble with his right
arm and little walking problems. Much better. He's
working hard to get back to work.
Q. Is he married?
A. No.
Q. What field was he in before?
A. Him and another guy own, it was a carpet
business. They totally renovated hotels and motels
allover the country. He was in New York doing one
89
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
when this happened.
Q.
anything?
Unbelievable. No forewarning or
No. A.
Q. And then your oldest is forty. Tell me
about that child?
A. Boy, exactly what his job is I'm not
sure. But he does computer work for a company that
does networking in like banks and insurance
companies.
Q. Sounds like another one of those jobs
over my head?
A. Over mine too.
Q. Okay. Is he married?
A. Yes.
Q. What type of work does his wife do, i f
she works outside the home?
A. She was a manager of a high view food
store down there, a big chain. She got lime
di sease. Ri ght now she is on medi cal. Hopefull y
will get back to work.
Q. Okay . This indicates you have never
served on a jury before, never been accused,
complainant or witness in a criminal case. Never
90
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
been the victim of a crime. Neither has anybody
in your family. All the other questions are
answered no.
Can you tell us about any hobbies,
activities, or groups you may belong to?
A. Since I retired, me and my wife camp as
much as we can. The rest of the week when she's at
work I spend most of the time on the golf course,
golfing. I work at a golf course as a ranger,
something to do, keep myself a little busy on the
side where I remodel bathrooms, you know, little
carpentry work.
Q. Since you are handy. Is it the
situation where the cobbler's kids have no shoes
or is your house completely done?
A. Mine is done.
Q. It is?
A. Mine is done.
getting ready to sell it.
As a matter of fact,
The market, like she
said, is not very good right now.
Q. Okay, thanks so much.
91
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
ASH LEY B RUM B AUG H,
a prospective juror, having been first duly sworn,
was questioned and responded as follows:
E X A MIN A T ION
BY
THE COURT:
Q. Next is Mr. Brumbaugh. I'm sorry. Miss
Brumbaugh. You are living in the north suburbs.
How long in that general vicinity?
A. I grew up there. My home base. My
fiance and I own an apartment in Bucktown.
Q. And you are an administrative assistant
with a large bank. Your spouse is employed as a
sales rep. Generally speaking, what type of sales?
A. Hospital beds.
Q. This indicates you never served on a
jury, never been an accused, complainant or witness
in a criminal case, never been the victim of a
crime. Neither has anybody in your family. All
the other questions are answered no.
A. Yes.
Q. Can you tell us a little bit about
yourself, hobbies, activities, interests?
92
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
A. I'm getting married in May. I've been
really busy with that. Looking for a new job. In
networking. Not sure what to get into. Just
social.
Q. All right.
DIE G 0 P R ADO,
a prospective juror, having been first duly
was questioned and responded as follows:
E X A MIN A T ION
BY
THE COURT:
sworn,
Q. Next Mr. Prado. Living on the south
side in the city. How long in that vicinity?
A. The past 12 years.
Q. You presently work in an auto parts
warehouse. This indicates you never served on a
jury, never been an accused, complainant or witness
in a criminal case. Never been the victim of a
crime. Neither has anybody in your family.
Everything else is answered no.
Tell us a little bit about yourself?
93
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
A. I 1 i ke to read. I go to school. Stay
active, play sports.
Q. Are you in school now?
A. I plan on going back.
Q. What is it you like to take?
A. I haven't decided. Something around
like statistics or maybe accounting.
Q. All right. Thank you.
B R END A N S U L L I V A N,
a prospective juror, having been first duly sworn,
was questioned and responded as follows:
Q.
E X A MIN A T ION
BY
THE COURT:
Next, Mr. Sullivan. You are living in a
north suburb. How long in that general vicinity?
A. About 18 years.
Q. This indicates you are currently working
in substance abuse technician. And also grad
student. Tell us what degree you are pursuing?
94
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
A.
Q.
Doctorate in psychology.
This indicates that you have never
served on a jury, never been an accused,
complainant or witness in a criminal case. Never
been the victim of a crime. Neither has anybody in
your family. All the other questions are answered
no.
Let me ask you about, back for a
moment to your studies, thus far in your studies
have you worked with forensic population at all or
had any interplay with the court system? When I
say forensic population, I mean with a view toward
work in criminal court, something that had to do
with psychology?
A. I worked at Elgin Mental Health.
Actually wrote court reports and a lot of those
things.
Q. Were you ever called to testify as a
witness?
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
No.
On a fitness hearing?
No. I was not. My supervisors were.
Okay. Anything about the fact that you
had some tangential contact with the courts, even
95
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
though you didn't testify as a witness on the
fitness case, that would stop you from being fair
here to both sides?
A. No.
Q. Okay. Thank you, sir.
I may have Usually when I get to
the last row I repeat myself. I apologize if I do.
I can't recall if I asked you about hobbies,
activities or interests?
A.
Q.
No. I got a wedding coming up.
Are you going to be planning the wedding
or be uninvolved and say yes to everything?
A. I say yes.
Q. All right. For the record, if I
didn't tell the attorneys, after have you ever
served on a jury, all the other questions were
answered no.
GAR R Y M 0 Y E,
a prospective juror, having been first duly sworn,
was questioned and responded as follows:
96
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
E X A MIN A T ION
BY
THE COURT:
Q. Moving on to Mr. Moye. You are living
in the south suburbs. How long in that general
vicinity, sir?
A. Over twenty years.
Q. You presently work as a courier for a
large transportation company. This indicates you
previously served on a jury in '07 here at 26th
Street.
Let me ask you. Did you actually
deliberate and reach a verdict. I don't want to
know what the verdict is. Did you deliberate and
reach one?
A. Yes.
Q. Is there anything about your experience
on that jury that would in any way stop you or
prevent you from being fair here to both sides on
this case, an unrelated case?
A. No.
Q. Okay. I'll ask you how long was that
case, hoping you say three or four weeks?
A. No. No. Three days.
97
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Q.
A.
Q.
Only three days?
Yes.
Okay. This indicates you have never
been an accused, complainant or witness in a
criminal case. However, you as well as a family
member have been the victim of a crime. Can you
tell me briefly about that. Start with you.
stop
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
you
A.
Q.
A car, you know, both cases.
Anybody
No.
Anything
from being
No.
Okay.
caught i n those case?
about those cases that would
fair here?
The other questions are
Well, the other questions are answered no. This
one is blank. I'll ask you to tell me yes or no.
It says has any member of your immediate family
ever been party to any lawsuit.
A.
Q.
Not that I am aware of.
Okay. Sir, can you tell me about
hobbies, activities, interests that you have?
A.
Q.
A.
Movies, sports, cooking.
Any sports in particular?
I love them all.
98
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Q. Baseball?
A. Baseball, hockey .
Q. I have to ask you. Cubs or Sox?
A. Neutral.
Q. Neutral. Got Switzerland back there in
the back row. Thank you, sir .
CON S TAN C E C ROC K E T T,
a prospective juror, having been first duly sworn,
was questioned and responded as follows:
Q.
E X A MIN A T ION
BY
THE COURT:
Now, Mi ss Crockett. You are 1 i vi ng ina
northwest suburb. How long in that general
vicinity, Ma'am?
A. About eight years.
Q. You work -- You work for a
rehabilitation facility. You work as a direct
support professional. Is that like assistant to
somebody disabled, so you are helping them along?
99
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
A. A group home.
Q. I can't hear you?
A. A group home.
Q. Okay.
A. Six or more.
Q. Six or more. You work i n direct care
with the residents. You have to help them with
daily activities, depending how severe their
disability?
Yes. A.
Q. Very tough job. This indicates your
spouse or domestic partner is employed as a
student. What is that person studying?
A. Homeland Security.
Q. You never served on a jury, never been
accused, complainant or witness in a criminal case,
never been the victim of a crime. However, a
family member or very good friend has.
tell us briefly about that?
Can you
A. My brother was killed in '96 at Julian
High School.
Q.
A.
So sorry to hear about that.
Thank you. And my cousin was killed by
multiple cars in March. That case is continuing
100
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
here.
Q. Okay. Going back to the incident
involving your brother. Was there anybody caught
or charged in that case?
A. Uh-huh.
Q. Yes?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you go to any court proceedings or
attend any of that?
A. No.
Q. That would not have been here at 26th,
that would have been a different courthouse.
Because I believe Joliet wouldn't be around here.
Somewhere else. You didn't go to any of those?
A. No. I think his case was here. Because
we was living in Chicago. His case was here.
Q. Did it happen when he was out at the
high school in Joliet or no?
A. No. Julian High School.
Q. I'm sorry. I'm telling you when we get
to the back row I twist your words around with
these acoustics. Percy Julian, of course it would
have been in the city. The incident involving your
cousin. Somebody was criminal charged with the
101
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
offense?
A. Yes. One, I don't think she was
charged, but the second car was. Drunk driving.
And then the last car, they never found.
Q. Have you gone to any court proceedings
with respect to that?
A. No.
Q. Is there anything about the fact that
those two instances happened to your family that
would any way stop you or prevent you from being
fair to both sides in this unrelated case?
A. No.
Q. This indicates that the other questions
are answered no. Can you tell me a little bit
about yourself, hobbies, activities, interests that
you have?
A. I'm a student right now. I was in
nursing. They cut it from my school. I'm in
social services. I just got married so I'm still
hoping. I like to play basketball.
Q. How long ago did you get married?
A.
Q.
nursing?
In June.
Okay. Are you thinking of going back to
102
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
A. I was thinking about it. But I just
have to go to another school.
Q. They cut out the program?
A. Yes.
Q. Thank you, Ma'am.
CAR MEN C L A U D I 0,
a prospective juror, having been first duly sworn,
was questioned and responded as follows:
Q.
E X A MIN A T ION
BY
THE COURT:
Next is Miss Claudio. You are living on
the north side of the city. How long in that
general vicinity?
A.
Q.
15 years.
You are presently retired. And this
indicates you have three children, 41, 44, 50.
Start with your youngest. Could you tell us what
that child is doing?
A. My youngest is a police officer. He
103
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
works for the homicide investigators.
Q. Does he work in the city or one of the
suburbs?
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
City.
Okay. And is he marri ed?
He's married. He's got a boy and girl.
Does his wife work?
His wife had a nursing home, baby
sitting at home.
Q. Okay. What about your middle child,
44?
A. Okay. My little one, he worked at
construction. He's tuck pointing and a bricklayer.
Q. Okay. Is he married?
A.
Q.
A.
records.
Q.
He's married and he's got two kids.
Is his wife working?
Yes. She's an assistant in medical
And then your oldest child is 50?
A. My 01 dest chi 1 d, he is a supervi sor at
the post office. He's also a co-pastor.
Q. Is he married?
A. Yes, he's married. He's got one child.
He is in the field of medical billing.
104
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Q. Okay. Is there anything about the fact
that one of your children works as a homicide
Detective, anything about that fact that would stop
you from being fair here on this eavesdropping case
today?
A.
Q.
No, not at all.
Okay. This case you did previously
served on a jury about ten years ago at the Daley
Center, without telling me the verdict, let me ask
did you actually deliberate and reach a verdict?
A. Yes, Ma'am.
Q. Do you recall if it was a civil case,
meaning like a car accident or medical malpractice
or was it a criminal case, some kind of DUI?
A. Medical malpractice.
Q. Okay. I want to poi nt out, I thi nk
somebody else was on a jury, the burdens of proof
are different in a civil case and a criminal case.
If you served on a civil case, the burden of proof
was called preponderance of the evidence. Here in
criminal court it is called beyond a reasonable
doubt.
I just want you to understand the
difference. Although I'm quite certain you don't
105
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
remember the jury instructions ten years ago. I
don't know who would. I'm going to highlight that
for you.
This indicates that you have never
been accused, complainant or a witness in a
criminal case, never been the victim of a crime,
neither has anybody in your family. Everything
else is answered no.
Can you tell us your hobbies,
activities, interests outside of work?
A. Right now, because of my health, I stay
home. I like to read, watch movies. I do like to
go to different places.
THE COURT: Thank you, Ma'am.
B R END A R E E D MAR TIN,
a prospective juror, having been first duly sworn,
was questioned and responded as follows:
Q.
E X A MIN A T ION
BY
THE COURT:
Next is Brenda Reed Martin. You are
106
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
living in a west suburb.
vicinity?
How long in that general
A. About twenty years.
Q. And you work as a respiratory
practitioner. Like a respiratory therapist?
A. That's correct.
Q. For a home that takes care of disabled
individuals?
A.
Q.
That's correct.
You have two children, 20 and 22. Can
you tell us what your twenty year old is doing?
A. My twenty year old is in school.
Q. Okay. How about your 22 year old?
A. Just graduated from Robert Morris
University.
Q. What did she get a degree in?
A. A degree in, a Bachelor's in
administration, hospitality management.
Q. Either one of your children married?
A.
Q.
No.
You indicate you never served on a jury,
never been an accused, complainant or witness in a
criminal case, never been the victim of a crime.
However, a family member or friend has been. Can
107
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
you tell us me briefly about that?
A. My first cousin was a school teacher.
On her way to work, she was car jacked and raped
and beaten. Left for dead in the trunk of her
car.
O.
A.
O.
A.
O.
That's horrible. How long ago was that?
Maybe about 15 years ago.
Did your cousin survive?
She did.
Anybody caught and charged in that case?
A. I'm not sure. It wasn't here.
O. Is there anything about that case, the
fact it happened to your relative, that would
impact your ability to be fair here to everybody?
A. No.
O. Okay. Thi s i ndi cates that you have
been a party to a law suit and so has a family
member. Is that some kind of civil case that's
now over?
A. It is over.
O. The other questions are answered no.
Can you tell me a little bit about yourself,
hobbi es, act i vi ties, interests?
A. I go to church. I love sports. I'm a
108
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Bears fan and Bulls fan.
Q. No baseball?
A. Little bit. I'm a Bears fan and a Bulls
fan.
Q. All ri ght. What do you thi nk they are
going to do Sunday?
A. They are going to win.
Q. I think if we have a show of hands, you
are in the mi nori ty, I have to say. I am hopeful.
I hope they do. That would be nice. Thank you,
Ma'am.
RAY M 0 N D S ABO,
a prospective juror, having been first duly sworn,
was questioned and responded as follows:
E X A MIN A T ION
BY
THE COURT:
Q. Next is Mr. Sabo. You are living in the
southwest suburbs. How long in that general
vicinity?
109
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
A. Majority of my life.
Q. You are currently working at a high
school as the Dean assistant. This indicates you
never served on a jury. I'll back up. What year
do you like the most, Freshman through Seniors. Or
do you have a favorite?
A. About Junior. Too much going on with
the Seniors.
Q. Who gets in the most trouble, Freshman
to Senior? Who gets in more trouble?
A. This year was going to be the Freshmen
with us.
Q. But it depends?
A. It depends.
Q. This indicates you never served on a
jury, never been accused, complainant or witness in
a criminal case. Never been the victim of a crime
and neither has anybody in your family. Neve been
a party to a lawsuit. You have a family member who
is a party to a lawsuit. Is that a civil case that
is over?
A.
Q.
A.
Long over.
The other questions are answered no.
There was one I must have misunderstood.
110
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
I was in college and arrested for an altercation.
Q. No problem. I'll change that to a yes.
We'll go back to that question. That was outside
of Chicago?
A. Yes.
Q. Anything about what transpired in that
case that would stop you from being fair here to
everybody?
A. No.
Q. Okay. The last two questions are
answered no. Can you tell us a little bit about
yourself, sir, hobbies, activities, interests?
A. I coach two sports, wrestling and
baseball. And I coached football too. I'm in grad
school now. That was too much so I just coach two
sports. I get married in June.
Q. Are you a yes man for the wedding or
deeply involved in all the details?
A. No, no. I got ki nd of bri bed into goi ng
to the food tasting next week.
Q. You have to show up at something. You
have to accept you are going to have to show up at
something. By and large you are just giving
approval?
111
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
A.
as well.
Yes. She's real organized. She teaches
Q. You are not arguing over the color of
the bridesmaids' dresses?
A. No at all.
Q. Thank you.
THE COURT: Folks, just a couple of comments
to everybody. We've already talked about this,
along with my opening remarks. It is important
that we have unbiased jurors, people who don't
formulate any opinions ahead of time but sit back
and listen to the evidence. We don't want you to
pre-judge the case.
You are not to formulate an opinion
one way or the other, unti 1 the 1 ast wi tness has
testified, the arguments are done and you get the
law, and you go in the back with the other jurors.
The other important thing, we don't
want you to pre-judge any witnesses in the case.
You know, meaning that all of the witnesses, it is
only fair they all start out at the same point, a
level playing field. And as the case goes forward,
obviously you, picked as jurors, you are going to
decide who and what you believe as the case goes
112
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
on.
It is important that before a witness
even opens their mouth you don't formulate an
opinion on them. For instance, I don't know that
it is really going to be relevant in this case, but
it is important to talk to the jurors about, for
instance, say it was a police officer. Maybe
someone in your life had a positive experience with
the police. Someone has had negative experiences
with the police. Again, those are just your
personal experiences. Those individuals have
nothing to do with the folks that might testify
here.
If someone were to walk in in uniform,
a police officer, if you are sworn in as a juror,
you know, that person should be on a level playing
field. You should have no opinion one way or the
other. You can't be thinking this is a police
officer, I'm going to automatically believe them.
The converse is you can't think to
yourself, that's a policeman, I'm not going to
believe what they are going to say. Of course,
they don't know anything about this person, what
they have to add or possibly not add to the case.
113
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
You don't know anything about them.
be pre-judging them.
That would
They are starting off above the base
line or below the base line. We don't want that to
happen on either level. So, does everybody
understand what I mean about we don't want you to
pre-judge any witnesses. Is there everyone here
who would not be able to follow the law and would
pre-judge the witnesses, one way or the other.
Okay, nobody is raisin their hand.
Okay.
Before I turn the cards over, the
attorneys are going to have a chance to ask any
follow up questions. They have already been
instructed not to go over the same things I already
have. If they do, I will cut them off.
Can I just see the attorneys. We
don't need the Reporter. Just off the record off
to the side.
(Whereupon a discussion
was had outside of the
record, after which
the following
proceedings were had in
114
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
the presence and hearing
of the jury:)
THE COURT: At this time, with this panel,
I'll tender the cards to the State. They can ask
any follow up questions. And one other thing off
the record, first.
THE COURT:
jurors.
MR. PODLASEK:
THE COURT:
to the defense.
(Whereupon a discussion
was had outside of the
record, after which
the following
proceedings were had in
the presence and hearing
of the jury:)
Any questions, State, for the
Nothing, Judge. No.
All ri ght. Pl ease tender them
Do you have anything additional,
defense?
MR. ALBUKERK:
for a minute?
THE COURT:
Judge, can we have a sidebar
With the Reporter, please.
(Whereupon the following
115
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
proceedings were had
outside the presence and
hearing of the jury:)
MR. ALBUKERK: Judge, I wanted to understand
the rules. Do you want us to question all the
jurors now, or the first four?
THE COURT: All of the jurors.
MR. ALBUKERK: Okay. Do you need more time
with this?
MR. PODLASEK: We have nothing.
THE COURT: Okay. It i s the panel. When I
asked earlier off the record, I wanted to ask and I
wanted to avoid the attorneys asking twenty people
the same question .
MR. ALBUKERK: No, no.
THE COURT: All right then .
MR. ALBUKERK: A little question here and
there.
THE COURT: To all twenty then.
MR. ALBUKERK: Probably I'll ask one guy a
couple questions and that will be it.
THE COURT: Whatever you want. All of them
are available though.
MR. ALBUKERK: I wanted to make sure. I
116
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
didn't want them to just give the four .
(Whereupon the following
proceedings were had in
the presence and hearing
of the jury:)
THE COURT: Proceed.
RAY M 0 N D S ABO,
a prospective juror, having been first duly sworn,
was questioned and responded as follows:
O.
A.
O.
E X A MIN A T ION
BY
MR. ALBUKERK:
Mr. Sabo?
Yes.
And Miss Johnson Brown?
JUROR JOHNSON BROWN: Yes.
MR. ALBUKERK: These questions are kind of
aimed to you. You are both in education . What I'm
curious about is what sort of qualities are you
looking for or looking to bring out of your
117
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
students, as they mature and become citizens.
First, Mr. Sabo.
THE COURT: I'm going to sustain that as to
relevance to this case, Counsel.
MR. ALBUKERK: All right.
Well, I'll ask this. How about does
anybody here listen to talk radio?
station do you listen to?
Okay. What
THE COURT: Let's identify the individuals
raising their hands.
MR. ALBUKERK: First, sir?
JUROR DUNNE: Dunne. Last name is Dunne.
DAN I E L
DUN N E,
a prospective juror, having been first duly sworn,
was questioned and responded as follows:
Q.
A,
E X A MIN A T ION
BY
MR. ALBUKERK:
Mr. Dunne?
I think it is WLS,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
students, as they mature and become citizens.
First, Mr. Sabo.
THE COURT: I'm going to sustain that as to
rel evance to thi s case, Counsel.
MR. ALBUKERK: All right.
. Well, I'll ask this. ,: How about does
anybody here listen to talk radio? Okay. What
station dO you listen to?
THE COURT: Let's identify the individuals
raising their hands.
MR. ALBUKERK: First, sir?
JUROR DUNNE: Dunne. Last name is Dunne.
DAN I E L DUN N E,
a prospective juror, having been ;first duly sworn,
was questioned and responded a ~ +bllows:
Q.
A.
E X A MIN A T ION
BY
MR. ALBUKERK:
Mr. Dunne?
I think it is WLS.
118
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
WLS?
Yes.
Don and Roma?
That's one of the people on that
station.
time.
radio?
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
Anybody else you listen to there?
It depends if I am in the car a certain
That's what goes on in the car?
Right.
Anything else you listen to on talk
Sure. WBBM News, WGN, sports.
Okay.
MR. ALBUKERK: Sir, your last name?
JUROR HAMPTON: Hampton.
DON A L D HAM P TON,
a prospective juror, having been first duly sworn,
was questioned and responded as follows:
119
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
E X A MIN A T ION
BY
MR. ALBUKERK:
Mr. Hampton?
Yes.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
You said you also listen to talk radio?
Yes.
What station?
I listen to VON.
WVON?
Yes.
How about newspapers? I'm trying to
find out what newspapers we generally read.
Does anyone here read a newspaper on a
semi-regular basis? Mr. Dunne, your newspaper of
choice?
A. Wall Street Journal.
MR. ALBUKERK: Okay.
Sir in the back?
A JUROR: New York Ti mes.
MR. ALBUKERK: You?
A JUROR: Sun Times.
THE COURT: Counsel, make sure you are
identifying who these folks are. Back it up a
120
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
minute.
MR. ALBUKERK: New York Times, your name?
A JUROR: Sullivan.
A JUROR: Moye.
MR. ALBUKERK: That would be the Sun Times
you said.
A JUROR: Yes.
MR. ALBUKERK: All right. Mr. Dunne, a lot
has gone on, obviously politically. I don't want
to know anything about your political background,
obviously. But I am curious, what are you looking
for in terms of our government? What qualities
would you like to see in our government?
THE COURT: I'm going to sustain that on my
own as not relevant to our jury selection.
MR. ALBUKERK: Mr. Sullivan, how close are
you to finishing your graduate degree?
JUROR SULLIVAN: I've got four years left.
MR. ALBUKERK: Is this a have you done
anything else, any other kinds of work besides
this? Is this a first or second choice career?
JUROR SULLIVAN: This is the first choice.
MR. ALBUKERK: Maybe you worked someplace
else besides this, another field of work before
121
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
this?
JUROR SULLIVAN: Yes. For one year I worked
in marketing, after college.
MR. ALBUKERK: What do you like about this,
your current field of work or current field of
study?
JUROR SULLIVAN: Doing therapy. You know.
It is interesting work.
MR. ALBUKERK: And you like helping people,
is that it?
JUROR SULLIVAN: Yes.
MR. ALBUKERK: Thank you.
Mr. Dozois.
C H R I S TOP HER D 0 Z 0 I S,
a prospective juror, having been first duly sworn,
was questioned and responded as follows:
Q.
A.
E X A MIN A T ION
BY
MR. ALBUKERK:
Mr. Dozoi s?
Yes.
122
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Q. Is that French?
A. It is.
Q. Do you regularly watch any news
programs?
A. No.
Q. Do you read any newspaper?
A. Mostly text stuff. Maybe the Red Eye on
the train. But nothing i n depth.
MR. ALBUKERK: All right. That's all the
questions. One second.
LIS A L E R 0 S E HOE R L E R,
a prospective juror, having been first duly sworn,
was questioned and responded as follows:
Q.
E X A MIN A T ION
BY
MR. ALBUKERK:
Miss Lerose Hoerler, you said you do a
lot of work with your church?
A.
Q.
Yes.
Which church?
123
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
A. Christian Church out of Orland Park.
Q . Orl and Park?
A. Yes.
Q. And what exactly, what kind of
activities do you do?
A. All major events. We have about ten
thousand people that come to our church, recently.
We have singers, chat rooms at our church. I ran
that event. We had a hundred sixty-two
volunteers. What type of thing, you know. We just
had George Hamilton at our church last weekend.
Which I have to make sure the event goes well.
MR. ALBUKERK: All right.
DON A L D HAM P TON,
a prospective juror, having been first duly
was questioned and responded as follows:
Q.
E X A MIN A T ION
BY
MR. ALBUKERK:
Donald Hampton?
124
sworn,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
A. Yes.
O. You also talked about you spend a lot of
time in church, on a regular basis?
A. Yes.
O. Could you tell us what activities, if
any, you are in?
A. I'm in charge of the audio department
for the full facility, audio and communications
that goes on throughout the building. That's
pretty much it.
O. Okay.
MR. ALBUKERK: Thank you, Judge.
THE COURT: Okay. Ladies and gentlemen,
here's how the jury selection will proceed. I'm
going to adjourn in chambers with all the parties
and Court Reporter . We'll be with you when we made
some progress. I can't give you an exact time.
Ball park of ten, fi fteen mi nutes, gi ve or take.
That's kind of what we're talking about. So, can I
have those folks in the back, please.
(Whereupon the following
proceedings were had
outside the presence and
hearing of the jury:)
125
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
THE COURT: Let's go on the record.
Everybody is back present in my chambers. Before
we get to the jury selection I want to just put
something on the record.
Over the lunch break I did, pursuant
to 720 ILCS 5/14-5, I did review in camera the disc
provided me by the State, which had one
conversation from Miss Laudien, the Court Reporter,
as well as three conversations from Pamela Taylor.
I was provided with a transcript for that third
conversation. I'm going to tender that back.
The State indicated they were going to
be using the three conversations from Miss Taylor,
as well as a voi cemail message.
MR. PODLASEK: Right.
THE COURT: I did review all of those
recordings. I find that they are all highly
relevant to the charge at hand. I'm determining as
a matter of law pursuant to the statute that in
order to prove the allegations in the case they may
be admitted, in their entirety.
MR. PODLASEK: Thank you.
THE COURT: I'm tendering back the disc, as
well as the transcript on the third call.
126
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Can I have the cards. Who has the
cards?
MR. ALBUKERK: Here they are.
THE COURT: Let's start with any challenges
for cause. I don't believe anybody on their face
said they couldn't be fair in this case.
MR. PODLASEK: My understanding, Mr. Donald
Hughes, number seven, has a criminal background.
THE COURT: Let's see if it is the same
person. For Donald Hughes, State, you are
indicating a background. Address and date of
birth?
MS. GUNNIGLE: I have 8-28-62.
THE COURT: 8-28-62. Same date of birth on
the card. What is the background?
MS. GUNNIGLE: PCS and trespass to --
criminal trespass, misdemeanor.
THE COURT: The year for the PCS?
MS. GUNNIGLE: The PCS is -- Pardon me,
this is difficult to read. I have 4-12-05.
THE COURT: Okay. How about criminal
trespass. Does it show an address for him on there?
MS. GUNNIGLE: I believe it does. On Dante
Avenue.
127
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
THE COURT: He is living now at 8224 South
Muskegon. That's a different address. The year for
the criminal trespass?
MS. GUNNIGLE: 2005, your Honor.
THE COURT: No other background?
MS. GUNNIGLE: No.
THE COURT: Defense, your position for the
State's motion for cause? Same date of birth,
different address. If you are in agreement, I'll
excuse hi m for cause. If not, I'll bri ng hi m back
to see if he is that same individual.
MR. ALBUKERK: I think we should figure out
if he is the same. It is an 80 percent possibility
that he is, but we should.
THE COURT: We'll bring him back. Let me
re-organization you. Miss Melongo, move over to
the couch, closest to the bathroom. Everyone sit
down. Bring him back for me then, Alice. Donald
Hughes.
While she's getting him, any other
challenges for cause?
MR. PODLASEK: Yes. Number ten, Mi chell e
Diaz.
THE COURT: The allegation is what?
128
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
MR. PODLASEK: Cri mi nal background.
THE COURT: Do we have that?
MS. GUNNIGLE: I have an arrest, your Honor,
in Shelby County, for domestic battery and
disorderly conduct.
THE COURT: When?
MS. GUNNIGLE: 2003.
THE COURT: Okay. Date of bi rth on her?
MS. GUNNIGLE: Date of birth
THE COURT: One minute.
Sir, have a seat right there in the
gray chair. Thank you. I have a couple of follow
up questions for you. You do have a very common
name so I want to make sure that we have the right
person or not the right person.
Any chance that in 2005 you were
arrested for possession of controlled substance and
also for criminal trespass to land? Does that
ring any bells?
JUROR HUGHES: The criminal trespass, I was
work at Auto Zone, doing mechanic work.
THE COURT: I want to make sure.
defense, follow ups for Mr. Hughes?
MR. PODLASEK: No, your Honor.
129
State and
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
MR. ALBUKERK: No.
THE COURT: Thank you for coming back and
clarifying that, sir.
THE COURT: Defense, your position at this
point?
MR. ALBUKERK: Judge, he is telling us why
he got a trespass. Was that a conviction?
THE COURT: I made clear i n my remarks an
arrest, even tossed out. I used a drinking charge
that got tossed out. I'm excusing him for cause.
MR. ALBUKERK: For the record, objection.
THE COURT: Okay. Michelle Diaz. You
indicate you were looking for date of birth.
Domestic battery from 2003 .
MS. GUNNIGLE: 12-7-84.
THE COURT: 12-7-83. '84 and then '83.
Any address on there?
MS. GUNNIGLE: Not that I am seeing, Judge.
THE COURT: Defense, your position on
Michelle Diaz? The State is asking for cause on
her. Bi rth date is off by a year. Are you in
agreement or you want to bring her back and have
her questioned?
MR. ALBUKERK: You have a date of birth off
130
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
by a year. What about the address?
THE COURT: They can't find an address.
MR . ALBUKERK: I have to bring her back.
Too common a name.
THE COURT: Bring back Miss Diaz. Anybody
else for cause?
MR . PODLASEK: No.
THE COURT: Nobody else with a background .
Even if you are not making a motion for cause, the
State is aware you still have to tender the
background. Anybody else to talk about?
MR. PODLASEK: Nobody wi th a background. I
would raise the issue of number four, Daniel
Pizano. He indicated his English was so-so. I
don't know if that will be a problem.
THE COURT: My Diaz, have a seat there.
Thank you for coming back. You have a very common
name, as I'm sure you are aware. Almost like a
Smith. I just want to make sure we have the right
records here.
Is there any chance that you were
arrested in 2003 in Shelby County for domestic
battery or disorderly conduct?
JUROR DIAZ: No.
131
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
THE COURT: Ever been to Shelby County?
JUROR DIAZ: I don't think so. Where is
that?
THE COURT: I don't know myself , to be
honest with you. All right. It was a common name
so we wanted to verify that was not you.
JUROR DIAZ: Okay.
THE COURT: Thank you so much.
Based upon that, State, are you making
your motion for cause?
MR. PODLASEK: I am standing by the motion
for cause. I think the date of birth is too close.
THE COURT: December 7th, a different year.
You haven't given me an address. There is not
nearly enough for cause. That is denied.
Anybody else? You were talking about
Mr. Pizano .
MR. PODLASEK: The fact he indicated English
was so-so to you . Those are his words, not mine.
THE COURT: Defense, your position on that?
I would note he served on a jury at the Daley
Center and rendered a verdict in '02.
MR. PODLASEK: I understand.
MR. ALBUKERK: Judge, I mean, you know, the
132
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
State is right. He did have a problem. He said he
had a problem. Then he seemed to understand
everything being said.
THE COURT: Let me ask you. Are you making
a motion for cause?
MR. PODLASEK: Yes.
THE COURT: Are you in agreement with that?
MR. ALBUKERK: Sure, yes.
THE COURT : All ri ght, then I'll excuse
number four for cause.
State, you indicated that was it,
nobody else?
MR. PODLASEK: Correct.
THE COURT: Okay. We're going to pick as we
discussed in panels of four. First four to the
State. They are going to be Lerose Hoerler,
Elakatt, Brown Johnson, then Dozois.
MR. PODLASEK: The State accepts.
THE COURT: Tender the panel to the defense.
MR. ALBUKERK: All right, Judge. I'm going
to exercise my first peremptory on Number One.
THE COURT: Okay. That's the only one from
that panel? There are no back strikes, you
understand?
133
- - -------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
MR. ALBUKERK: Right.
THE COURT: I'm going to give you Avelino
Benzon to replace the one you challenged. Are you
going to take Benzon?
MR. ALBUKERK: I'm fine with this panel.
THE COURT: That goes back to the State to
review Benzon. You haven't seen Benzon yet, number
six.
MR. PODLASEK: We're fine, Judge.
THE COURT: All right. We have our fi rst
panel of four. Juror 2, 3, 5, 6. The second panel
of four we start with the defense. Defense, you
are going to get juror 8, Hampton; 9, Dunne; 10,
Diaz; 11, Rohrman. Tender these cards to you.
MR. ALBUKERK: Thank you.
We're okay with this.
THE COURT: Tender that panel over to the
State, please.
MR. ALBUKERK: I shall.
MR . PODLASEK: We'll use a challenge on
Michelle Diaz. We're okay with the other three.
THE COURT: Okay. I'll take Diaz back.
The next one you are going to get is Richard Miller
to fill the panel. Are you going to take
134
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Mr. Miller?
MR. PODLASEK: I thought Daniel Rohrman was
next.
THE COURT: I'm sorry, let me double check.
Rohrman you had in your hand.
MR. PODLASEK: I did.
THE COURT: Yes . Rohrman you accepted.
MR. PODLASEK: Okay, that's fine, Judge .
THE COURT: Miller is next on your panel.
Are you going to take Miller?
MR. PODLASEK: I didn't see Miller.
THE COURT: Okay, here it is. You just got
rid of Diaz. The panel is now with you until you
are satisfied.
MR. PODLASEK: Okay.
THE COURT: You have to review Richard
Miller. If that panel is complete, they get to
review Miller only.
MR. ALBUKERK: Judge
THE COURT: Hold on.
MR. PODLASEK: This is fine.
MR. ALBUKERK: Miller is fine. We're good.
THE COURT: We have our second panel of
four. So, the second panel of four on the jury is
135
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Hampton, Dunne, Rohrman and Mi 11 er.
The next panel of four is going to go
to the State again. You are going to get
Brumbaugh, Prado, Sullivan and Moye.
MR. PODLASEK: The State accepts Ashley
Brumbaugh. As far as Diego Prado, we're using a
challenge, along with Brendan Sullivan also. We
accept Garry Moye .
THE COURT: I'll give you two more to
complete your panel. Constance Star, who crossed
out the name and made Crockett, and Carmen
Claudio.
MR. PODLASEK: We're going to use a
challenge on Crockett.
THE COURT: You get Brenda Reed Martin.
MR. PODLASEK: We're satisfied with this
panel.
THE COURT: Tender those to the defense.
MR. ALBUKERK: Judge well, okay.
We're going to exercise a challenge on
Carmen Claudio, the elderly woman who is retired.
THE COURT: Okay. I'll give you Raymond
Sabo to take her place.
MR. ALBUKERK: Thank you.
136
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
THE COURT : Are you going to take Sabo?
MR. ALBUKERK: We are taking Sabo. Let me
look at the rest of them though.
THE COURT: There are no back strikes. You
have to give me all at the same time.
MR. ALBUKERK: Right, right. The last one - -
THE COURT: You were reviewing the panel of
four tendered to me because you hadn't seen any of
them. I said there are no back strikes. Out of
that panel you excused him.
MR. ALBUKERK: Right.
THE COURT: You should only be looking at
the last one at this point.
MR. ALBUKERK: I see.
THE COURT: Is that right?
MR. ALBUKERK: I believe that's the case.
I think we're good. We'll accept this
panel.
THE COURT: All right, State. The only one
you haven't reviewed is Sabo.
MR. PODLASEK: Correct, Judge.
Judge, the State accepts Mr. Sabo.
THE COURT: Okay. We have our jury. The
last four members of the jury in order of selection
137
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
were Brumbaugh, Moye, Reed Martin and Sabo. We
just need to pick two alternates.
MR. ALBUKERK: How many strikes for the
alternates?
THE COURT: There is one challenge per side
per alternate.
MR. ALBUKERK: Okay.
THE COURT: What I'll do, we may do this off
to the side, not come in the back. I'll put six
people in the box. State, you know who is coming
next. Are there any criminal backgrounds coming
up?
MS. GUNNIGLE: No.
THE COURT: 21 through 27.
MS. GUNNIGLE: No, Judge. There are none
until juror number 44 rolls around.
THE COURT: Okay. Six should be more than
enough then. I'll put them in there and we'll do
it and take a break and just start it. We'll do it
off to the side.
(Whereupon the following
proceedings were had in
the presence and hearing
138
- ------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
of the jury:)
THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen, we have
made some significant progress. As I read your
name off now, I'll ask you to gather up all the
belongings that you have and follow the deputy into
the jury room.
We'll start off. We have made some
significant progress with our jury, but we still
have more to pick. If I read your name off now,
I'll ask you to gather up your belongings, purses,
notes and follow the deputy into the back.
we finish selecting the other folks we'll get
started with the trial today.
Once
The following individuals are on the
jury: Cicily Kutty Elakatt, Joann Brown Johnson,
Christopher Dozois, Avelino Benzon, Donald Hampton,
Daniel Dunne, Daniel Rohrman, Richard Miller,
Ashley Brumbaugh, Garry Moye, Brenda Reed Martin,
Raymond Sabo. You folks can go into the jury room.
To those of you whose names I did not
read off, with our thanks you folks are excused.
I'm going to call up six more people .
I'm going to have you go into the second row.
Juan Ruiz. That second row, closer by
139
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
the lawyers.
John Karas, second seat.
Marianne McCluskey.
Seat four is Elizabeth Robles.
Seat five is Lisa Pometta.
Seat six is Mark Johnson.
Mr. Ruiz, Mr. Karas, Miss McCluskey,
Miss Robles, Miss Pometta and Mr. Johnson.
To the six of you folks sitting in
front of me I just read off, I'll go through those
same four principles we talked about with the last
panel. Do the six of you understand in this case
as well as all cases, that across the country the
Defendant is presumed to be innocent of the charges
against him. Do you all understand that?
Again, I don't mean to insult anyone's
intelligence. There is a distinction between
understanding and accepting. Even though you all
understand it, is there anybody here who cannot or
will not accept that principle. Raise your hand
for me if you won't or can't.
No hands are up.
The second principle. Before any
Defendant can be convicted, the State must prove
140
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
that individual guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Do you all understand that?
The six people are saying yes.
Even though you all understand it, is
there anybody here who cannot or will not accept
it. Raise your hand, please.
No hands are up.
The third principle. The Defendant is
not required to put on any evidence on their own
behalf. Does everybody understand that?
This goes back to, like I said, the
State's burden to prove someone guilty, meaning you
don't have to do anything. Their job, they brought
the charges. Everybody understand that?
Everyone is saying yes.
Anyone who cannot or will not accept
that principle, raise your hand.
No hands are up.
Lastly, the defendant's failure to
testify cannot be held against her. Does everybody
understand that principle?
Is there anybody here who cannot or
will not accept that principle of law? Raise your
hand.
141
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
No hands are up.
I think I'll deal with this general
question now while we're doing the general
questions. As I said with the last panel, it is
important that anyone selected as a juror, you
don't pre-judge the case. Meaning you don't
formulate any opinion until the whole thing is
over, you have the instructions, the law, you can
start deliberating.
It's equally important you not
pre-judge any witness in the case. In other words,
when they walk up to testify, you shouldn't be
thinking to yourself that you are going to believe
them or not believe them.
I'll give an example, as I did with
the last panel, of a police officer. Let's say you
and your wife maybe have a positive experience
with police, family members in law enforcement.
Maybe you have had some negative experiences with
law enforcement.
We don't ask you to change those
experiences because we can't. It comes with who
you are. The point would be this. Anybody who
walks in this courtroom, you obviously said you
142
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
don't know the witnesses, you give all of them, no
matter what their profession in life, be it police
or any other occupation, they all start out at a
level playing field, don't give them any more or
less credibility before they even open their mouth.
If you did, you would be pre-judging them.
As I talked about with the last panel,
a policeman comes in and you think to yourself I'm
going to believe him because they are the police,
you would be pre-judging them in a positive light
above the base line.
Obviously the converse, as I said with
the last panel, somebody comes in in uniform and
you say that you are not going to believe them
pause they are the police, you would be pre-judging
them negatively .
It is important you not do that. Does
everybody here feel they can give all of the
witnesses, all of them, a fair trial, a fair shake
and not pre-judge.
pre-judge the case.
do that?
Not pre-judge the witnesses or
The six of you think you can
Everyone is saying yes, okay.
All right . We'll start with
143
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Mr. Ruiz.
J U A N R U I Z,
a prospective juror, having been first duly sworn,
was questioned and responded as follows:
city.
E X A MIN A T ION
BY
THE COURT:
O. Mr. Ruiz.
A. Yes.
O. You are living on the south side of the
How long in that general vicinity, sir?
A. There about 40 years.
O. You are presently not working. Were you
working before?
place.
A. Yes. I was working for 32 years in a
Q.
A.
O.
What type of work, sir?
Piping.
Okay. And you had three children; 17,
26, 30. Is your 17 year old still in school?
A. Yes.
144
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Q.
A.
year ago.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
How about your child that is 26?
She's just become a pharmacist, about a
A pharmacist?
Yes.
Is she married?
Yes.
What type of work does her spouse do?
Construction.
Your oldest child is 30?
Yes.
Okay.
He's going to be a pharmacist too. She
was in the Air Force, she came back, she's going
back to school.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Is she married, sir?
She's married, yes.
What type of work does her husband do?
They were both in the army. I don't
really know. He just got out recently.
Q. All right. This indicates you never
served on a jury, never been accused, complainant
or witness in a criminal case. But you have been
the victim of a crime. Tell me about that briefly?
145
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
A. Yes. Long time ago my car got stolen. I
found out who steal it. Same guy that sold it to
me. I saw him on the street and followed him.
They took him to court and this and that. They let
him
take
that
go.
Q.
i t you
case?
A.
Obviously, from what you are saying, I
were disappointed with the outcome of
Yes.
Q. You think you can put those feelings
aside and understand that the people involved in
that case had nothing to do with the case here and
could you be fair here to both sides, the State and
defense?
A. Yes, I could be fair. Like I said, I've
been disappointed about the system. Not only then .
After that, I got my car -- My car got stolen.
We found out almost who did it. They didn't follow
through.
Q. You kind of bring up a good point that
comes up in jury selection. Everybody comes with
their own experiences in life. You certainly were
disappointed with how those cases were worked up or
not worked up. How they let it fall through the
146
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
cracks. Or in your view you didn't get service you
should have.
I don't ask you to change those.
That's how you feel. Could you put those feelings
aside and not take it out on the State here or the
Defendant here, because you sort of got the short
end of the stick in a couple of cases?
A. Yes, I could. I could.
Q. Could you be fair?
A. Yes. I could be fair. It is a
different kind of case.
Q. Okay, thank you, sir. The other
questions are answered no. Can you tell us a
little bit about yourself, what you like to do in
your free time?
A. I like bike riding. I practice
racquetball and handball. Those are the main
hobbies that I have.
Q. Thank you.
147
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
J 0 H N K A R A S,
a prospective juror, having been first duly sworn,
was questioned and responded as follows:
E X A MIN A T ION
BY
THE COURT:
O. Next is Mr. Karas. You are living in
the south side. How long in that general vicinity?
A. Six years.
O. You presently work as a computer service
engineer for a large company. Your spouse is
employed as a pet groomer. Two children, four
and fifteen. This indicates you previously served
on a jury in 2001 in Michigan. Did you actually
deliberate and reach a verdict?
A.
O.
A.
O.
Yes.
Was it civil or criminal, sir?
Cri mi nal .
Anything about your service on that jury
that would somehow stop you from being fair here to
everybody?
A. No.
O. This indicates you have never been
148
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
accused, a complainant or witness in a criminal
case. But you have been the victim of a crime.
Can you tell us about that?
A. Two criminal damage to property and one
theft. Also I was arrested when I was 17.
Q. Okay. Let me change that for a minute.
We'll go back to that question. You said you were
17 years old. Anything about that case or what
happened with it that would stop you from being
fair here to everybody?
A. No.
Q. Okay. Let me go back then to the
instances you were the victim of crimes. Anybody
caught in any of those?
A. No.
Q. Anything about the way they were handled
that would stop you from fair to both sides?
A. No.
Q. This indicates you had been a party to a
law suit and so has a family member . Is that a
civil case now over?
A.
Q.
Yes.
Okay. Can you tell us any hobbies,
activities, interests that you have?
149
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
A. Hunting, fishing, bike riding, spending
a lot of time with my four-year old son.
Q. Any groups or clubs or anything like
that?
A. Sportsman's club. I'm on the board at
the sportsman's club on the south side.
Q. Thank you, sir.
MAR I ANN E M c C L U S KEY,
a prospective juror, having been first duly sworn,
was questioned and responded as follows:
Q.
E X A MIN A T ION
BY
THE COURT:
Next we have got Miss McCluskey. You
are in a west suburb. How long in that vicinity?
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
Seven years.
You work as a marketing supervisor?
Yes.
This indicates your spouse is employed
as an audio designer. You did serve on a jury
150
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
about 2003 in one of the suburbs. Let me ask you
did you actually deliberate and reach a verdict?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you recall now whether it was civil
or criminal?
A. Criminal.
Q. Anything about your service on that jury
that would stop you or prevent you from being fair?
A. No.
Q. This indicates you have never been an
accused, complainant or witness in a criminal case.
Never been the victim of a crime, neither has
anybody in your family. Everything else is no.
Are there any groups or clubs you belong to,
hobbies, activities?
A. I'm an avid reader and a member of a
book club in the neighborhood, active with a huge
family . I like to entertain.
Q. Is your book club like mine, they only
talk about the book for fifteen minutes and veer
into other topics?
A.
Q.
Primarily wine, yes.
All right.
151
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
ELI Z ABE T H ROB L E S,
a prospective juror, having been first duly sworn,
was questioned and responded as follows:
E X A MIN A T ION
BY
THE COURT:
O. Next is Miss Robles. You are living in
a northwest suburb. How long in that general
vicinity?
A. My whole life.
O. This indicates that you work as a
an office manager assistant for a company. I
don't want to know the name of the company. What
type of work do they do?
A. They sell and install 1 aboratory
furniture.
O. You never think laboratories have
furniture. I guess they have to sit down. You
have one child, ten. You never served on a jury,
never been accused, complainant or witness in a
criminal case. Never been the victim of a crime.
However, a family member or friend has been. Can
152
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
you tell us about that?
A. My Dad. He had hi s car broken into a
couple times.
Q. Anybody caught in those cases?
A. No.
Q. Anything about the fact that happened
that would stop you from being fair?
A. No.
Q. This says you were party to a law suit.
Is that a civil case over with now?
A. Yes.
Q. All the other questions are answered no.
Can you tell us a little bit about yourself,
hobbi es, act i vi ties, interests?
A. My son and I belong to a boxing club.
I also help my Dad with his business.
Q. Thank you, Ma'am.
LIS A P 0 MET T A,
a prospective juror, having been first duly sworn,
was questioned and responded as follows:
153
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
E X A MIN A T ION
BY
THE COURT:
Q. Miss Pometta?
A. Yes.
Q. How long have you lived in this general
vicinity?
A. My entire life.
Q. You work as a legal secretary for a
large firm. That is primarily engaged in civil
litigation. Do they do criminal matters as well?
A. Yes. We're pro bono as well.
Q. Pro bono work?
Yes. A.
Q. Do you do any work on any of those
cases, cri mi nal cases?
A. Other than revisions to documents .
Q. I guess what I'm sayi ng, I shoul d be
more clear.
A. Researching for , no.
Q. Do you do work for the attorneys working
on the criminal cases?
A.
Q.
Sure.
Okay?
154
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
A. Yes.
Q. Anything about your experience working
basically in the field of criminal law, experience
with that, that would any way stop you or prevent
you from being fair here to both sides?
A. No.
Q. Do you ever have to go to court as part
of the case preparation or anything like that?
A. No. There is other staff members for
that.
Q. Okay. Do any of those cases take you to
26th and California? I imagine it would?
A. Yes.
Q. This indicates your spouse is employed
as a chemical operator. Three children. Start
with your youngest, 21. Tell us what that child is
doing?
A. The 21 stays home. And watches my
four-year old grandson.
Q. Then you have a 25 year old. Tell me
about that child?
A. Like an assistant director for financing
and fund raising for a fraternity. Northwestern
campus.
155
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Q. Your 25 year old married?
A. No.
Q. And then your oldest child is
twenty-eight?
A. Ri ght . He's a servi ce manager at a
garage.
Q.
A.
Q.
Is he married?
No.
Okay. This indicates you have never
served on a jury, never been an accused ,
complainant or witness in a criminal case, never
been the victim of a crime. However, a friend or
family member has been. Can you tell me briefly
about that?
A. My sister's house has been robbed twice.
Once twenty years ago. They caught the people.
They were painters the landlord had come in to
paint the place. I don ' t know what really
happened. Other than the fact she lost a lot of
stuff. And she was robbed like four years ago.
They didn't
Q.
A.
Q.
Didn't get anyone?
Right.
Is there anything about the fact that
156
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
happened that would impede your ability to be fair?
A. No.
Q. The other questions are answered no.
Can you tell us a little bit about yourself,
hobbi es, act i vi ties, interests?
A. I love music. I'm big with music.
Ipod. Other than that, I'm home with the family or
watching my four-year old grandson. That's when my
21 year old goes to my mother's house to get a
break.
Q.
A.
Q.
That keeps you busy?
Yes.
All right.
MAR K J 0 H N SON,
a prospective juror, having been first duly sworn,
was questioned and responded as follows:
Q.
E X A MIN A T ION
BY
THE COURT:
Next is Mr. Johnson. You are living in
157
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
a northwest suburb. How long in that vicinity?
A. All my life.
Q. You work as a school social worker.
What grade level?
A. High school .
Q. So, do you have a favori te, Freshmen
through Senior?
A. I work with all of them. So, not
really.
Q. This indicates that you have never been
on a jury. Never been an accused, complainant or
wi tness ina cri mi nal case. However, you as well
as a family member have been a victim of a crime.
Tell me briefly about that?
A. Myself, it was I was hit by a drunk
driver while I was parked. Like I was parked at a
light. He hit the back of the car. I was
involved in that case. And then a family member
was involved in a car accident. The people got out
of their car and beat them both up. That went to
court.
Q. Okay. In the case involving yourself
with the drunk driver, did that go to court as
well?
158
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
A. Yes.
Q. Did you have to testify i n that case?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you?
A. Yes.
Q. Was that here at 26th Street or
somewhere else, if you remember?
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
It was a long time ago.
That's all, you don't remember.
I don't remember.
Is there anything about your experience
with either one of those instances where you
yourself were the victim and then you had the
family member that would stop you or prevent you
from being fair here to both sides?
A.
Q.
No.
All right. This indicates that you have
been a party to a lawsuit. Is that a civil case
that is now over with?
A. Yes. Well, yes, yes. There is nothing
going on right now.
Q. Okay. Can you tell us a little bit
about yourself, any hobbies, activities or
interests that you have?
159
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
A. I do a lot of sports. I do weight
lifting and track and running races. I'm involved
in the high school. A lot of outside activities.
Right now the kids are in finals. I'm case manager
for about four or five of them.
Q. Okay. Do you think it would, since
today is almost over, you think we can have one
more day of your time and it wouldn't impact too
much on your ability to then serve your students?
A. Well, it wouldn't have an impact on me
being here or anything. I'm not sure about the
distraction of me wondering how they are doing. I
know you said that's not a big deal, but some of
these kids that I've been working with them for
four years, they don't take tests in the
classrooms. They have been coming down and getting
special accommodations. But I could be fair.
Q. Does that sometimes involve them taking
the test in your office?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Do you have any of those tests
scheduled for tomorrow?
A. Yes, I had them today. One kid is
staying home. He's hoping for either tomorrow or
160
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Friday.
Q. Thank you, sir.
Here's what I'll do with this panel.
Tender these cards to the defense. Do you have
any followup questions? When your are done,
tender them to the State, please.
MR. ALBUKERK: Thank you, Judge.
J U A N R U I Z,
a prospective juror, having been first duly sworn,
was questioned and responded as follows:
E X A MIN A T ION
BY
MR. ALBUKERK:
Q. Mr. Ruiz, you talked about two instances
where you were the victim of a crime?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you have any feelings or thoughts
about our criminal justice system one way or
another because of those two?
161
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
A. Well, that was a long time ago. Long
time ago. I didn't know how the system works. My
car got stolen. The State's Attorney said don't
worry, we got this case, we know this guy. He's
going to go to jail and you get your car back. That
di dn' t happen. The next ti me, I got my garage
broke into, we collected the phone that was stolen.
We traced the calls and everything. Nobody
followed it up.
Q. Do you fault anyone for that?
A. No. Well, no.
Q. No?
A. What do you think?
Q. Well, I don't know. The real question
i s how you feel about it?
A. Bad. We almost knew who the guy broke
into my garage was. Because we followed the car.
I followed the car. I called the Detective. I told
them everything. Nothing came up.
Q. Right. And if you could correct that,
you would?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Did you feel 1 i ke, you know, this
i s an opportunity for you i n any way, here today?
162
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
A. No, it is not. Like I said, that is
different kind of case, you know.
Q. Okay.
A.
like that.
Nothing to do with break in, nothing
Q. Do you feel like you could be fair to
the State's Attorneys in this case?
A. I don't think so.
Q. No?
A. No.
MR. ALBUKERK: Well, Judge, can I have a
moment?
J 0 H N K A R A R,
a prospective juror, having been first duly sworn,
was questioned and responded as follows:
Q.
E X A MIN A T ION
BY
MR. ALBUKERK:
Mr. Karas, you sai d you have been 1 i vi ng
at your location for six years?
163
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
About six years, yes.
And that's on the south side of Chicago?
Southeast side.
Where were you before that?
I was in Oakl and County, Mi chi gan. Near
the Detroit area. Northwest of Detroit.
Q. Were you doing the same kind of work
there?
A. Yes.
Q. This is a computer service engineer.
Sort of like a main frame?
A. Yes. Mai n frames, and networks, yes.
Q. Okay. In your leisure time what do you
do?
A.
outdoors.
Camping, fishing, hunting, anything
MR. ALBUKERK: Okay, that's fine.
MAR I ANN E M c C L U S KEY,
a prospective juror, having been first duly sworn,
was questioned and responded as follows:
164
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Q.
E X A MIN A T ION
BY
MR. ALBUKERK:
What is an audio designer? I'm
speaking, for the record, to Marianne McCluskey.
A. A person who creates sound effects or
sound enhancement for productions, like stage
productions or record productions, movies or TV.
Q. Okay. And that's your husband?
i f --
A.
Q.
Yes.
The company you work for, I don't know
Let me check this. You know what, I'll
just ask you. What is your company, what is it
they do?
A. Marketing programs for clients, nation
wide or world wide clients. We do like sweepstakes
or info commercials or enhancements, you know, to
get involved with the product. Like win a product
or learn more about the product.
Q.
Skokie?
A.
Q.
You said you were a juror in 2003 in
Yes.
Did that Was that an eye opening
experience for you?
165
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Yes. A.
Q.
opening?
What about that experience was eye
THE COURT: Sustained.
BY MR. ALBUKERK:
Q. Do you think you can be fair to the
State's Attorney in this case?
A. Yes.
Q. You think you can be fair to the
defendant in this case?
A. Yes.
MR. ALBUKERK: All right.
ELI Z ABE T H ROB L E S,
a prospective juror, having been first duly sworn,
was questioned and responded as follows:
Q.
E X A MIN A T ION
BY
MR. ALBUKERK:
Miss Robles, what does
of work does your firm do?
166
what kind
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
A. We sell and install 1 aboratory
furniture.
Q. That's ri ght. You say sell and install,
we're talking about those big tables that you put
the Bunsen burner on, that type of thing?
A. Yes. Steam hoods.
Q. Okay.
I'm going to -- You want me to
tender?
THE COURT: Please tender the cards to the
State, see if they have any questions of this
panel.
MR. PODLASEK: We don't have any questions,
Judge.
THE COURT: All right. I just have a follow
up. I'll will take the cards, State. Thank you.
J U A N R U I Z,
a prospective juror, having been first duly sworn,
was questioned and responded as follows:
167
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
E X A MIN A T ION
BY
THE COURT:
Q. Mr. Ruiz, I want to clear up with you
this point. I know that you are clearly upset with
probably one of your cases in your view, and then
in another case the State's Attorneys assured you
of victory, that everything would be okay and it
didn't work out. You were upset with those State's
Attorneys, that's clear.
You were saying earlier to me that it
is an unrelated case, your cases have nothing to do
with the case here. You could be fair to both
sides.
Then you just said you didn't think
you could be fair to the State's Attorney. I guess
I'm going to ask you another time. I'm looking for
an honest answer, not trying to pigeon hole you.
It is important that both sides get a fair trial.
Could you be fair to the State's Attorneys on this
case and give them a fair shake?
A. Yes, I could. In fact, I didn't know
the State's Attorney was the one bringing the
Defendant to court. I thought it was somebody
168
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
else.
Q. Okay. Now that you know it is the
State's Attorney, those are the prosecutors on all
criminal cases in Cook County, or I suppose the
Illinois Attorney General could be as well. I'm
getting picky. But the majority of them are
prosecuted by the State's Attorneys, which are the
folks to your right, could you give them a fair
shake here, a fair trial?
A. Yes, I think so.
THE COURT: Could I see the attorneys i n a
sidebar.
(Whereupon the following
proceedings were had
outside the presence and
hearing of the jury: )
THE COURT: Any motions for cause?
MR. PODLASEK: Number 21 , Ruiz.
THE COURT: I'll deny it for cause As to
Ruiz, tender to the State , alternate Number One.
MR. PODLASEK: We'll exercise a challenge.
THE COURT: Okay. Defense, Karas?
MR. ALBUKERK: Fine.
THE COURT: Okay. He's alternate Number
169
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
One.
Two.
To the defense, Marianne McCluskey.
MR. ALBUKERK: Fine.
THE COURT: State.
MR. PODLASEK: Fine.
THE COURT: Okay. She's going to be Number
Okay. Thank you.
THE COURT:
(Whereupon the following
proceedings were had in
the presence and hearing
of the jury:)
Ladies and gentlemen, file read
your name off now, just gather up your belongings
and head into the jury room. We'll be bringing you
out shortly for opening statements.
Mr. John Karas and Marianne McCluskey.
You two head into the jury room. The rest of you
in the first row, as well as to the rest of you out
in the gallery, I know that it is, you know, a
little bit more interesting, certainly exciting is
probably a stretch, but more interesting if you get
called into the room to get questioned.
For those of you out there, even
though we didn't get a chance to talk to you, you
170
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
did your civic duty, followed your obligation and
responded to the subpoena. For that we thank you.
For the rest of you, other than those names I read,
you will be excused for the day.
Now, how much time to get yourselves
together. I think we can proceed with the witness
today.
MR. ALBUKERK: A witness, Judge?
MR. PODLASEK: The only witness we'd have
available would be Pamela Taylor. We need the TV
sets to be brought up, set up. Maybe fifteen
minutes.
THE COURT: Okay. Take fifteen minutes.
MR. PODLASEK: Okay.
MR. ALBUKERK: Then we're going to go to
opening?
THE COURT: Opening and the State's case.
I don't know if you are doing the stipulation
first.
MR. PODLASEK:
THE COURT:
Stipulation would be first.
Okay. Fifteen minutes.
(Whereupon the above
entitled cause was
passed, after which the
171
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
THE COURT:
Melongo.
THE COURT:
jury.
following proceedings
were had outside the
presence and hearing
of the jury:}
All right, bring out Miss
All right, let's bring out the
(Whereupon the following
proceedings were had in
the presence and hearing
of the jury:)
THE COURT: All right, I'll ask the jurors
to remain standing. Everyone else in the court may
be seated.
I'm now going to swear you in to try
the facts in this case. If you could please raise
your right hands and face me.
(Jury sworn.)
THE COURT: Everybody may be seated.
Just a couple of opening remarks
before we get started with opening statements.
First of all, just so you know, there is no
assigned seating here. When you come and go from
172
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
the back room after breaks or a lunch, you can
take whatever seat you like. Up to you.
If there is a witness on the stand and
you cannot hear them, please raise your hand. I'll
be alerted you are having a problem. If there are
any documents in the case or exhibits that the
parties are clearly trying to show you, your view
is blocked, somebody's back is to you or you can't
see, raise your hand and I'll remedy that.
Lastly, if we're doing the middle of
proceedings and somebody needs to use the rest
room, please raise your hand for that. I'm usually
able to figure out which one of those you are
raising your hand for.
Let me explain to you how the trial is
going to go. In a couple minutes, you are going to
have an opportunity to hear opening statements from
the lawyers. The opening statements themselves,
that's not evidence. It is merely the attorneys'
view of what the evidence is going to show.
Remember we talked about the evidence
being what comes from the witness stand. And if
there are any exhibits. The attorneys are not even
required to give opening statements. Generally
173
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
speaking in jury trials they do. So, the attorneys
will have an opportunity to make their opening
remarks to you.
After that, we'll proceed with
evidence. The State will call witnesses. They
will do what we call a direct examination. Direct
examination of the witness. The defense will have a
chance to cross examine each of the State's
witnesses.
When the State is done with all of
their evidence, they will rest their case in chief.
At that time the defense will have an opportunity
to call witnesses, if they choose to.
As you already heard, many times, you
all understood they have no obligation to put on
any evidence at all. That's because it is the
State's burden of proof.
That is going to give you the road map
through the end of the case. When we get there,
we'll talk a little bit more. Having made those
remarks, is the State and defense both ready to
proceed to opening statement?
MS. GUNNIGLE: Yes, your Honor.
MR. ALBUKERK: Yes, your Honor.
174
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
THE COURT: State, you may address the jury
in opening statement.
MS. GUNNIGLE: Thank you.
OPENING STATEMENT
BY
MS. GUNNIGLE:
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury,
welcome to 26th Street and California. When we all
walked through the front door this morning you may
or may not have realized it, when you are walking
through those front doors you are walking through
the doors of the largest unified criminal justice
system in the nation, if not the world.
When we look at 26th Street and
California, one thing is very apparent. You walk
in that front door, as the Judge said, this is
very very different from TV. On TV you see a
Judge, you see a jury. You see attorneys. You see
defendants.
But TV misses it in one very large
respect. And that's to keep this large criminal
175
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
justice system working there are so many more
professionals in this building that are equally
essential to this process. There are bailiffs,
there are court clerks, there are Court Reporters.
And without all of these people working seemlessly
together, criminal justice in Cook County just
can't happen.
The case you are going to hear about
today and tomorrow is a case about those
professionals and the way we work together at 26th
Street and California.
If you will allow me to introduce
myself, I'm Julie Gunnigle, Assistant State's
Attorney, which means I work for the People of the
State of Illinois. I'm here with my partner,
Assistant State's Attorney Robert Podlasek. And
Luka Jankovic, working under Supreme Court Rule
number 711. Together we represent the People of
the State of Illinois.
We're here today because on
December 14th or on or about December 14th, 15th
16th of 2009, the Defendant, this woman, Annabel
Melongo, tape recorded those professionals I was
talking about, without their knowledge. She put
176
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
those conversations on line for the entire world to
hear.
And she accused the Court Reporter's
office of treason. In doing so, Annabel was
attempting to rewrite the history of what happened
on a single day at 26th Street and California.
I'm going to talk about that day. You
are going to hear a lot about it in the coming
hours and tomorrow. I'm going to talk about
June 18, 2009. That was five hundred
seventy-three days ago.
Now, in our every day life, unless
June 18th has some sort of special significance to
anyone of you, you might not remember what you
did or what you said or what happened that many
days ago.
But here at 26th Street and
California, in these courtrooms, we can tell you
exactly what was going on. And we know exactly
what's going on, because of those professionals I
spoke about. We have clerks in the courtrooms.
Clerk's who part of their duties is to take notes
about what's happening when a case is heard, a case
is called before a judge and something happens in
177
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
open court.
We have clerks that take those notes.
From those notes prepare what is known as a docket
sheet, which is a shorthand way of being able to
look at a case and know on such and such a date,
who was there and very briefly, in a few words,
what exactly happened.
Now, we have something even better
than those clerk's records. Because what if
something is missing from those records. And the
big what if here is we know every single word. We
have a verbatim transcript of what happened inside
the courtrooms on every single day.
On June 18, 2009 we know exactly what
happened. We know exactly what happened because
there was a Court Reporter there. On June 18,
2009, Annabel Melongo, the Defendant, was arraigned
on a completely separate criminal case. And, when
we say arraigned, it is shorthand. Shorthand for
being informed of charges against you. And on
that day, that's what happened in a courtroom at
26th Street and California.
Now, I'd like to talk a little bit
about Annabel Melongo. Because after June 18, 2009
178
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
real significant things happened. During that
time, when that other case was pending, she
maintained a web site. That web site was
www.illinoiscorruption.net. When I say she
maintained that web site, she wrote on that web
site what happened at each of her different court
events. She blogged about it and put it up on the
world wide web where anyone with an internet
connection would see it.
Now, as part of this web site Annabel
also published what she believed to be her theory
on the case. We know this because we're able to
read the web site. And part of Annabel Melongo's
theory on the case, she wanted to get this case
taken out of 26th Street and California and moved
to the federal court system.
But there was one problem with Miss
Melongo's theory. This theory is This problem
is that you have a limited amount of time to do
that. According to statute, you have a very short
period of time from the moment you are arraigned to
ask to be moved to federal court. And she missed
it.
MR. ALBUKERK: I'll object.
179
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
THE COURT: Overruled.
MS. GUNNIGLE: Her web site will show that
she knew about this problem and that when she went
ahead and got the transcript of her arraignment,
she realized she had missed this date.
As a result, she tried to rewrite
history. She tried to rewrite what happened to her
at 26th Street and, in doing it, accused the Court
Reporter's office of forging a transcript,
producing a completely fraudulent transcript and of
treason.
She did this on the web. Part of the
State's case in chief, you are going to hear from
Pamela Taylor, one of the head of the Court
Reporters here in Cook County. You are going to
hear that during the time of December, 2009 she
received several phone calls from the defendant,
Annabel Melongo. During that time Miss Melongo had
some questions about the transcript. She had some
questions about the docket sheets, docket sheets I
was talking to you about earlier.
And she explained to Miss Melongo some
of the intricacies of what happened here at 26th
and California. So she could understand what
180
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
exactly happened in her case. But what never
happened on those telephone conversations was the
moment in time when Miss Melongo told Pamela Taylor
of the Court Reporter's office that she was being
tape recorded.
Not a moment in time occurred when
Pamela Taylor was asked to consent to having her
voice, what she thought were personal
conversations, tape recorded. Nor did she
consent to placing them on the web for everyone to
hear.
One of the things that Pam Taylor
talks about in these conversations, and you will
hear that, she tries to explain to Miss Melongo
what Miss Melongo believed to be a discrepancy. A
discrepancy between the docket sheet, which is
prepared by the clerk, and the official transcript,
which is prepared by the Court Reporter. Two
people sitting in a courtroom, taking notes about
exactly what happened here.
And the discrepancy was this. The
discrepancy was on one of the docket sheets it
appears on June 18, 2009, there is an entry stating
courtroom 101, Annabel Melongo, not present. Then
181
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
later, when you see the courtroom and Judge
Schreier's courtroom, Annabel Melongo was in fact
arraigned and you see an entry she was there. She
was there on bond.
Miss Taylor tried explain to her why
that is. I'd like to explain to the Jury why that
is. What was Miss Taylor's words. Miss Taylor's
words in the conversation, she said welcome to 26th
Street. When your criminal case first comes here
at 26th and California, one of the first moves is a
call in courtroom 101, called an assignment call.
As Miss Taylor put it, an assignment
call happens very very quickly. Cases are called
and you are told what courtroom to go to and you go
there. Defendants don't have to be present.
According to Miss Taylor, in her own
words, you are not there, they call the next case,
and it happens like that. But we know that Miss
Melongo ended up in the right courtroom. We know
she heard the assignment or at the very least knew
which courtroom her case was assigned to that she
made it there, in front of Judge Schreier on
June 18, 2009. She was in fact arraigned then.
Yet she still tried to rewrite
182
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
history. And she tried to rewrite history by going
on the web and accusing the Court Reporter's office
of treason. She recorded these phone calls with
the Court Reporter's office. And in the State of
Illinois that is against the law to tape record
someone without their consent or knowledge.
Further, it is agai nst the 1 aw to
publish all this information to the public. When
the Judge spoke today of the six counts pending in
this case, the six counts that will ultimately go
to the jury to decide, we have three conversations,
the three times she was recorded. And the three
separate times it was published. All six counts,
six separate illegal acts.
The People of the State of Illinois
intend to present to you evidence that Annabel
Melongo did this. She did this alone and she did
it without any legal reason for recording any of
those conversations.
As such, at the close of evidence, we
will ask you to find Annabel Melongo guilty on six
counts of eavesdropping, which is a crime under
Illinois law.
Thank you so much for your time.
183
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
THE COURT: Thank you, State.
Defense, you may proceed, sir.
MR. ALBUKERK: Thank you, Judge.
OPENING STATEMENT
BY
MR. ALBUKERK:
Just to correct this. The date in
question is not June 18, 2009. Miss Gunnigle made
four errors. June 18, 200. June 18, 2008. Not
2009 .
Ladies and gentlemen, Annabel Melongo,
you are going to hear the audio recordings of this
conversation that took place. You are going to
hear a very thick and heavy accent by my client.
The reason she has a very thick and heavy accent is
because she is from Cameroon. She's not a native
of the Unites States.
I would like to echo some of the
comments the Judge made to you when we started this
case. And this United States of America is yet the
greatest country to live in. And people are dying
184
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
literally to get into this country. Because all
the freedoms that are afforded here.
What freedoms are we talking about.
Primarily we're talking about justice. You are
that justice. The fact that we have a jury and we
don't have some imperial politician sitting there.
Well, in Cameroon things are, as you
might imagine from a third world country, quite a
bit different. There is no difference between the
State's Attorney and the Judge. There is no
difference between anyone, because in third world
countries justice is whatever the power that be
says it is.
Now, my client -- Now, there was
some discussion there by Miss Gunnigle about the
law. And what you are going to find is quite a bit
of this case is going to be read to you as a
stipulation. Meaning that the parties have agreed
on a lot of stuff.
Yes, we have agreed. We've agreed
that my client did in fact record those
conversations. But the other half of the law, the
other half of the law that Miss Gunnigle didn't
mention, our Legislature said that it is okay, you
185
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
are allowed to record another person's conversation
if you have a reasonable suspicion. Sorry, Judge.
A reasonable suspicion. A reasonable suspicion
that in fact you think that criminal activity is
going on.
That's what this case comes down to.
This case comes down to whether or not my client
had a reasonable suspicion that criminal activity
was going on.
Now, the fact that was going on, the
thing that my client was so worried about is
something called an arraignment. One of the first
things that happens in a case.
My client was charged with computer
tampering. My client was extremely upset about
these charges. She didn't like these charges.
And because she was so upset, because she wanted to
make sure that she had all of her rights, she
couldn't believe she was being charged with this,
she did in fact start a web site to detail what she
considered to be the injustices of the case.
She was What you should know
about her is that she has studied to be a computer
professional. She completed all of her course work
186
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
in computer sciences. And she works or did work in
the field of keeping data bases and stuff like that
for companies.
And then she got charged with this
computer tampering. Obviously, she was very
concerned because that was going to drastically and
horribly affect her ability to make a living and
some other things too.
So, when these charges occurred, she
wanted to make sure that she was afforded all of
her rights. One of those rights you are going to
learn about, something called an arraignment. An
arraignment is mentioned right in our Constitution,
Article I Section VIII. It is also mentioned
elsewhere throughout our criminal code.
And it is a right that every Defendant
has. What an arraignment is is the formal
presentation of exactly what the charges are to the
Defendant. The Defendant must be prepared for it.
And the Defendant must either enter a guilty or not
guilty plea.
Now, my client had no -- On June
18th of '08, my client found out that someone was
saying that she had been arraigned on that day.
187
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Well, my client was sure she had not been arraigned
on that day. In fact, she was sure she wasn't even
in court on that day.
And you are going to hear from the
stipulation later on, because all of this is
detailed on her web site, what she did, what
anyone would do. She asked, well, how do I know
whether or not I was arraigned.
Well, ladies and gentlemen, behind me,
right behind me is perhaps, in a way, the scene of
the courtroom, if you will. Because right behind
me are all of the different ways that we record
what goes on in a courtroom.
Starting over here, this is, that lady
sitting here, she's the clerk of court. She's the
one who arranges these files. And in the file you
can see there is a yellow piece of paper in these
files. Those are some notes. Usually the Judge or
clerk will write these notes. They will say all
the important things that happened. An arraignment
is one of those important things.
Also, separate from the file,
completely separate, are the court sheets, like
this. The Judge writes on these. These are the
188
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
orders of the day. Again, this is something that
the Judge should be writing the important things
like whether or not the Defendant was arraigned.
Then, finally, the clerk of the court
puts information into a computer, a data base,
right here. And this computer data base is used by
everybody. It is used by the State's Attorneys,
used by defense attorneys, used by everyone.
If you want to know if somebody pled
guilty, you want to know if somebody was arraigned,
you ask for a certified transcript of the
information that goes into this computer.
So, you've got court sheets, you've
got half sheets, you got the computer. All of
which should tell you whether or not my client was
arraigned on June 18th of 2008. All three of
those items on June 18, 2008, not 2009, all three
of those things said that there is no mention at
all of arraignment. It should have been in there.
And it wasn't.
But that's not the only thing, not the
only thing. Okay. So, we have the Judge's notes
don't have it. The court sheets didn't have an
arraignment. The computer didn't have an
189
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
arraignment. But that's not all.
Let me come over here. And this is
the Court Reporter. The Court Reporter is typing
away. Now, they use different systems. Some of
them use, still use the old fashioned system with a
tape of paper coming out. And there are these
marks on there. Normal people like you and me, we
can't read it. Because it is not typed in actual
letters. It has to be interpreted by a Court
Reporter, who understands what's going on.
And then, finally, almost all of the
Court Reporters, but not all of them, but you see
this right here. That right there is a microphone.
Everything I'm saying, not only is it being typed,
it is being audio recorded as well. There is an
audio recording of what happened on June 18, 2008.
But you will not be hearing it.
At some point my client had to
represent herself. And she issued a subpoena to
Pam Taylor. Pam Taylor is the person who she
recorded. She issued that subpoena and she said,
look, I really like to hear the tape recording from
that day. It's never been produced. We don't have
it. And we still don't have it.
190
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
So, my client had a reasonable
suspicion that a transcript was tampered with,
because the transcript did mention something about
an arraignment. But the Judge's notes don't, the
court sheet doesn't, the clerk's computer doesn't.
And the tape recording was not produced.
The arraignment is important, one of
the most fundamental rights any criminal defendant
has. And, yes, she was extremely upset about those
charges. She did want those charges, computer
tampering not to be against her.
She could have filed a motion to
dismiss. She wanted to bring that information to
the Judge. But she's got to have all the evidence.
So, she tried to find out what's going on. She was
trying to have transparency in this case, trying to
get the information.
And, yes, she put that, made the
recordings, put that information on her web site.
She also put all of the other information on this
case on the web site. She put the information
about certified transcripts, about the Court
sheets, about the notes.
The bottom line is the law allows to
191
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
you tape record if you have a reasonable suspicion
that criminal activity is going on. And she did
have a reasonable suspicion. That criminal
activity was going on. Because there was a huge
discrepancy between all the records in this room.
There should be five independent
records that state that my client was arraigned on
June 18th of '08. There isn't. There is only
one. That gives rise to a reasonable suspicion
that my client has.
Ladies and gentlemen, you are going to
hear all this evidence, the stipulation, you are
going to hear from various people that will support
all the things I just said.
At the end of this I'm going to ask
you to find my client not guilty. Not guilty
because she did have a reasonable suspicion. And
that is an exemption from the law and it is
permissible to tape record someone's conversation
if you have such a reasonable suspicion. Thank
you.
THE COURT: Thank you, Counsel.
State, you may proceed. I believe you
are going to be proceeding by way of stipulation,
192
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
is that correct, at this time?
MR. PODLASEK: That's correct.
THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen, let me
explain to you what a stipulation means in the
legal context. Basically whatever the State is
going to say, I believe the defense already
reviewed and they are going to stipulate to it or
agree to it. Everything in the stipulation is
considered evidence in the case. You give it the
same weight as though it were testified to from the
witness stand by a witness.
The only difference with a stipulation
as opposed to a regular witness who takes the
stand, with the stipulation the parties are in full
and complete agreement to everything read to you.
Again, no disputes.
With that having been said, State, you
can proceed with your stipulation.
MR. JANKOVIC: Yes, Judge, we're ready.
It is hereby stipulated between the
parties, the People of the State of Illinois by
their attorney, Anita Alvarez, through her
assistants, Robert Podlasek and Julie Gunnigle, and
by the Defendant , Annabel Melongo, through her
193
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
attorney, Nick Albukerk, that Annabel Melongo has
maintained a web site, www.illinoiscorruption.net
beginning on or about November 3, 2009 and
continuing through and including March 3, 2010.
That Annabel Melongo recorded
telephone conversations with Pamela Taylor on or
about December 14th, 15th, 16th, 2009. That on or
about December 18, 2009 Annabel Melongo posted
three audio recordings and accompanying transcripts
of those three audio recordings, conversations
between Annabel Melongo and Pamela Taylor of the
Court Reporter's office on Annabel Melongo's web
side, www.illinoiscorruption.net.
That the web site,
www.illinoiscorruption.net is a web site on the
world wide web which is accessible to the general
public.
If called to testimony the keeper of
records for the Wild West Domain, the registrar and
host of the web site www.illinoiscorruption.net
would testify that the web site
www.illinoiscorruption.net was maintained and
controlled by Annabel Melongo beginning on or about
November 3, 2009 and continuing through and
194
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
including March 3, 2010.
That on or about December 18, 2009
the web site, www.illinoiscorruption.net had a
posted -- had posted three audio recordings and
accompanying transcripts of those three audio
recordings of conversations between Annabel Melongo
and Pamela Taylor of the Court Reporter's office.
That the post states that on or about
December 14th, 15th, 16th, 2009 Annabel Melongo
called the Court Reporter's office on three
separate occasions and spoke to Pamela Taylor.
Posts forth further state that Annabel Melongo
recorded the conversations.
That on or about January 13, 2010,
members of the Illinois Attorney General's High
Tech Crimes Bureau, Digital Forensic Lab in Chicago
digitally preserved the true and accurate copy of
the web site , www.illinoiscorruption.net. which is
offered as People's Exhibit Number One into
evidence.
So stipulated?
MR. ALBUKERK: So stipulated.
THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen, that
stipulation is going to be admitted into evidence.
195
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
At this point in the day we're going
to adjourn for the evening. So, like we talked
about earlier, you now can't talk with anybody at
home. They are going to find out you got picked
and they are wanting to know about the case. You
can't tell them.
And also, as I highlight generally
with all my juries, but in particular with this
one, you can't go to the internet or look
everything up on your own, no independent
investigation. Whatever you are going to hear
tomorrow that's relevant to the case from the web
site, if there is anything, that will be presented
tomorrow in court.
You are only going to hear things that
are relevant. You can't look up anything on your
own from any web site, period, regarding this case.
Much less the one mentioned in court.
Everybody have a good evening. I'll
ask you return tomorrow at ten in the morning.
So, when you come tomorrow, we'll have coffee and
rolls for you. We'll get started once we have you
all here.
I'm going to be in the middle of a
196
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
regular court call when you get here, unless I'm
doing a conference in the back. You will feel like
you are interrupting, but you aren't. There will
be attorneys in front of the bench. Probably
people on other cases. The deputies are waiting
for you, they know you are coming. Don't feel like
you are interrupting. Walk on through. Do not sit
in the gallery and observe any proceedings
unrelated to this case . Just walk right through
and go into the back.
As I said, once you are here, we'll
get started. Now, I'll tell you this . First of
all, I'll tell you a story. Probably about a year
and a half ago we had a jury deliberating. One of
the women on the jury needed some medicine that was
back at her house and in some far flung suburb of
Cook County . It was injectable medication and an
syringe, etc. Obviously, once you start
deliberating, it is not like you can check out and,
you know, go to the store and come back. You are
deliberating with your fellow jurors. She couldn't
leave to get the medication. We had deputies go
out to someone's house with their keys. Nobody was
home. It was dark in the house. Looking for
197
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
medication.
Obviously, that was a logistical
nightmare. It will never happen again to me.
That's why I tell you. Not that I expect to have
you that long. If you have medication, special
dietary needs, anything like that, bring everything
tomorrow you will need for 24 hours. I don't want
to have to worry about anything like that again.
Not that I expect to have you that long. If I tell
people that, I figure they will come with whatever
they need and I'll never have that problem again.
Since we know we are finishing
tomorrow, but no idea as to what time. Have your
schedule cleared for tomorrow evening, if you have
any arrangements that need to be made on a personal
level.
All right, so with that, we will be in
recess unt i 1 tomorrow at ten a. m . All ri se for the
jurors, please.
THE COURT:
(Whereupon the following
proceedings were had
outside the presence and
hearing of the jury:)
Everybody just stay until they
198
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
walk out. Any other issues?
MR. PODLASEK: May I approach?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. PODLASEK: Do you mind if I substitute in
a copy of the stipulation? That's just for the
original.
THE COURT: That's fine. For the record,
State, you will mark the stipulation as what?
MR. PODLASEK: People's Exhibit Number Two.
I'm going to mark the disc containing the web site
as People's Exhibit Number One.
THE COURT: Contained in there.
MR. PODLASEK: Yes.
MR. ALBUKERK: No objection.
THE COURT: Any other issues? No, okay.
Parties remain seated. We're in recess for the
day.
(Which were all the
proceedings had . )
199
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
STATE OF ILLINOIS )
)
COUNTY OF COO K )
SS.
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY
COUNTY DEPARTMENT - CRIMINAL DIVISION
I, ROBERT J. MADOCH, Official
Shorthand Reporter of the Circuit Court of Cook
County, County Department-Criminal Division, do
hereby certify that I reported in shorthand the
evidence had in the above-entitled cause and that
the foregoing is a true and correct transcript of
all the evidence heard.

Circuit Court of Cook County
County Department-Criminal Division
Dated: __
C.S.R. 84-1194
200
.:
1
2
Official Court Reporters
STATE OF ILLINOIS )
) SS:
COUNTY OF COOK )
3 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY , ILLINOIS
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
COUNTY DEPARTMENT - CRIMINAL DIVISION
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
Plaintiff,
vs
ANNABEL MELONGO
Defendant.
JURY TRIAL
)
)
)
)
) No. 10 CR 08092-01
)
)
)
)
12 REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS had at the hearing of the
13 above-entitled cause before the Honorable MARY M. BROSNAHAN,
14 judge of said court, on the 13th day of January, 2011.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
PRESENT: HON. ANITA M. ALVAREZ
Kathie Kerns, CSR
24 Official Court Reporter
CSR #084-002547
State's Attorney of Cook County
by, MR. ROBERT PODLASEK
MS. JULIE GUNNIGLE
Assistant State's Attorneys,
on behalf of the People;
MR. NICHOLAS ALBUKERK
Private counsel,
Attorney at Law,
on behalf of the Defendant.
-- -- 1 ---- -
1
_ 1
Official Court Reporters 2
--- ----- - - --- ~ - - - - ~ -
l
1 I N D E X
2 State's Case:
3 WITNESS PAGE
4 LAUREL LAUDIEN
5 Direct Examination 14
Cross-Examination 30
6
7 WITNESS
8 PAMELA TAYLOR
9 Direct Examination 36
Cross-Examination 54
10 Redirect Examination 62
Recross Examination 63
1 1
12 WITNESS
13 ROBIN SUKALO
14 Direct Examination 89
Cross-Examination 104
15 Redirect Examination 111
Recross Examination 113
16 Further Redirect Examination 114
17
WITNESS
18
JAMES FLOOD
19
Direct Examination 115
20 Cross-Examination 121
Redirect Examination 128
21 Recross Examination 128
22
STATES RESTS ITS CASE IN CHIEF 129
23
24
2
Official Court Reporters 3
---- - ~ - ~ . - - -- --
~ - -
-1
1 I N D E X (CONTINUED)
2 WITNESS PAGE
3 DANA DePOOTER
4 Direct Examination 132
Cross-Examination 135
5 Redirect Examination 139
6
CLOSING ARGUMENTS
7
by Mr . Podlasek 162
8
by Mr . Albukerk 172
9
by Ms . Gunnigle 183
10
1 1 JURY CHARGE 191
12 JURY NOTE 205
13 ------
14 SIDEBARS HELD 42
106
15 116
124
16 129
17
18
19
TRIAL CONTINUED TO JANUARY 14, 2011
20
21
22
23
24
----- ----- - - 3 --- ---- --- - ~ ~
- -- --- --- --------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Official Court Reporters
- - - - - - --- - -
4
--1
THE COURT: Counsels on Melongo, please.
MR. PODLASEK: Good morning, Judge.
THE COURT: May I have your names for the record.
MR. PODLASEK: Judge, Robert Podlasek,
POD LAS E K, on behalf of the State.
MR. ALBUKERK: Nick Albukerk. ALB U K E R K.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. PODLASEK: Judge, last night after we broke I
got to talk to, I went to talk to one of the witnesses in this
case, Laurel Laudien. She is a court reporter in Cook County.
She tendered to me at that meeting a copy of the call in Judge
Schreier's room for June 18, 2008 that she had in her
possession. She said no one has ever asked her for it. On this
sheet she makes markings on each of the cases that she is
recording, as many of the court reporters do, and specifically
in this sheet on the second to last page listed as No. 16 is
Annabel Melongo's case on the 08 CR 10502, which is the
reindicted case, and her markings indicate "Flood," meaning
James Flood, the attorney who is representing Annabel Melongo,
five pages, which is how long the transcript would be for that
transcript, and the next date of 7-16, and her final notation is
"arraignment."
Upon finding this out, I went back to my
office, I contacted Mr. Albukerk's office, and I also left a
- 4
I
I
Official Court Reporters
,-------- - - - - - ~ - - - - - ~
1 message by cell phone for him. I was able to talk to his
2 associate and sent a copy to his office by fax last night and we
3 discussed it. And so if Your Honor wants, I will tender you a
4 copy so you can see what we are talking about.
5 THE COURT: Your intent would be it's been
6 tendered, albeit after jury selection, but your intent is to
7 question Miss Laudien about it, use it during her testimony, is
8 that what -- am I reading this correctly?
9 MR. PODLASEK: No. We felt we had an obligation
10 to tender this to counsel. I wasn't sure if Your Honor recalls
11 on January 12th of 2010, Pamela Taylor did appear before
12 Your Honor in opposition to subpoena by Miss Melongo regarding
13 notes and audio recordings created by court reporters in the
14 ordinary course of their duties and responsibilities.
15 Your Honor ruled that it's been the policy in this courthouse
16 not to tender those notes and/or audio recordings either to the
17 prosecution or to the defense; however, Your Honor did go on and
18 say that you believe some of those notes would probably become
19 or need to be made available that they would be made available
20 to the court if this ever went to trial. So that's where we are
21 ri ght now.
22 THE COURT: May I see the Melongo files, please.
23 And the date of the hearing you are talking about was
24 January 12, 2010?
5
l
- - - ---5
__ I
Official Court Reporters
----- - - -- - -
1 MR. PODLASEK: January 12, 2010.
2 THE COURT: The eavesdropping case had not yet
3 been charged when we had that hearing. Miss Melongo was
4 representing herself. And when I did that hearing, and I do
5 recall Miss Taylor coming down and I recall Miss Melongo
6 subpoenaing the audio tapes, et cetera, that was as to the
7 computer tampering case itself.
8 MR. PODLASEK: That's correct.
9 THE COURT: So I found there was no basis to
10 return over original audio tapes on a computer tampering case to
11 an arraignment.
12 MR. PODLASEK: In point of fact, Miss Taylor
13 indicated to Your Honor -- and I have a copy of the transcript
14 for Your Honor here -- that the audio tapes did not exist .
15 That's the information that we have been given by the Court
16 Reporters offi ce.
1 7 THE COURT : Okay .
18 MR. PODLASEK: I'm not sure if this sheet with the
19 notations made on this constitutes the work product your were
20 talking about or what this is.
21 THE COURT: Now we are in a different posture
22 because now we are in a trial for eavesdropping and the defense
23 of the whole case, which goes to the heart of it, is did
24 Miss Melongo have reasonable belief that crime was afoot,
L
-6
_1
6
Official Court Reporters
1 thereby justifying her recordings of Miss Taylor's
2 conversations. So the question is: Was there a fictitious
3 arraignment transcript produced by Miss Laudien and Miss Taylor
4 in a cover up, so to speak? And that appears to be the theory.
5 So I find the notes here, they are relevant
6 to this case, they are not a surprise, because the court
7 reporter has tendered a transcript. That's the whole issue
8 here. Is Miss Laudien's long-tendered arraignment transcript on
9 the 08 computer tampering case viable? So this is not a
10 surprise that on the notes for the court sheets that it just
11 says" Flood," who is the attorney, who is the guy in the
12 transcri pt --
13
14
MR . PODLASEK: Correct.
THE COURT: That's on the front page of the
15 transcript. She already has already said Flood was there for
16 the arraignment. It's no surprise the date that it got or the
17 fact that it is five pages and there is a little "d" for the
18 defendant. What is your position, defense?
19 MR. ALBUKERK: Judge, as Mr. Podlasek has already
20 indicated, we have already discussed this, and he was
21 forthcoming as he knew what was going on and he tendered it to
22 me and I was able to look at it last night.
23 Judge, I think at best that evidence is
24 consistent, prior consistent statement that could be used if I
~ - - - - - - - - ---- ---------------7
7
- ----------------
Official Court Reporters 8
-- - - -- - ---- ~ ~ - -- ~ ~ - ---
1 r- were to cross-examine Miss Laudien on her truthfulness as far as .
2 I whether or not an arraignment took place, that they could
3 possibly use to bolster her testimony in that event. I don't
4 believe that document could be used other than that. First of
5 all, because (a) it is pri or cons i stent evi dence; (b) because it
6 isn't germane to the issue in the court. The issue to the court
7 is whether or not my client had a reasonable suspicion that
8 criminal activity was occurring and those notes by definition
9 are notes that my client could not have had access to;
10 therefore, those notes would not have affected my client's
11 suspicion one way or another because she couldn't have access to
12 it.
13 The things she could have access to, what my
14 client could have had access to, is the recording potentially,
15 is, you know, the court file, the Clerk's stuff. Anything that
16 my client that could have known about.
17 Also, just literally it comes to me as I am
18 talking to you about this, but Mr. Podlasek was kind enough to
19 give me a copy of the transcript for when this subpoena came up
20 in January of 2010 --
21 THE COURT: January 12th of 2010 on the computer
22 tampering.
23 MR. ALBUKERK: Right. And that, of course, was
24 before I ever got involved in the case. But at that time my
L
--8 -- --
Official Court Reporters
r- --- ----- - - ------ -- --
1 client subpoenaed any notes, anything about this case and,
2 frankly , she said in that transcript that there are no notes
3 about this case, that there is nothing about this case at all.
4 There are no notes, there is no documentation in this case at
5 all, and now we are finding that there were notes. Now
6 potentially that means if they were used, and I don't think they
7 will be used frankly , but if those notes were used then I can
8 use that transcript to impeach, potentially impeach Miss Taylor
9 because she said in that transcript that no notes existed and
10 now we are getting notes .
11 THE COURT: Well, these are notes from -- first of
12 all , I don't know that I agree with your characterization that
13 they're notes. I want to explain for the record what it is .
14 There are xeroxed cour t sheets that are printed out we get and
15 every morning they are handed to the court reporter and there
16 are various notations that they make on each case, just so they
17 know what happened on it , et cetera. The notations are usually,
18 there might be a name for the defense attorney and a date. I
19 mean that's the extent of it. I am going through these from
20 3-16-08 from Judge Schreier, all of the court sheets that were
21 tendered , and on one defendant says JBFX, meaning it went to
22 judgment, on another it says the name of the defense attorney
23 and the date of 7-17-08, on another case it says "plea." Again,
24 with just a date . So, you know, to say "notes" I suppose it's
l
----- --------9 ---
__ ____ - I
9
Official Court Reporters
--- ---
1 accurate that there is usually a date scribbled down, maybe an
2 attorney's name, maybe nothing more, maybe the number of pages
3 in a transcript, but it's not voluminous notes. Under Melongo
4 it says F700d, 7-16 dash, I take it would have been '08. Hard
5 to read the 8.
6 MR. PODLASEK: Above it there is an a-r, that's
7 her notation. Because if you go to the page after there is a
8 second arraignment for somebody else.
9 THE COURT: She would have to explain that it does
10 looks like an A and then some kind of scribble.
11 MR. PODLASEK: And then the D, the defendant's
12 symbol on the bottom, as defendant being in court.
13 THE COURT: So five pages. I don't find it's any
14 explosive evidence. It's not any detailed notes. I don't think
15 that anybody would consider this to be a note of her
16 I transcriptions pursuant to that subpoena back from 2008. So I
17 don't find there is any kind of discovery violation here. And
18 if it can be used under the rules of evidence for her testimony,
19 I would allow it to be used. And we will keep this. You can
20 file it, make it an exhibit, and we will file it for the record,
21 should there be an appeal in the case. If it gets to that
22 point, I would want that whole thing filed.
23 MR. PODLASEK: Do you want us to make it an
24 exhibit at this point?
- - ~ l O ---
10
Official Court Reporters
1 THE COURT: Yes, please for the court record, and
2 we will put it in a manila envelope and keep it in the file.
3 MR. PODLASEK: People's Exhibit NO . 3.
4 THE COURT: Okay.
5 MR. PODLASEK: I will mark it as such.
6 THE COURT: Okay.
7 Any other issues before we bring her out?
8 MR. ALBUKERK: I don't think so.
9 THE COURT: Bring the jury out I should say.
10 Let's go off the record.
11 (Discussion held off the record.)
12 [CASE PASSED]
13 (WHEREUPON, the foll owi ng proceedi ngs
1 4 were resumed and held as
1 5 fo 11 ows : )
16 THE COURT: All right. We will go on the record.
17 There is another issue, State, you wanted to address before we
18 actually get started with your next witness.
19 MR. PODLASEK: Your Honor, we have actual
20 transcripts taken from Miss Melongo's web site and have created
21 fourteen copies of them. We are going to place one transcript
22 each into evidence as exhibits eventually. We would like to
23 pass out the other fourteen copies to the jurors and alternate
24 jurors.
--- - -- --11 --- -
1 1
Official Court Reporters
1 MR. ALBUKERK: The only thing I would be asking is
2 if everyone is going to have transcripts in hand, I would also
3 want them to get the same copies of the one transcript that we
4 want in, which is the recording, the message that was left on
5 the answering machine.
6 MR. PODLASEK: We have that.
7 MR. ALBUKERK: If you have that, as long as we can
8 get all that done, that's fine, then they have everything.
9 THE COURT: I would just ask that you mark at the
10 top of each transcript, Phone Call No.1, the date and time, so
11 that they know which one it is.
12 MR. PODLASEK: The only recording we don't have a
13 transcript for, I don't believe, there was one on the web site,
14 is Miss Laudien left a message. It's just a voice mail. We are
15 going to play that. But Miss Laudien, I would have her identify
16 her own voice and her own message.
17 THE COURT: So Miss Laudien left a voice mail for
18 Miss Melongo and that wound up on the website and nobody's got a
19 transcri pt of that.
20 MR. PODLASEK: Right.
21 THE DEFENDANT: We do have the transcript.
22
23
24
MR. ALBUKERK:
THE DEFENDANT:
MR. ALBUKERK :
You have the transcript?
Yes.
This is on the website?
12
- - - -- --12 - ---- -
__ J
Official Court Reporters
------- ---
1
THE DEFENDANT: Yes. Everything. The website and
2 the transcript are both there.
3 MR. ALBUKERK: We can do that then. We would have
4
5
6
to find it and print it out .
THE DEFENDANT:
MR. ALBUKERK:
Show me the exhibit.
We'll open up the website and show
7 you. The problem is, well, you guys don't have it downloaded on
8 the computer
9 MR. PODLASEK: When we have a lunch break we'll go
10 ahead and take care of that.
11 THE COURT: Ready to start it then?
12 MR. PODLASEK: Yes.
13 THE DEPUTY SHERIFF: All rise for the jury.
14 (WHEREUPON, the jury entered the
15 courtroom.
16 THE COURT: Everyone may be seated in court.
17 Good morni ng, 1 adi es and gentl emen. I
18 apologize for the delay. Things were a little bit busier than
19 we anticipated, but you now have our undivided attention for the
20 day. You are the only matter that is on the court call. So you
21 don't have to worry about that in the future, we will move the
22 case along.
23 We did start the case last evening, so we
24 are still in the State's case in chief. State, are you ready to
- -- 13
13
Official Court Reporters
1 I proceed?
2
3
4
MR. PODLASEK: Yes, Your Honor, we are.
THE COURT: You may call your next witness.
MR. PODLASEK: Judge, at this time the State calls
5 Laurel Laudien. If I may be excused, I will bring her in.
6
7
8
THE COURT: Okay.
[PAUSE HELD]
THE COURT: Good morning, ma'am. Would you raise
9 your right hand for me.
10 (WITNESS SWORN)
1 1
12
THE COURT: Thank you. Please take a seat.
13 LAUREL LAUDIEN
14 called as a witness on behalf of the People, having been first
15 duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
16 DIRECT EXAMINATION
1 7 BY MR. POD LASEK:
18 Q. Would you please state your full name and spell your
19 1 ast name for the record.
20
21
22
23
24
l
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Laurel E. Laudien. L A U D, as in David ,
Are you currently employed?
Yes.
And what position do you hold or what job
Offi ci al Court Reporter with the State of
~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - - - 14 --- -
I E N.
do you hold?
III i noi s .
14
-I
I
I
1
2
3
4
5
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
6 reporter?
7
8
9
10
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
DAILY COpy PREPARED
--. - --
Where are you located?
26th and California.
How long have you held that position?
28, 29 years with the State. As a court reporter 34.
And did you have any particular training as a court
Yes .
And you went to school for that?
Yes.
Now, is there a form manual for the Cook County Court
11 Reporters that is given to you?
12
13
A.
Q.
Uhm, yes.
Is that how you format your transcripts when you are
14 asked to prepare a transcript?
15
16
A.
Q.
Yes.
I am going to ask you some questions about what I have
17 marked as People's Exhibit NO.4 for identification purposes.
18 Judge, if I can approach?
19
20
THE COURT: You may.
MR. PODLASEK: I am tendering you People's Exhibit
21 NO.4 for identification and ask you if you would take a look at
22 that.
23
24
THE WITNESS: Okay.
MR. PODLASEK: Q. Do you recognize that document?
15
I
L ___ _
15
I
~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
DAILY COPY PREPARED
THE WITNESS: A. Yes.
MR. PODLASEK : Q. And what is it, please.
THE WITNESS: A. It's the transcript of the
hearing before Judge Schreier on June 18, 2008.
MR. PODLASEK: Q. Now, on the first page of that
transcript where does the defendant's name first appear?
THE WITNESS: A. In the caption.
Q. And whose name appears in that case?
A. Annabel Melongo as defendant.
Q. Is there a case number?
A. There's two case numbers.
Q. What are they, please.
A. 07 CR 02341-01; 08 CR 10502-01.
Q. Now , below the caption of the case whose names are
typically listed in a transcript?
A. The state's attorney and whoever represents the
defendant or if the defendant is proceeding pro se then that
would be listed there.
Q. And in this particular transcript before you whose
names appear below the caption specifically?
A. Paul Chevlin for the State's Attorney, assistant
state's attorney, and Mr. James J. Flood representing the
defendant.
Q. And those are the names of the people who are
L _ _ _____ __ - - - --- - 16 ---
16
DAILY COpy PREPARED
-- -- ._-- -- - ---
1 in court on that particular date, is that correct?
2 I
3
A.
Q.
Yes.
Now, in the body of the transcript is the defendant
4 ever identified by name?
5 A. Well, when she spoke. But Mr. Flood says, "on behalf
6 of Miss Melongo."
7
8
9
10
Q. So Mr. Flood does the speaking first in this
transcript?
A. Ri ght.
Q. Well, is the defendant referenced as Annabel Helongo
11 or typi call y the defendant?
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
A. I would put THE DEFENDANT if she speaks.
Q. And in anywhere in that transcript do you reference
defendant or anything that might be said by the defendant?
A.
Q.
A.
Yes.
What page would that be on?
Page 3.
MR. PODLASEK: Judge, at this time for clarity
19 sake , I am going to ask to tender to members of the jury copies
20 of People's Exhibit NO.4 for identification, which is a copy of
21 the June 18, 2008 transcript before Judge Schreier. I talked to
22 counsel and I believe he has no objection.
23
24
THE COURT: You may proceed.
(Documents tendered to the jurors.)
17 ---
17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
DAILY COpy PREPARED
MR. PODLASEK: Q. Did you create that transcript
at the request of anybody?
THE WITNESS: A. Yes.
MR. PODLASEK: Q. And who was that?
THE WITNESS: A. Miss Melongo.
Q. Just so people understand how a transcript request
comes in, can you just go through the procedure for us.
A. Somebody would call our office and request the
transcript, they would take the information down and put it on a
transcript order form, and then they would give it to the
reporter that was assigned that day.
Q. Your office is located in this building?
A. The other building. The administrative office
14 building.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Q. Okay. And as part of this order what would an
individual have to give as far as information for you to be able
to create that transcript?
A. The date it was heard, what judge, the name of the
case, telephone number so that I can call them back when it's
completed.
Q. Now, taking a step back. When you are creating the
22 transcript can you please explain to the ladies and gentlemen of
23 the jury how that is done. I can see the court reporter in this
24 case, but how do you and what equipment do you use when you do
I
l ~ __
---- - ~ ----18 - ------
1 I th:-
2 I A.
3 is using.
4
5
6
7
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
DAILY COpy PREPARED
I use a computer-aided transcription writer like she
And indicating the court reporter in the court today?
Right.
Okay.
I also have a computer with court reporter software
8 and that's what I use to create the transcript.
9 Q. At anytime do you have audio recordings of the
10 proceedings before Judge Schreier or any of the judges you are
11 transcribing for?
12
13
14
A.
Q.
A.
Yes . Yes.
And how do you make those recordings?
With the writer. I have a microphone plugged in, and
15 I usually put it up by the judge's bench so that I can hear
16 better, and I also usually wear headphones so that I can monitor
17 better and in case there is other noise going on in the
18 courtroom.
19 Q. Now during the course of a year how many transcripts
20 would you say you have taken down?
21
22
A.
Q.
Thousands.
Do you prepare an actual physical transcript on each
23 of those cases?
24 A. Not at the time. Not until it's ordered.
l __ _
19 -- ----
19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
DAILY COpy PREPARED
- - - ~ - - - - - -
Q. So if you had a transcript from say yesterday in a
courtroom and no one ever ordered it, it would never be printed
out, is that correct?
A. Correct.
Q. Now what do you do with the information, since I see
no paper anymore like I used to 25 years ago?
A. No, no paper.
Q. What happens to the information that you take down on
the computer?
A. It's stored. And depending upon the writer that the
court reporter uses, it is stored on either an SD card --
secured digital card, little tiny card -- or it could be a
diskette or it could just be paper . There is also a ram that
stores the information. And that's about it.
Q. So in your particular case, how do you typically store
your information?
A. At the end of the month I back up everything off of my
computer onto, for the State I have to keep the steno notes, the
paper does no longer exist, but the steno notes are on a digital
form. I have to back up those for the State to be stored
forever or as long as the diskettes will last or CD's will last.
Q. And what happens to the audio portion?
A. The audio portion is backed up on my external hard
drives. It is no longer on the writer after a month. It is no
20 -------
20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
DAILY COPY PREPARED
longer on my computer because wav. files take so much room.
Q. So you have a secondary storage system?
A. Mm-hmm. Yes.
Q. How long do you maintain the audio files?
A. Uhm, well, they're there but they are not synced, so.
Q. What does sync mean?
A. They are not synced to the notes. So they really
don't exist, they're just there.
Q. Now once you create a transcript at the request of an
individual, whether it is an attorney or anyone else, what do
you do with that transcript?
A. I pri nt it out.
Q. What do you do? Is it on a computer where you can
save it?
A. It is on the computer. I will put it on the computer,
I will take the steno notes and the audio file and transcribe
it, which syncs the audio notes. Once I edit the transcript
with the audio notes I take the file out and I print the
transcript, I put on the title page and the certificate, and
then it's there until I remove it from the computer.
Q. How long do you normally keep the transcript?
A. On my computer?
Q. Yes.
A. The end of the month. If I don't clear off my
---------- - -- 21 ~ - - - - ~
21
DAILY COpy PREPARED
1 computer every month it would crash because of the huge amounts
2 of wav. files.
3 THE COURT: Let me interrupt . Huge amount of what
4 fil es?
5 THE WITNESS: A. Wav, w-a-v . That's the audio.
6 I THE COURT : Okay .
7 MR . PODLASEK: Q. Once you have cleared and
8 placed the transcript you created into your backup system what
9 happens to the original raw data , including the wav . files?
10 I THE WITNESS: A. The wav. files disappear.
11 Because this is just what software does, it doesn't keep it any
12 longer. It's much easier to keep a steno file which is very
13 small and a transcript file which is very small, and I have
14 al ready used the audio to go over the transcript to make sure
15 that it is correct , so it's felt it's not needed anymore . The
16 software does not keep it.
17 Q. Now during the time period that you created this
18 June 18, 2008 transcript involving Miss Melongo and the cases
19 that you have identified, did you use the audio portion of that
20 transcript to prepare this document?
21 A. Yes , I did.
22 Q. And during that time did you have occasion to listen
23 to the judge speaking on that tape?
24 A. Yes, I did .
---22
22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
DAILY COpy PREPARED
Q. Did you have occasion to listen to the state's
attorney, Mr. Chevlin, speaking?
A. Yes, I did .
Q. And Mr. Flood?
A. Yes.
Q. And what about the defendant? Did the defendant speak
on the tape?
A. Yes, she did.
Q. And in point of fact, I believe that you transcribed
it, that on page 3, the second to last sentence on that page,
line 22
A. Yes .
Q. - - the defendant says "I bond" in response to a
question by the court as to what kind of bond she was out on, is
that correct?"
A. Yes.
Q. Unless I am misreading the transcript, those are the
only words spoken by the defendant on that day at that hearing,
is that correct?
A. They were.
Q. Now you have taken down and transcribed numerous
arraignments during the course of your career, is that correct?
A. Yes .
Q. At anytime have you ever been present when a defendant
~ ~ - - - -23 ~ - -
23
DAILY COpy PREPARED 24
I
1 was arraigned without being present himself or herself?
- - 1
--------
2
3
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
No .
Typically during an arraignment, explain to the ladies
11 Yes. A.
16
17
18
is
Q.
placed
A.
Q.
A.
Yes.
Do you recall approximately when that took place?
She called me after she picked up the transcript. I
19 do not remember the dates.
20
21
22
Q.
A.
Q.
Would it be in 2008 or 2009?
I'm not sur e when she actually ordered the transcript.
How many conversation -- did you have conversations
23 face to face or by telephone?
24 A. By telephone.
L __
--- - -- ---24 --- ---
I
1
I 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
DAILY COPY PREPARED
Q. Who called whom?
A. She called me.
Q. And during that conversation did anything occur?
A. Yes.
Q. What?
A. She told me that the transcript was incorrect.
Q. This is after she's picked up the transcript?
A. Yes.
Q. And when she said incorrect, did you inquire as to
what she meant?
A. She said that I put that she was present and she
wasn't present.
Q. And what did you respond, if anything?
A. I checked the transcript, I checked the audio, because
it was still on my computer at that time, I called her back and
I told her the transcript is correct, and that I wasn't going to
change it, and I told her I was trying to be helpful -- I
told her to call her attorney, Mr. Flood.
Q. And did she have any response to those suggestions?
A. She started yelling at me and threatening me.
MR. ALBUKERK: Objection. Ask that it be
stricken.
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR. PODLASEK: Q. In what way did the defendant
------ -- - --25
25
DAILY COPY PREPARED
----- -
1 threaten you?
26
-I
2 THE WITNESS: A. She said that if I didn't change
3 the transcript that she would file a complaint against me and I
4 sai d, "Well, go ahead . "
5 MR. PODLASEK: Q. And was that the end of your
6 first conversation?
7 A. The first conversation dealt with the first reason she
8 said that she wasn't present was she said her attorney did not
9 state on the record that she was present standing there. And I
10 tol d her, "Attorneys don't always state that."
11 Q. How did she respond to that?
12 A. That I was still wrong, that the transcript was wrong,
1 3 and I had to change it .
14 MR. ALBUKERK: Judge, I am going to make an
15 objection and ask for a side bar.
16 THE COURT: Your objection is going to be
17 overruled at this time. We will address that at a later time.
18 Go ahead.
19 MR. PODLASEK: Q. Was there a third conversation
20 that took place?
21 THE WITNESS: A. There was a second conversation.
22 MR . PODLASEK: Q. Second, I'm sorry.
23 THE WITNESS: A. The second conversation, let me
24 try to remember, was she said that the clerk had her not present
L __ _
--- 26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
DAILY COpy PREPARED
so that she was not present.
Q. And when she said "the clerk," did you know who she
was referring to?
A. Not really . The Clerk of the Court I assumed, but I
don't know.
Q. And when you -- when she indicated to you that the
clerk had her not present did you know what she meant by that?
A. Not particularly.
Q. Did you have -- I'm sorry, go ahead.
A. At that time I told her, "It doesn't matter what a
clerk says , the court reporter's transcript is what governs."
Q. Now, was it the third conversation in which you were
threatened with the complaint?
MR . ALBUKERK: Objection to the term threat.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: A. I think it was the second.
MR. PODLASEK : Q. And did you have three
conversations?
conversation?
THE WITNESS: A.
MR. PODLASEK : Q.
Yes .
What happened on the third
A. The third conversation she called and said that she
wasn't present because she was having a cell phone call at the
time that I had listed on the cover of the transcript.
27 - - ~
27
DAILY COpy PREPARED
---- - - -- -- - ---
Now on the cover of People's Exhibit NO.4 for
2 identification, what time do you indicate that the court
3 proceedings took place?
4
5
6
7
8
A. Approximately
MR . ALBUKERK: Objection. Objection. Side bar.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: A. Approximately 11 o'clock.
MR. PODLASEK: Q. Was there any other
9 conversation on that third conversation between the two of you
10 or did it end at that point?
1 1 THE WITNESS: A. I'm not sure how it all ended,
12 but she said I have to change the transcript, it's wrong. And
13 she di d say that, "Do you real i ze I can get the case thrown out
14 because of you?" And I said , "Well, I don't know about that. I
15 sai d, "The transcri pt is correct. Pl ease tal k to your attorney.
16 I'm not changi ng it."
17 MR. PODLASEK: Q. Do you know what she meant by
18 getting "the case thrown out?"
19
20
21
A.
Q.
A.
Not reall y.
Did she contact you any further after that time?
Uhm, no . After that I gave the information to my
22 supervisor, Pam Taylor.
23
24
Q.
A.
Pam Taylor?
Yes.
-- 28 -
DAILY COPY PREPARED
1 Q. Now at any point did you ever contact Miss Melongo and
2 either talk to her or leave her a message?
3 A. I think I left her a message. I'm not sure if it was
4 the first time, because she might have left a message first and
5 then I called her back and she wasn't there and I left a
6 message. But I did inform her that I checked my notes and the
7 transcript was correct.
8 MR. PODLASEK: Judge, at this time I would like to
9 play part of what's been put before the court as
10 People's Exhibit No . 1, which is a CD-Rom which has
11 Miss Melongo's website on it and also the audio recordings in
12 this case and I would like to play one of the audio recordings.
13 THE COURT: It is recei ved . It is part of
14 People's Exhibit No.1 was made part of the stipulation that we
15 heard last evening, correct?
16 MR. PODLASEK: Yes, Your Honor.
17 THE COURT: All right. Go right ahead.
18 MR. PODLASEK: I will play an audio recording for
19 you, ask you to listen it, and then ask you if you can identify
20 it.
21 THE WITNESS: Okay. Turn it up.
22 (WHEREUPON, the audio tape was
23 played.)
24 MR. PODLASEK : Q. Do you recognize that message?
29 --
29
1
2
3 tape?
4
5 Q.
DAILY COpy PREPARED
- - ----- -- - -- --
THE WITNESS: A. Yes.
MR. PODLASEK: Q. Was that your voice on the
THE WITNESS: A. It sounds like it, yes .
And was that the message you were talking about
6 leaving Miss Melongo?
7 A. Yes, that the transcript was ready to be picked up,
8 where it would be, how much it would cost, and filed under her
9 name.
10 Q. Is that the only message or conversation that you
11 initiated with Miss Melongo?
12
13
A. I think so.
MR. PODLASEK: Judge, at this time we have no
14 further questi ons.
15
16
THE COURT: All right. Cross.
17 CROSS- EXAMINATION
1 8 BY MR. ALBUKERK:
19
20
21
Q.
A.
Q.
Good morning, Miss Laudien.
Good morning.
Ma'am, first as a court reporter you have to produce
22 accurate transcripts, correct?
23
24
A.
Q.
Of course .
Because it is an official record?
---30 - ~ - -
30
DAILY COpy PREPARED
1 I ~ A .
It is .
2 Q. And in fact you swear to the accuracy of those records
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
all the time?
A. I do.
Q. The back of every single transcript that you write in
fact has a little attestation page saying that you are swearing
to the accuracy?
A. The certificate.
Q . Right. If a court reporter were not accurate in the
transcription that's something that should be complained of,
correct?
A. I guess, yes.
Q. Now just for the record we just heard a tape
recording. That was you leaving a message?
A. Right .
Q. And you left that message for my client?
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
Yes.
You did not have hiccups while you were saying that?
Hiccups?
That hiccup sound?
No, and I did not know that she recorded that.
Well , you left a message, right?
Yes, I did .
And the message machine is a recording device, right?
3 1 - - ~
31
---- -------
DAILY COPY PREPARED
1 A. Yes, it is.
2 Q. So you knew that your words were being recorded?
3 A. They could be, yes.
4 Q. In fact every time anyone leaves a message it's being
5 recorded, right?
6 A. If their message machine is working, I assume so.
7 Q . Let me understand the procedure here. So you, you
8 back up all of your transcripts and audio recordings to a hard
9 drive, correct?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Do you know how big that hard drive is?
12 A. My computer is onl y 60 gi g.
13 Q. But as we speak today, you have this particular
14 transcript, June 18, 2008, transcript and audio is backed up
15 somewhere on that hard drive?
16 A. The transcript is backed up on the hard drive, an
17 external hard drive, the audio is not.
18 Q. And you chose not to move the wav. file -- Strike
19 that. Let me be a little more clear.
20 The wav. file is the audio file, right?
21
22
A.
Q.
Yes.
And you choose to not back up the audio file when you
23 transfer the material to your hard drive?
24 A. No, I don't choose. The software does not keep it.
- 32 --- .
32
--------------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
DAILY COPY PREPARED
~ ~ - - -- -- - ~ - - -
Once you take it off of the hard drive and back it up to
somewhere else, the audio for that transcript disappears because
you no longer need it. You've used it for the transcript, so
you no longer need it. Transcript files and steno note files
are very small; wav. files are huge. The software does not keep
it.
Q. Well, isn't that just a matter of clicking a few boxes
in your computer to change the settings?
A. No, the software does not keep it.
Q. Now the reason court reporters record what goes on
what goes in the courtroom is to make sure that they are
accurate?
A. Yes , it's a tool to help us because we do not control
the courtroom, the noise , the things that are going on, yes.
Q. In fact in some courtrooms all they have is a
recording , they don't have court reporters?
A. That may be. I don't know.
Q. Now over the years -- you said you have been doing
this job for over 20 years, right?
A. 34.
Q. 34 years?
A. 34.
Q. And over the years obviously the State's Attorney's
office has purchased transcripts from you?
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - - ~ - - 3 3
33
1
2
A.
Q.
DAILY COpy PREPARED
Yes.
Can you estimate how much money the State's Attorney's
3 office has given you for these transcripts?
4 A. No, I cannot.
5 Q. It's qui te a bi t of money, though?
6 MR. PODLASEK: Judge, I am going to object to
7
8
this.
THE COURT: Sustained.
9 MR. ALBUKERK : Judge , if I can have a side bar.
10 THE COURT: Overrul ed.
11 MR . ALBUKERK: Q. Your office is in the building
12 literally if you look out the windows over here?
13 THE WITNESS: A. The administrative office
14 building, yes.
15 MR. ALBUKERK: Q. You are on the fourth floor?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And the State's Attorney's office are on, what, the
18 10th or 11th floor?
19 A. They are on a couple floors .
20 Q. Ri ght . Same bui 1 di ng?
21
22
23
24
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
Same buil di ng.
And you work with state's attorneys everyday?
Yes.
You have no control over what the clerk does, correct?
- 34
34
1
DAILY COpy PREPARED
Of course not. 1
2
A.
Q. And you have no control over what the judge does,
3 correct?
Of course not. 4
5
A.
Q. But you know that obviously files are maintained for
6 each of the cases?
7 A. Supposedly.
8 Q. Court reporters have been known to make mistakes from
9 time to time?
1 0 A. I suppose.
11 Q. Being a court reporter is a human endeavor?
12 A. Yes .
1 3 Q. Humans make mi stakes?
14 A. Yes.
15 MR. ALBUKERK: Nothing further .
16 THE COURT: Any redi rect?
1 7 MR. PODLASEK: No, Judge.
18
19
20-
21
22
23
THE COURT : Thank you, ma'am. You may step down.
THE WITNESS: Thank you.
THE COURT: You can proceed with your next
witness, State.
MR. PODLASEK:
MR. ALBUKERK :
My next witness is Pamela Taylor.
Judge, can I have a side bar or if
24 you want to wait?
I
l
-- --- -- ---
--35
35
1
2
3
4 witness?
DAILY COPY PREPARED
THE COURT: Let's wait.
MR. ALBUKERK: Okay.
THE COURT: State, is someone going to get the
5 MR. PODLASEK: Miss Laudien is, Judge . We had to
6 put her down the hall in another courtroom.
7 THE COURT : Okay.
8 [PAUSE HELD]
9 THE COURT : Good morning, ma'am.
10 THE WITNESS: Good morning .
11 THE COURT: Could you raise your right hand for
12 me.
1 3 (WITNESS SWORN)
14
15
THE COURT: Thank you.
16 PAMELA TAYLOR
17 called as a witness on behalf of the People, having been first
18 duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
19 DIRECT EXAMINATION
20 BY MR. PODLASEK :
21 Q. Good morni ng.
Good morning. 22
23
A.
Q. Would you please state your name and spell your last
24 I name for the record.
36 - --
36
_J
1
2
3
4
5
6
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
DAILY COPY PREPARED
----- ----
My name is Pamela C. Taylor. T A Y LOR.
And, Miss Taylor, are you currently employed?
Yes, I am.
And where are you employed?
I am employed with the State of Illinois.
In what position?
7 A. I'm an official court reporter and currently I am the
8 Assistant Administrator of the Criminal Division.
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Q. How long have you held the position of Assistant
Administrator of the Criminal Division?
A. Since 2002.
Q. And briefly could you describe what your duties and
responsibilities are in that position.
A. My main responsibilities is that I deal with the
appeals that come out of the First Municipal -- not First
Municipal District , the First District which covers Cook County,
and I also supervise the court reporters at 26th and California.
Q. Now prior to holding that supervisory position what
position did you hold?
A. I was Assistant Supervisor at 26th and California.
Q. And prior to that what position?
A. I was an official court reporter working in the
courtrooms on a daily basis.
Q. So in one form or another how long have you been a
37
37
DAILY COpy PREPARED
1 court reporter?
2 A. I have been licensed since 1973. I have been an
3 official court reporter working with the State of Illinois since
4 1977.
5 Q. And, briefly, you went through an education process
6 for court reporting school of some sort?
7 A. Yes. I am actually a proud Chicago public school
8 student, this is where I started my vocation. I went to Chicago
9 Vocational High School, which is what it was called at the time,
10 and my major was machine steno, and from there I went to
11 McCormac Junior College, where I took the necessary courses to
12 pass the state examination in 1973.
13 Q. Now, does the Cook County Court Reporters Office have
14 an official form manual for the court reporters to follow?
15 A. Yes, we do. We do have a form book.
16 Q. And that form book guides them as to how transcripts
17 should be created and all the rules they should be following?
18 A. That's correct. As official court reporters, we are
19 also governed by the State. So we have under the Court
20 Reporters Act there is certain guidelines that we have to follow
21 as far as how many pages per line and the indexes, and then
22 Cook County, which is the county that we work in, we also have
23 our own form book that goes into more specificity as to what to
24 do with the transcripts.
~ ~ 3 8 - - - ~
38
-- -- - --------
DAILY COPY PREPARED
. - ~ ~ - - --
1 Q. I am going to show you what has been previously marked
2 as People's Exhibit No.4 for identification. I ask if you take
3 the time. I believe there is a copy actually sitting in front
4
5
6
of you.
A.
Q.
Oh, okay.
Could you take a few minutes or a moment or two and
7 review that.
8 (Witness reviewing exhibit.)
9 THE WITNESS: Okay.
10 MR. PODLASEK: Q. Have you ever seen that
11 document before?
12 THE WITNESS: A. Yes, I have.
13 MR. PODLASEK: Q. And you recognize that as a
14 transcript created by a court reporter named Laurel Laudien?
15 THE WITNESS: A. Yes, I do.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Q.
A.
Q.
And you know Miss Laudien?
Yes, I do.
You have worked with her in the past?
A. Yes , I have.
Q. And Miss Laudien is one of the court reporters that
you supervise, is that correct?
A. Yes, she is.
Q. On page 1 of this transcript there is a caption and
the caption references the defendant, is that correct?
3 9 ~ ~ -
- ---
39
1
2
A.
Q.
DAILY COpy PREPARED
I'm sorry, could you repeat that.
The caption references a specific defendant, is that
3 correct?
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
I
13
as
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
she
A.
Q.
A.
Yes, it does.
Whose name appears on that transcript?
Annabel Melongo.
I am going to ask you if you recognize the defendant
sits here in the courtroom today.
Yes, I do.
Could you point her out for the record.
There is Miss Melongo sitting at defense table with
the glasses.
THE COURT: The record will show an in court
14 identification of Miss Melongo.
15 MR. PODLASEK: Q. Do you recall when you first
16 had the opportunity to meet Miss Melongo?
17
18
19
THE WITNESS: A. Yes, I do.
MR. PODLASEK: Q. And when was that?
THE WITNESS: A. I met Miss Melongo in this
20 I courtroom when I was subpoenaed to come here.
21 Q. Was that the first time you had ever met her?
22 A. That was the first time that I had met her personally,
23 yes. Eye contact.
24 I Q. Now prior to that had you had any kind of
40
40
DAILY COpy PREPARED
1 communications with Miss Melongo?
2 A. Yes, I did.
3 Q. How were those communications effectuated?
4
5
6
A.
Q.
By telephone.
Who initiated the conversations?
A. The first conversation I believe I called
7 Miss Melongo.
8 Q. And did you actually speak to her or did you leave her
9 a message?
1 0 A. I bel i eve I spoke to her.
11 Q. At anytime did you have occasion to call Miss Melongo
12 and leave a voi cemail ?
13 A. Yes, I did.
14 MR . PODLASEK: Judge, at this time I am going to
15 ask to play an excerpt from People's Exhibit No.1 for the
16 witness.
17 THE COURT: All right. You may proceed.
18 MR. PODLASEK: I am also tendering to the jury and
19 to the defense counsel a copy of the transcript of what she is
20 about to hear.
21 MR. ALBUKERK: Judge, for the record I would
22 object to any, just a portion being given to the jury. I would
23 ask that the entire recording be played to the jury.
24 THE COURT: Let's have a side bar. I thought this
- ----41 - -- -
41
-------------
DAILY COPY PREPARED
1 was agreed to prior bringing the jury out. Miss Reporter,
2 please.
3 (Side bar held as follows:)
4 THE COURT: We are on the record now. Prior to
5 the jury being brought out we discussed the issues of providing
6 the jurors with copies of the transcripts of the three different
7 phone calls that Miss Taylor is going to be testifying about.
8 There was no objection at that time. What is the objection now?
9 MR. ALBUKERK: Judge, I misunderstood
10 Mr. Podlasek. He said that he was going to show an excerpt and
11 what I thought he meant by that was he was only going to play
12 part of the audi o.
13 THE COURT: That's fi ne.
14 MR. ALBUKERK: We are fine; however, I want to
15 make a record on other stuff. Judge, you are prohibiting me
16 from making a record on my objections; you want me to do it
17 afterwards. I have to make running objections. The previous
18 testimony was hearsay of the previous witness and should have
19 been a running objection to all of that . The only reason I
20 didn't make it is because you were prohibiting us from putting
21 the stuff on the record until a side bar. I have to be clear
22 with the appellate court that I would be making every time I say
23 the word "objection" I have basis to do so and, you know,
24 because of your ruling I can't put the basis on the record and
L
---42 --
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - - -
42
DAILY COPY PREPARED
1 the appellate court is going to say I waived her rights.
2 THE COURT: I will certainly allow you to make a
3 record. You certainly did object that the witness had been
4 threatened by Miss Melongo and the follow up to that was she was
5 going to report her. So I did find that of a threat of any
6 physical nature, it was not disclosed, and it didn't appear to
7 be any kind of discovery violation. So that's overruled.
8 Rather, I was overruling your objection and putting it on the
9 record, so when we took a break I'll let you make a full record.
10 If you have a different basis to object for anything else,
11 certainly you can. I am not precluding any objections by any
12
13
means.
MR. ALBUKERK: The other objection I had was all
14 the testimony was hearsay and none of that testimony should have
15 come in as hearsay.
16 THE COURT: Let's put that on when we take a
17 break.
18 MR. ALBUKERK: Thank you.
19 (WHEREUPON, the foll owi ng proceedi ng
20 was resumed in open court before the
21 jury as follows:)
22 THE COURT: All right. You may proceed, State.
23 MR. PODLASEK: Judge , I will tender a copy of
24 People's Exhibit NO.5 to the court also for your use.
- 43 -
43
DAILY COPY PREPARED
1 I ~ - -
Q. Miss Taylor, I will show you what is
2 marked as People's Exhibit No.5 for identification purposes .
3 THE WITNESS: A. Yes .
4 MR . PODLASEK: Q. It's a transcript, is it not?
5
6 Q.
THE WITNESS: A. Yes, it is.
Do you know what it is a transcript of?
7 A. It's a transcript of the second conversation that I
8 had with Miss Melongo.
9 MR. PODLASEK: Judge, at this time I am going to
10 ask to play that conversation.
11 THE COURT: Go ahead.
12 MR. PODLASEK : This is a message that you left for
13 Mi ss Melongo?
14 THE WITNESS: A. Yes.
15 (WHEREUPON, the audio tape was played.)
16 MR. PODLASEK: Q. Is that a true and accurate
17 recording of the message that you left for Miss Melongo?
18 THE WITNESS: A. Yes, it is.
19 MR. PODLASEK: Q. Why did you leave that message?
20 What prompted you to do that?
21 THE WITNESS: A. Again, as I said before, this
22 was the second conversation that I had, the second time that I
23 called Miss Melongo. I had called her initially because
24 Miss Laudien had presented the situation to me that she had been
-------.---- 4 4 - -
44
- ----------
DAILY COPY PREPARED
1 dealing with Miss Melongo and how she had been calling her on a
2 continual basis about this transcript. So when I called
3 Miss Melongo to explain the office policy -- and, quite frankly,
4 I thought I had an answer to her solution why she thought she
5 was in one place and not the other -- she hung up on me. So I
6 called back and I left this message to state, "If you want to
7 discuss this further then just deal with me." I didn't want her
8 to deal with Miss Laudien, I did not want her to deal with my
9 clerical staff, because I was also told she was calling there as
10 well.
11 Q. Did Miss Melongo respond to your telephone call in any
12 way?
13 A. Yes, she did. She called me back.
14 Q. I am goi ng to show you what is marked as
15 People's Exhibit NO.6 for identification. I will tender a copy
16 to the defense. Judge, for your use I will tender a copy to
17
18
19
you.
THE COURT: And this is People's No.6?
MR. PODLASEK : No.6, Your Honor, for
20 i dent i fi cat ion.
21
22
THE WITNESS:
MR. PODLASEK:
Thank you.
Q. Do you recognize the document
23 known as People's Exhibit No.6?
24 THE WITNESS: A. Yes, I do.
L
-------------------45 ------
45
DAILY COpy PREPARED
1 MR. PODLASEK: Q. And what is that?
2 A. This is a transcript of the very long conversation
3 that Miss Melongo and I had after People's Exhibit NO.5.
4 Q. So this is in response to your voice mail that we just
5 heard from you to Miss Melongo?
6 A. Right.
7 Q. And who initiated this conversation?
8 A. Miss Melongo called me.
9 Q. At this time I am going to play you a recording of
10 this conversation. Follow along in the transcript, if you want .
11 (WHEREUPON, the audio taped was played.)
12 MR. PODLASEK : You're right it was a long
13 transcript. Does that fairly and accurately depict, at least
14 audio wise, what conversation took place?
15 THE WITNESS: A. Yes.
16 MR. PODLASEK: Q. Do you know where this
17 transcript came from that you have before you as
18 People's Exhibit No.6?
19 THE WITNESS: A. When you say it came from? It
20 was produced by Miss Laudien.
21 MR . PODLASEK: Q. The transcript, No.6, of the
22 telephone conversation .
23 A. Oh, the telephone conversation. Where this came from?
24 Q. Yes.
- - - - - - - - ~ -
46 -
46
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
DAILY COpy PREPARED
, - - - - - - - - - ~ - - ~ - - - - - -- - ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ -
A. You just gave it to me.
Q. So you have never seen that before?
A. No.
Q. At anytime prior to the recording of this conversation
that we just played for you, was there any other conversation
between you and Miss Melongo?
A. No.
Q. So this reflects the entire conversation?
A. That was it.
Q. So at anytime did Miss Melongo ever ask you if she
could record the conversation?
A. No.
Q. At anytime did she ever tell you that she was
recording a conversation?
A. No.
Q. At anytime did Miss Melongo ever tell you that she was
going to post this conversation in transcript form and the audio
portion which we have just played on her website?
A. No.
Q. Did you ever give her permission to post this
conversation that was recorded?
A. No, I did not.
Q. This conversation took place approximately when, if
you remember?
- - - - 4 7 ~ - - - - ~ - - -
47
1
2
3
4
DAILY COpy PREPARED
[ - ----
A. Uhm, there was a first conversation that I called her
the day Miss Laudien brought this to my attention and then she
hung up and I don't know if she called right back after I left a
message or as it's said in the first transcript that I was going
5 to be off for a couple of days and she call back later. I'm not
6 sure of the time frame.
7
8
9
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
But was it in
Yes.
Was it in the
It would have
December of 2009?
early part or later part of December?
been the early part of December because 10
1 1
12
I take off at the end every year.
Q. So could it have been on or about December 14th or
13 15th?
14 A. That sounds correct, because pretty much after that I
15 take off.
16 Q. Now following this conversation, did you have another
17 telephone conversation with Miss Melongo?
18
19
20
A.
Q.
A.
Following People's Exhibit No.6?
Yes.
No, I never had another conversation, I believe. The
21 only conversation I had with Miss Melongo may have been when I
22 was subpoenaed to court.
23
24
Q.
A.
I _
So you only had one conversation with Miss Melongo?
Right. This was the last one that I remember having
- - - 48 -
48
DAILY COPY PREPARED
1 (Indicating to exhibit.)
2 Q. Were there two prior conversations before this?
3 A. Before People's No.6 there was People's NO.5. I
4 don't recall a third conversation right now. I really don't .
5 If you have something to refresh my memory.
6 Q. I will show you what I have marked as People's Exhibit
7 NO.7 for identification purposes. I would ask if you would
8 review that.
9 (Witness reviewing exhibit.)
10 THE WITNESS: A. Okay. I do remember.
11 MR. PODLASEK: Judge, I am going to give you a
1 2 copy of Peop 1 e 's No.7.
13 Q. Now, does People's Exhibit NO.7 take
14 place within a short period of time after People's Exhibit No.
15 1?
16
17
THE WITNESS : A. People's Exhibit No.1?
MR. PODLASEK: Q. I mean NO.6.
18 A. No.6 right now I remember because she called again
19 and wanted to e-mail the transcript to me. She wanted me to
20 look at the transcript .
21 THE COURT: For the record the jurors have been
22 given copies of People's Exhibit 7.
23 MR. PODLASEK: Q. Now would you briefly describe
24 what People's Exhibit No.7 is .
--- - -
- --49 -----
49
DAILY COpy PREPARED
1 r - - - - THE WITNESS:
A. People's Exhibit No.7 looks
2 like a transcript of the conversation that we had when
3 Miss Melongo called and wanted me to look at the transcript.
4 MR. PODLASEK: I am going to playa recording of
5 this conversation.
6 (WHEREUPON, the audio tape was played.)
7 MR. PODLASEK: Q. Do you recall that
8 conversation?
9 THE WITNESS: A. Yes , I do recall the
1 0 conversat i on now.
1 1 MR. PODLASEK: Q. Okay. Does that represent the
12 entire conversation that you had with Miss Melongo at that time?
13
14 Q.
THE WITNESS: A. Right. Correct.
At anytime did Miss Melongo ask your permission to
15 record that conversation?
16
17
A.
Q.
No.
At anytime did Miss Melongo tell you that she was
18 recording that conversation?
19
20
A.
Q.
No, she didn't.
At anytime did Miss Melongo tell you she was going to
21 post this to her Internet site for the entire world to listen to
22 and l ook at the transcripts?
23
24
A.
Q.
No.
Did she in fact tell you she was going to make
- - --- ~ - 5 0 ---
50
DAILY COpy PREPARED
1 transcripts out of these phone conversations?
2 A. No, she didn't.
3 Q. At anytime did you give her permission to record these
4 conversations?
No. 5
6
A.
Q. At anytime did you give her permission to post these
7 conversations to the general public?
8 A. No, I didn't.
9 Q. I am going to show you what is marked as
10 People's Exhibit NO.8 for identification. Judge, I am
11 tendering a copy of the exhibit to you, to the jurors, as well
12 as counsel.
13 I would ask if you would review People's No.
14 8. Do you recognize that exhibit?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. What is that?
17
18
19
20
21
A. This was the subsequent conversation after she felt
that I received the e-mail.
Q. I am going to play this conversation for you.
22 conversation?
(WHEREUPON, the audio taped was played.)
MR. PODLASEK: Q. Do you recall that
23 THE WITNESS: A. Yes, I do.
24 MR. PODLASEK: Q. That conversation took place
51 -----
--- ~ ~ - ~ - -
51
------- ------
DAILY COPY PREPARED
1 within a very short period of time of the very first
2 conversation we played?
3 THE WITNESS: A. Yes, all of this was in
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
sequence. Rapid. You know, a day or two.
Q. December 14th, 15th --
A. Right.
Q. And maybe the 16th --
A. Right.
Q. -- of 2009?
A. Exactly .
Q. At anytime did Miss Melongo tell you that she was
recording this conversation that we just played for you,
People's Exhibit NO.8?
A. No, she did not .
Q. Did she tell you she was going to transcribe that
conversation?
A. No, she did not.
Q. Did she ask your permission to record that
conversation?
A. No, she did not.
Q. At anytime did Miss Melongo inform you that she was
going to post this conversation to a website that she controlled
and created called www.IllinoisCorruption.net?
A. No, she did not.
- 52 - --
52
J
DAILY COpy PREPARED
- - - ----- - - - - - -
1 Q. At anytime did you give her permission to record this
2 conversation or to post it to the knelt?
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
A.
actually,
No, I did not.
MR. PODLASEK: Can I have one minute, Judge?
THE COURT: You may.
[PAUSE HELD]
MR. PODLASEK: Q. Miss Taylor.
THE WITNESS: A. Yes?
MR. PODLASEK: Q. At anytime once you found
how did you find out about these conversations?
THE WITNESS: A. I received an e-mail through
work e-mail to go to this particular website.
Q. Do you know who sent you that e-mail?
A. Actually, I don't. I only opened up the e-mail
my
15
I
because it was from my work e-mail .soIhave to open all of the
16 e-mails. And I went to the website and I saw that there was
17 somethi ng to the effect that sai d, "And thi sis what Mi ss Taylor
18 had to say," and I i mmedi atel y contacted the State's Attorney's
19
20
21
office.
Q.
A.
Do you know what website you were directed to?
The one that you previously stated. It sounds like
22 that was the website I was directed to.
23
24
Q.
A.
Did you play the audio?
No.
- -- ---- - - - -- --- - 53 -- - -
53
1
DAILY COPY PREPARED
I - ~ ~ -
1 Q. You just contacted the state's attorneys?
2 A. I just contacted the State's Attorney's office.
3 MR. PODLASEK: Judge, I have no further questions.
4 THE COURT: All right. Cross.
5
6 CROSS-EXAMINATION
7 BY MR. ALBUKERK:
8 Q. Miss Taylor, its's a crime to alter an official court
9 transcript, correct?
10 A. A cri me? Correct. It's... (Pausi ng. ) Ri ght.
11 Q. And it's also a crime to help cover up a crime,
12 correct?
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Correct. A.
Q. Now we just heard those transcripts, and it's pretty
clear that Miss Melongo believed that the transcript in
question, the June 18, 2008, transcript wasn't correct; is that
correct?
A. That's what she believed, yes.
Q. She cited to you several different ways that that
transcript was not correct?
A. Yes, she did.
Q. She pointed out to you that the Clerk's office didn't
have her being arraigned that day, June 18th of 2008?
A. She said that.
54 - - - - ----
54
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
DAILY COPY PREPARED
o. And the Clerk's office is supposed to record whether
or not she was arraigned on June 18th of 2008?
A. I don't work for the Clerk's office, so I can't speak
for the Clerk's office and what they are supposed to do.
O. Right. But Miss Melongo pointed that out to you?
A. I believe she did.
O. And she also pointed out to you I believe that the
court sheets and the half sheets also indicated that she had not
been arraigned on June 18th of 2008?
A. If that's what you say she said, she probably did say
all of that.
O. Now, you are the supervisor for the Court Reporters
13 offi ce?
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
A.
O.
A.
O.
Correct.
But you are also a court reporter as well?
Correct.
So you do have duties, you have to go to the courtroom
and you have to sometimes take transcripts?
A. I don't go to court anymore, no.
O. Well, at that time when this was going on in December
of '09, were you still going to courtrooms or were you in the
office?
A. I've been pretty much in the office since about 2003.
O. So in any case, then your duties are administrative
~ - - --- - 55 -- - --
55
DAILY COpy PREPARED
1 then?
2 I
3
A.
O.
For the most part, yes.
And Miss Laudien had asked you to get involved in this
4 case?
5
6
A.
O.
Correct.
So your job actually is to deal with, well, complaints
7 of this nature, correct?
8 A. Correct.
9 MR. ALBUKERK : May I have one moment?
10 THE COURT: You may .
11 [PAUSE HELD]
12 MR . ALBUKERK: O. Your initial message to my
13 client was a voice mail that you left on my client's -- I am
14 referring to People's Exhibit NO.5 .
15 THE WITNESS: A. Okay.
16 MR. ALBUKERK: O. And this is the message that
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
you left
A.
O.
A.
O.
Right.
-- for my client?
Right.
And in that message you told her specifically not to
contact Miss Laudien?
A. Correct .
O. And you told my cl ient to not contact anybody in the
56
I
I
I
I
I
-- - - ----- ~ ~ - - - --56 --
_I
1
2
3
DAILY COPY PREPARED
-------- ~ -
Court Reporters office except for you?
A. Correct.
Q. These conversations that had that you estimated that
4 all three exhibits that the State had presented, you think it
5 took about 15 minutes of your time?
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
A. It looks 1 i ke it took longer.
Q. Maybe 20 minutes?
A. Yeah.
Q. 25 minutes?
A. Somewhere.
Q. Okay. But in no way did these conversations impede
your ability to do your job?
A. No. I think on one transcript you can tell that I did
have to take another phone call .
Q.
A.
Right.
So at that point I ended the conversation with
1 7 Mi ss Mel ongo .
18 Q. Right. But in no way did any of these conversations,
19 the posting of these conversations interfere with the work of
20 the Court Reporters office?
21
22
23
24
no.
A. Interfere with the work of the Court Reporters office ,
MR. ALBUKERK: Can I have a moment?
THE COURT: You may.
- - - -----57 --
57
DAILY COPY PREPARED
1 I
I
[PAUSE HELD]
2 I MR. ALBUKERK: Q. The Court Reporters Office,
3 it's a business, correct?
4 THE WITNESS: A. A business in what sense? That
5 makes money, that doesn't makes money?
6 Q. That makes money.
7 A. No, we don't make any money. Individually the court
8 reporters, they get a salary and they get paid for the
9 transcripts.
10 Q. And they get paid for the transcripts in part from the
11 State's Attorney's office?
12 A. They get paid for the transcripts depending who orders
13 the transcripts. That could be a private attorney, that could
14 be a private person, that could be the State's Attorney's
15 office, that could be the Public Defender's office, that could
16 be the State Appellate Defender. It could be anybody. Anybody
17 can come in and order a transcript and pay for it.
18 Q. But in any event, the State's Attorney's office is one
19 of the largest purchasers of transcripts, is that correct?
20 MR. PODLASEK: Judge, I will object to that.
21 THE COURT: Overruled. You can answer that.
22 THE WITNESS: A. No, they are not.
23 MR. ALBUKERK: Q. No?
24 A. No.
L __ _ __ ___ .
- 58 -
58
DAILY COpy PREPARED
r- - - - -- - ---- ---. -- - -- - --
1 MR . ALBUKERK : Q. Who is the largest purchaser of
2 transcripts?
3 A. State of III i noi s .
4 Q. Isn't the State of Illinois purchasing those
5 transcripts on behalf of the State's Attorney's office?
6 A. No, the State of Illinois is purchasing the
7 transcripts on behalf of, they are the ones that handle the
8 appeals.
9 MR . ALBUKERK: Thank you for clarifying that.
10 Q. However , the State's Attorney's office
11 is still one of the largest purchasers of your transcripts?
12 MR. PODLASEK: Objection to that, Judge, as asked
13 and answered.
14 THE COURT: Overruled.
15 THE WITNESS: A. Yes, they are.
16 MR. ALBUKERK: Q. Can you put a dollar amount on
17 a yearly basis how much the State's Attorney's office pays the
18 court reporters?
19 THE COURT: Sustained as to that .
20 MR. ALBUKERK: Q. Now when you were speaking with
21 my client, my client was asking you for the audio recordings?
22 THE WITNESS: A. At one point, yes, she was.
23 MR. ALBUKERK: Q. And she wanted those audio
24 recordings to determine if in fact a mistake had been made on
- ------- - -- - 5 9 ----
59
DAILY COPY PREPARED
--- --
1 the June 18th of 2008 transcript?
2 MR. PODLASEK: Objection , Judge, as to what she
3 wanted.
4 THE COURT: Sustained.
5 MR. ALBUKERK : Q. Well, in any event, you are
6 aware or you are aware that a lot of court reporters use
7 different systems in fact to take transcripts, correct?
8 THE WITNESS: A. Yes, they do.
9 MR. ALBUKERK: Q. And a lot of the court
10 reporters use audio recordings, right?
11 A. Some do, some don't.
12 Q. At this point in time -- and, of course, I am talking
13 about today and here in 2011 -- most of the court reporters
14 actually do use a recording device?
15 A. You know what , I don't want to say "most" because I
16 really can't say that. Some do, some don't.
17 Q. Well, today is used a recording device , correct?
18 A. Is Miss Kerns using a court reporting device right
19 now? I'm assuming that's a microphone but that doesn't
20 necessarily mean that it's recording, because sometimes I don't
21 see that she has the ear plugs. Because sometimes they use the
22 ear plugs because it helps them hear better .
23 Q. So even though there is a microphone out there, that
24 may not be recording?
1 ________ _
-------60
60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
DAILY COPY PREPARED
A. I have no idea; that's her equipment.
Q. Do you ever train court reporters in how to use that
court reporting device?
A. No. I train court reporters on how, what to do as far
as managing a court call, but the court reporters come here with
their own equipment and use it as they see fit to do their job
the way they think best. But as far as training, training, I
don't train anybody to use audio equipment.
Q. Right. Now when that audio is recording things, it's
recording everything that's going on, correct?
A. I can't answer that. What audio are you talking
about?
Q. Well --
A. Because see, I personally don't use audio equipment.
When I was a court reporter I didn't use it, so.
Q. Well, has anyone ever told individual court reporters
that they have to stop recording when they are not on the
record?
A. What I have to explain about the audio recording is
that it's work product. So if this particular court reporter
can choose to record or not record. Another court reporter can
choose to record this particular session and not another. It's
not a job requirement is what I am saying. So when you are
asking me about audio recording, because it's not a job
61
I
l_
~ 6 1 - ---
~ ~ __ J
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
DAILY COPY PREPARED 62
I r- e-q-u 1-' re-me - nt - I c- a-n- ' t - 9-i v-e y-o-u- an-y - d-e-f i n- i-t i ve answer" """l
Q. But it's your position that if audio is made you are I
not going to turn it over, correct?
A. If I do an audio am I going to turn it over? No,
because it's my work product. The only thing I am required by
law to give you is the transcript.
Q. So if you are given a subpoena , which is a court order
asking for audio, you are not going to turn it over?
A. If I am given a subpoena to turn over audio that I may
still have in my possession as an official court reporter for
the State of Illinois, I will probably come to court with the
Attorney General who represents me.
MR. ALBUKERK: Thank you.
THE COURT: Any redirect?
MR. PODLASEK: Briefly.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. PODLASEK:
Q. You were asked on cross-examination by counsel whether
Miss Melongo believed or stated that she believed that the
transcript was incorrect, is that true?
A. Yes. He asked me if she believed that and I guess
that's what she believed. I don't know what she believed .
Q. Do you know actually what she believed or whether she
- 62 - - -
I
j
DAILY COPY PREPARED 63
r ~ - - - - - --- - ------,
1
2
was lying to you?
A. I have no idea . I was just trying to help
3 Miss Melongo to the best of my ability.
4
5
6
7
day?
Q.
A.
Q.
Do you know whether she was actually in court that
No, I don't know. I wasn't there .
So the only thing you have to go by is that transcript I
8 of June 18th of 2008?
9
10
A.
Q.
Right, the official court transcript.
At anytime since you have been introduced to
11 Miss Melongo either telephonically through e-mails or in person
12 have you ever committed or planned to commit a crime against
13 her?
A. No.
MR. ALBUKERK: Judge, I am going to object --
THE COURT: Overruled.
MR . PODLASEK: I have no further questions, Judge.
THE COURT: Any recross based on that?
MR. ALBUKERK: Yes.
RECROSS EXAMINATION
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
BY MR. ALBUKERK:
Q. You just said the only thing you had to go by was the
24 court transcript, correct?
63 - -
DAILY COpy PREPARED
1 r ~ A.
That was the only thing that was presented to me, yes.
Well, but you had other things to go by. You had the 2
3
4 I
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Q.
Clerk's computer information, you could have gone by that?
A. Oh, I stand corrected . We do have access to the
Clerk's computer and I did look at the Clerk's computer. I'm
sorry.
Q. And so you knew that the Clerk's computer indicated
that no arraignment had taken place that day?
A. I knew that the Clerk's computer stated that
Miss Melongo was not present for the assignment call .
Q. Right. Which is on June 18th of 2008?
A. Exactly. And that is the question that was brought
before me is that Miss Melongo felt she wasn't in court , and the
first conversation I had with her I was explaining to her,
"Right, you were weren't in court at the assignment call but you
were in court."
Q.
A.
According to the transcript?
According to the transcript in the other call.
THE COURT: What was the last thing you said, on
20 the other call not the assignment call?
21 THE WITNESS : Not the assignment call but when she
22 was assigned to Judge Schreier. Judge Schreier's call.
23 MR. ALBUKERK: Q. However, the question I was
24 asking you was because -- just to wander a little bit -- you
64
I
- --64 -
_J
DAILY COPY PREPARED
1 were asked questions , so the only thing you had to go by was the
2 transcript, correct?
3 THE WITNESS: A. Exactly.
4 MR. ALBUKERK : O. However , that's not exactly
5 true. You could have gone by the Clerk's record, right?
6 A. I could have gone by the Clerk's record if that's what
7 my focus was on . When it was presented to me, Miss Melongo's
8 situation , which is Miss Melongo felt that she was not present,
9 when I was presented with all the information that Miss Melongo
10 felt that she was not present, when I looked on the Clerk's
11 computer and I realized that she was not present for the
12 assignment call, but according to the transcript she was present
13 for Judge Schreier's call. The telephone conversation I had
14 with her , that's what I was trying to explain to her, because I
15 know in talking to people like Miss Melongo every single day,
16 this is a daunting place and people get courtrooms and things
17 like that mixed up. And the very first conversation that's what
18 I was trying to explain to her is that, you're right, you
19 weren't present at the assignment call.
20 O. Yes, you're correct. People get courtrooms get mixed
21 up. In fact, court reporters sometimes get courtrooms mixed up?
22 A. No.
23 Q. Court reporters never make a mistake in their
24 transcripts?
L ~ ___ ~
--- 65 - -
65
I
DAILY COPY PREPARED
1 A. Oh, do people? Yes, everybody can make a mistake. We
2 call that typos.
3 MR. ALBUKERK: Okay. Thank you.
4 MR. PODLASEK: Briefly.
5 THE COURT: If we haven't heard it once. If I've
6 heard it once, I don't want to hear it again. Are you done yet?
7 I thought you were finished. Are you finished, Mr. Albukerk?
8 MR. ALBUKERK: Can I have just one moment.
9 [PAUSE HELD]
10
1 1 Judge.
MR. ALBUKERK: Yeah, we're all done. Sorry,
1 2 MR. POD LASEK : No.
13 THE COURT: Thank you, ma'am. You may step down.
1 4 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
15 THE COURT: You can proceed, State.
16 MR. PODLASEK: We have one further witness that we
17 prefer to call that witness after lunch, if you don't mind.
18 THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen, we'll take a
19 lunch break now. You have been sitting here for sometime, so
20 we'll bring you back out after lunch. All rise for the jury.
21 (WHEREUPON. the jury ex; ted the
22 courtroom. )
23 THE COURT: Okay. Defense -- everyone may be
24 seated in court -- you did want to make a record of earlier
66
l
I
- - - - . - - ~ - - - - - 66 - - - . ~ - ~ - J
DAILY COPY PREPARED
I - - - - ~ ~
1 I objections when Miss Laudien was testifying .
2 I
MR. ALBUKERK: Yes, Judge.
3 For the record Your Honor has given us
4 strict instructions to not make speaking objections, to not give
5 the basis of those objections, but merely say "objection," and
6 then to ask for a side bar. Judge, I think that severely
7 prejudices the defense and I think it severely prejudices the
8 record.
9 THE COURT: Really? Because I have to interrupt
10 you and completely disagree. Most courtrooms I've ever been in,
11 the judges in front of a jury do not allow long-speaking
12 objections, rambling positions given by parties. So what you
13 are doing in this courtroom, and I'm sure you've been around a
14 long ti me, is the same as most other jury tri al s. lin fact
15 have never been in a courtroom where speaking objections and
16 arguments were allowed in front of the jury. So that's
17 absolutely incorrect . You are allowed to object. I am not
18 curtailing anybody's ability to object; I am simply asking you
19 to ask for a side bar if you feel it's important.
20 I generally know why you are objecting. So
21 I pretty much know where you are going with your objections, and
22 if I feel it needs a side bar I will grant it and, if not, I
23 will let you make your record, which is what I am doing now.
24 But I vehemently disagree with your position that I am trying to
L ____ _ _
- 67 - --
67
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
DAILY COpy PREPARED 68
- - - ~ - - - - - - - - - - . - - - - --- -- -- I
curtail that way that you are objecting or the way that you are
handling this trial. I am just curtailing long speeches in
front of the jury by either side, State or defense .
MR. ALBUKERK: Judge, again this is for the
record. I agree a hundred percent about the long speeches. And
obviously , Your Honor, you have a tremendous amount of
experience more than anybody else in this courtroom, no one is
doubting that, and I am sure that 99 percent of the time that
you do know what my objection is going to be. But my fear is
that, you know, in not being an able to state the basis of the
objection that there is a chance that a small, very small
chance -- perhaps you don't know what my objection is going to
be, and that's what I am going to state here now.
Earlier there was a whole conversation with
the first witness, Miss Laudien; there was a back and forth in
terms of what my client said, what she said. Judge, that was
all hearsay, there should have been a running objection to that.
That was the objection I wanted to make.
THE COURT: Let me ask you this. Everyone knew
Miss Laudien was going to testify, she is on the witness list,
did it not occur to anybody, to you in particular, to do a
motion in limine to preclude certain testimony? Isn't that what
motions in limine are for?
MR. ALBUKERK: Judge, it's hearsay. I didn't
'---- -----.- - - -- - ---- - 68 - - - - -- - - -- - -
DAILY COPY PREPARED
1 believe I needed to do a motion in limine to preclude hearsay.
2
3
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. ALBUKERK: In any event, that's why I wanted
4 to do that; and therefore, Judge, I believe we were prejudiced
5 by that.
6 Also, Judge, there was another thing about
7 the money. Obviously I am allowed to cross-examine witnesses
8 based on any motive, interest, or bias, and that includes money.
9 And, Judge, I think I should have been allowed to go into that.
10 I know that was objected to and sustained.
1 1 THE COURT: I want to give you my basis for the
12 ruling on that. I knew that's exactly what you were going for
13 and obviously I agree with you, you are allowed to inquire about
14 bias and I did allow you to inquire on some level with both
15 witnesses, Miss Laudien, as well as Miss Taylor, and I overruled
16 the State's objection to preclude all questioning on that. But
17 I thought it was going too far afield, you asked Ms. Laudien
18 over her 34 years how much does the State of Illinois pay her.
19 It's incredibly broad, suffice it to say she has been getting
20 paid by the State of Illinois for 34 years in some fashion, or
21 28 years, is more than enough to establish your bias. You have
22 asked Miss Taylor, who has been around for 30 plus years, how
23 much the State of Illinois -- rather, let me rephrase it, how
24 much the Cook County State's Attorney's office has paid to the
I
I
L _ ~ ~
69
69
DAILY COpy PREPARED
1 Court Reporters office over decades, and I think that is just
2 way too far afield. I agree with you on bias and I did allow
3 you to inquire into that but I think your questions had gotten
4 to a relevance issue in terms of the amount.
5 All right. Anything other things you wanted
6 to put on the record?
7 MR. ALBUKERK: No, I think that was it.
8 THE COURT: You have one more witness. I
9 shouldn't say one more. Do you have a witness after lunch?
10 MR. PODLASEK: Actually, I think it is going to be
11 the same witness that Mr. Albukerk planned on, that will be
12 someone from the Clerk's office. If you want to give
13 Mr. Albukerk leeway with his cross-examination.
14 THE COURT: If the State has no objection, I will
15 do that.
16 MR. PODLASEK: I don't have an objection to that.
17 I think that would move things along.
18 THE COURT: If you want to do that, Mr. Albukerk,
19 I will give you wide latitude on cross-examination. Parties are
20 in agreement. If you want to call her back in your case in
21 chief that's up to you as well. However you want to handle it.
22 MR. ALBUKERK: Sure.
23 THE COURT: What about jury instructions? Do I
24 have those to go over during lunch? Anything else to put on the
L ~ - - - - - ~ ~ ------- 7 0 --- - -
70
DAILY COPY PREPARED 71
I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - - - - -
-------1
1 I record? Otherwise I will let the court reporter get a break
2 while we are discussing the jury instructions informally.
3 MR. ALBUKERK: Judge, I have this. I don't
4 remember if I gave you the non-IPI that I printed up.
5 THE COURT: I did not get it. You were going to
6 give it to me last evening, but I didn't get it.
7 MR. ALBUKERK: I'm sorry. I will give it to you
8 now. It's here someplace . Oh, it's over here .
9 THE COURT: While you are checking on that, let me
10 just handle what I believe will be the last case on the regular
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
call.
[PAUSE HELD]
(Lunch break held)
THE COURT: Let's go on the record. We are on the
17 record with the parties present in court. Can you bring out
18 Miss Melongo, deputies. Deputies, can someone turn on the mike
19 and get Miss Melongo out for me, please.
20 We have Miss Melongo present in court.
21 Ma'am, you can have a seat over at counsel table.
22 We have done an informal jury instructions
23 conference. I will put the results on the record. IPI 1.01
24 that will go in as instruction No.1. 1.02 in its proper form
------ ---- -----------71 - - - - -- - - - - -
DAILY COPY PREPARED
1 will go in as Instruction 2. State, do you have the copy
2 prepared without the paragraph of the defendant testifying? I
3 only have one version of 1.02.
4 MS. GUNNIGLE: No, it was requested, Judge. I
5 don't see it here. If you let me double-check.
6 THE COURT: Okay. Because it's prepared as though
7 as the defendant is going to testify. I just want it prepared
8 the other way as well.
9 MR. ALBUKERK: And that's my hope. I thought we
10 did this morning.
11 THE COURT: I thought we did. I don't have it in
12 ei ther pil e.
13 MR. PODLASEK: I'll have to go down and get that.
14 THE COURT: 1.02 will be Instruction 2 in whatever
15 form is correct . 1.03 is Jury Instruction No.3, opening
16 statements. 1.05, note taking, that's going to be No.4. 2.01
17 which is what she is charged with will be NO.5. 2.02 charging
18 document instruction will be Instruction 6. 2.03, presumption
19 of innocence, Instruction 7. I have marked as 7A 2.04, that's
20 "the fact the defendant did not testify must not be considered."
21 You want that given if she chooses not to testify, correct?
22 MR . ALBUKERK: Correct.
23 THE COURT: So that will be 7A. We will determine
24 down the road if that's going to be used. 2.03, presumption of
72
I
~ - -- ----- -.----- - - 7 2 - ~ - -
__ 1
DAILY COPY PREPARED
r-------
1 I innocence, that's NO.8. 3.14, it's been prepared in two
2 different forms. The first one says "evidence has been received
3 that the defendant has been involved in an offense other than
4 those charged in the indictment," and then there is a second one
5 where that first paragraph is there and then there is two
6 additional paragraphs adding, "this evidence has been received
7 on the issue of the defendant's intent and may be considered by
8 you only for that limited purpose. It is for you to determine
9 whether defendant was involved in that offense and, if so, what
10 weight should be given to this evidence on the issue of the
11 other offense." (End of readi ng . ) Now, wi th respect to the
12 first form that it's prepared in, is either side proffering the
13 one sentence, 3. 14?
14 MS. GUNNIGLE: No , Judge. That was a mistake, I
15 apologize.
16 THE COURT: That will be withdrawn. It doesn't
17 really instruct them on anything.
18 As to the 3.14 in the three paragraph form,
19 what is the position of the parties on this one?
20 MR. ALBUKERK: Judge, clearly this is written for
21 a situation where the State was offering evidence of other
22 crimes to show a pattern or a consistency or something that
23 shows that in the past you did something like this and in those
24 cases obviously this instruction is the correct one to use.
------------- - 73 ---
73
DAILY COPY PREPARED 74
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1---------------- --
-- - I
This is not that situation. If anything, the instruction should I
be the exact opposite. They may not consider the other charge
because the other charge she's never been convicted of. It's
still pending out there. If anything, she retains the
presumption of innocence. And that's the reason why this is
wholly inappropriate . This instruction was supposed to be used
I
I
I
I
1
I
obviously only when the State was using prior acts and they were 1
8 trying to get in the prior acts to show a pattern. And clearly
9 this is inappropriate. If anything, the -- well, the first
10 sentence would be okay and then after that you would want to put
11 a non-IPI, something to the effect this charge is still pending
12 against her, she retains, you know, the presumption of
13 innocence. You know, that's the way the instruction should read
14 if we are going to give a jury instruction that reflects
1 5 III i noi slaw.
16 THE COURT: I do want to say this before I allow
17 the State to argue. Under Committee Notes for 3.14 it indicates
18 that whenever the instruction is used that all three paragraphs
19 in whatever form is applicable must be given to the jury. So go
20 ahead with your argument, State.
21 MR. PODLASEK: Judge, I would say that they are
22 presenting a case where the intent of Miss Melongo is based
23 strictly on her pending case , and we haven't talked about any
24 case except to say that it exists. As counsel says, we are
L __ -- ._- - ----- -- - - - 74 - - -- - - -- ---
DAILY COPY PREPARED
1 limited in what we can say about that case. It's a "but for."
2 But for that pending case, none of this would have happened.
3 The eavesdropping wouldn't have occurred . Again, I go back to
4 her conversation with Miss Laudien. Her conversation was very
5 clear. She is looking at whatever happened with that
6 arraignment to get rid of her other case and now she is
7 eavesdropping on Pamela Taylor, because according to evidence
8 which has been stipulated to, her theory of the case is there is
9 some massive conspiracy that is blocking her from going ahead
10 and either removing this to federal court or that she wasn't
11 arraigned and she is going to get off on that basis. So I think
12 that somehow you have to tell them that she has a pending case
13 out there that provides some kind of motive or intent for her to
14 commit the eavesdropping.
15 THE COURT: Go ahead.
16 MR. ALBUKERK: Judge, I believe if you give this
17 instruction you are going to be triggering double jeopardy on
18 that other charge.
19 THE COURT: Well, I will cut you off there.
20 Absolutely not. They've only heard the charge is computer
21
22
tampering.
MR. ALBUKERK: Correct. But
23 THE COURT: I mean if it was a different case and
24 for whatever reason if it was relevant, they could have heard
------- 75 -
75
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
I
I
I
DAILY COpy PREPARED 76
- ]
from half of the witnesses one the computer tampering if it was
relevant in some way to this case and that certainly wouldn't be
a bar to double jeopardy to subsequent prosecution . So that
argument doesn't bear any weight. And all they've heard is just
simply she has been charged with computer tampering pretty much.
Period. So I don't see that argument is persuasive.
However, they have heard evidence that she
has been charged with another offense. The State has made an
argument that that's been received on the element of the
defendant's intent as to why she would in some way or fashion
say the transcript was falsified. I am having a problem in this
case with the third paragraph because the jury didn't hear --
the jury did not hear significant testimony about this other
case, which is usually the case in proof of other crimes where
they hear a lot of testimony about the other crime. Here they
pretty much just know the name of it. So No.3 is really not
that applicable here in the way that it is written because they
are not going to be determining whether she committed the
offense of computer tampering, they don't know anything about
that case.
MR. PODLASEK: Why not strike that paragraph?
THE COURT: Well, the Committee Notes do indicate
that all three need to be given. So my thought would be to
modify paragraph No.3 because they will not be debating about I
I
L _____ ----76 ----
I
~ I
DAILY COPY PREPARED
r - ~ - - - -
1 whether she did or didn't commit --
2 MR. PODLASEK: State has no problem. I agree
3 after looking at this that it is, based on what we are doing
4 here today, confusing.
5 THE COURT: I think that it should be written, and
6 I I'll throw this out there and you tell me what your position is
7 to the third paragraph --
8 MR . ALBUKERK: Sure.
9 THE COURT : it is for you to determine what
10 weight should be given to this evidence. Period . As it relates
11 to the case in front of them. As it relates to the charged
12 offense.
13 MR. PODLASEK: Is that one sentence?
14 THE COURT: Yes . So striking whether the
15 defendant was involved in that offense.
16 MR. PODLASEK: State has no problem, Judge.
17 MR. ALBUKERK: Judge, we would ask the entire
18 third paragraph be stricken . We think that's fair. We think
19 the proper thing to say is it's for a limited purpose and leave
20 it at that. We think the entire third paragraph should be
21 stricken.
22 THE COURT: The defense is requesting me to do
23 that. It does go contrary to the instruction, but I think this
24 is a little bit of an unusual case that we have here. And I'm
- - - - - - - - - - ~ 7 7 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
77
DAILY COpy PREPARED 78
1 only speaking about the fact that they only know that it's
2 computer tampering, we didn't get into the body of that case.
3 So in this case I think it may be appropriate to strike the
4 third paragraph.
5 What's the State's position.
6 MR. PODLASEK: State's position is that we agree
7 with that.
8 THE COURT: Then we will do modified 3.14 is
9 modified by agreement of the State and defense. We will strike
10 that third paragraph and it will be IPI Instruction No.9.
11 12.03X, definition of eavesdropping, that's
12 No. 10. There is no objection to that.
13 Now, there is going to be some discussion
14 about 12.04X. The State's prepared it according to the IPI and
15 it does not include the defense to eavesdropping. Or the
16 exemption as the statute calls it.
17 MR. ALBUKERK: Judge, if I could make a record
18 now.
19 MR. PODLASEK: Judge, I think I can shorten this.
20 I don't mean to interrupt.
21 MR. ALBUKERK: No.
22 MR. PODLASEK: Flip the paragraphs around from
23 not guilty to guilty, like a regular instruction --
24 THE COURT REPORTER: I'm sorry. Like a what?
- - ~ - - - ~ ~ - - - - - - - - 7 8 - - ~ - - - ~ -
1
2
DAILY COpy PREPARED
MR. PODLASEK: So instead of reading.
THE COURT: Quiet in the gallery out there. Hold
3 on. Quiet in the gallery, please.
4 12.04 go ahead.
5 MR. PODLASEK: I was looking at his IPI No.1.
6 THE COURT: Go ahead. Let's go off the record for
7 a moment.
8 (Discussion held off the record.)
9 THE COURT: We are going back on the record.
10 Thank you. We have had a discussion off the record with respect
11 to the proffered non-IPI instruction from the defense, which is
12 actually, I'm calling it a modified 12.04X and the parties have
13 discussed it, and with a change in paragraphs the parties are in
14 agreement to give 12.04X as modified and as to the issues of
15 eavesdropping. So it will be read, and I will put it into the
16 record, "To sustai n the charge of eavesdroppi ng by use of
17 eavesdropping device, the State must prove the following
18 propositions beyond a reasonable doubt. First, that the
19
20
21
22
23
24
defendant knowingly used an eavesdropping device to hear or
record all or any part of the conversation. And, second" -- it
should say, "that when the defendant did so." So add that.
"That when the defendant did so" -- Let me strike that. It
reads more cleanly the way you have it written. "Second
proposition is: That the defendant did so without the consent
79
I
I
I
I
I
I
l ~ ~ _____ ~ _ - - ~ - 7 9 ~ - ~ - - ~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
DAILY COpy PREPARED
of all part i es to the conversat ion. "
The next proffered paragraph which is the
modification, non-IPI, is: "If you find from your consideration
of all the evidence that the first proposition and the second
proposition have both been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, or,
that the individual who recorded the conversation did not have a
reasonable suspicion that another party to the conversation was
committing, about to commit, or had committed a crime against
her, or, that there was no reason to believe that evidence of
the criminal offense may be obtained by the recording, then you
should find the defendant guilty." And then the concluding
paragraph would be, "If you find from your consideration of all
of the evidence that either one of these propositions has not
been proved beyond a reasonable doubt or you find that the party
who recorded the conversation did so under reasonable suspicion
that another party to the conversation was committing, was about
to commit, or had committed a criminal offense against that
person and there is reason to believe that evidence of the
criminal offense may be obtained by the recording, then you
should find the defendant not guilty." (End of reading.)
Is that what the parties are in agreement as
to?
MR. ALBUKERK: Yes.
MR. PODLASEK: Yes, Judge.
~ -- -- - - - ~ ~ - - ~ ~ - - - - 80
80
I
I
DAILY COpy PREPARED
1- ----------- -- ---- - - - - - . ---
1 I THE COURT: That will go in as Instruction No. 11
2 and you'll modify that.
3 Now what about the non-IPI No.2 that was
4 proffered by the defense? And that reads, "It is not a
5 violation of the eavesdropping law if the person making a
6 recording is a party to that conversation and has a reasonable
7 suspicion that another party to the conversation is committing,
8 is about to commit or has committed a criminal offense against
9 her, and there is reason to believe that evidence of the
10 cri mi nal offense may be obtai ned by the recordi ng." I bel i eve
11 this goes along to just explain what's already contained in the
12 issues i nst ruct ions.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
MR. ALBUKERK: Right.
THE COURT: Are you still seeking it?
MR. ALBUKERK: For the record, yes.
THE COURT : What's your position?
MR. ALBUKERK: Mine or the State's?
THE COURT: You said you are not seeking it.
MR. ALBUKERK: I am.
THE COURT: Oh, I'm sorry. What is your
21 possession, State?
22 MR. PODLASEK: If it's in the issues, why are we
23 repeating ourselves?
81
24 MR. ALBUKERK: And my thought on that is because I
I
I
I
L _______________ - 81 - _____ - -- - - J
1
2
3
DAILY COpy PREPARED
we are talking, we've already explained what eavesdropping is.
THE COURT: I don't need to hear anything more. I
will give it over State's objection as 10A. So it will be
4 non-IPI , it will be Instruction No. 10A. I am going to give it
5 before the issues and I am going to give it right after No. 10
6 which talks about what eavesdropping is .
7 So then we should be on 12.05B, definition
8 of conversation. Any objection to that? It says what the word
9 conversation means.
10 MR. ALBUKERK : Oh, here. We found it. Yeah, I
11 mean I don't have any.
12 THE COURT: That will go in as No. 12. We have
13 12.05, which is eavesdropping device. Any objection to that?
14 MR. ALBUKERK: No.
15 THE COURT: That will be No. 13. So then 14
16 should be the concluding 12.02X.
17 MR. ALBUKERK: Judge, I think this is --
18 THE COURT: Are you still proceeding on 12.02,
19 State?
20 MS. GUNNIGLE: 12.02, Judge
21 THE COURT: It doesn't talk about divulging.
22 MR . PODLASEK: That's 12.04X.
23 THE COURT: I am not seeing the difference really
24 between the issues in 12.02 and 12.04. Were you going to
---- -- ----------82 - -- - - -- --- -
82
1
I
I
DAILY COPY PREPARED
--- - --- ._-----
1 withdraw 12.02? I'm not seeing an issues instruction prepared
2 for the divulging.
3 MS . GUNNIGLE: That's 12.04X, Your Honor .
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
MR. PODLASEK: Apparently that was left out. If
you would like to see that.
(Document tendered to the court.)
THE COURT: So you want to go back to 12.04 and
insert the word "by use of or divulgence of information?"
MR. PODLASEK: I'll have to rewrite it because
that's not exactly what he has written in his .
MR. ALBUKERK: Judge, just so you know my thinking
on this. The divulgence end of it , it seems like it's just an
extra element that the State would have to prove to get the same
exact charge. In other words, if --
THE COURT : But it is under two different
theories. One is just the recording of it and the other is the
divulging of it. So my question to the parties is adding the
words "whereby divulging" the one issues instruction, do you
both believe would take care of it if you include that in the
definition --
MR. ALBUKERK:
THE COURT:
MR. ALBUKERK:
Yeah.
and in the issues?
Yes.
MR. PODLASEK: So it reads , "To sustain the charge
-- - ------------ - -83 --- - -- -- - - -- -
83
DAILY COpy PREPARED 84
,--- ------ ---- -- - - - - - - --
------,
1 eavesdropping by use of an eavesdropping device or divulgence of
2 information."
3 THE COURT: Yes. I think you would have to change
4 the proposition as well, unless you want to create a whole
5 separate 12.04 modified that has to do strictly with just the
6 divulging. Or you could do a separate issues instruction for
7 the divulging and we have the issues instruction here for the
8 recording.
9 MS. GUNNIGLE: That may be the cleanest way to go,
10 Your Honor.
11 THE COURT: Why don't you do that. Prepare one
12 that mirrors 12.04X, only include the divulging language and
13 then we'll review them before we go to arguments.
1 4 MR. ALBUKERK: Okay.
15 THE COURT: Okay. And you'll withdraw the 12.02
16 and 12.01 that I had in my packet?
17 MS. GUNNIGLE: Yes, Judge.
18 THE COURT: So now we get to the concluding
19 instruction. They are basically going to get four forms of
20 verdict altogether. Two forms of verdict pertaining to each
21 particular charge.
22 MR. PODLASEK: Correct. So there is six charges.
23 She committed on three separate days eavesdropping and she
24 committed sometime in the future three separate acts of
L ___________ _ --84 --- - - - - --
DAILY COpy PREPARED
1 divulging information.
2 THE COURT: In order to prevail on eavesdropping,
3 the jury really just needs to find that she did it one of those
4 three times, correct?
5 MR. PODLASEK: Correct.
6 THE COURT: The same with the divulging, they
7 really just need to find she divulged on one prior, one of those
8 three occasions.
9 MR. PODLASEK: Right.
10 THE COURT: I don't believe that the three counts
11 one or the other will affect sentencing. It would seem to me
12 they would merge, unless you are going to do a separate verdict
13 form and have a separate date for the time frame on each of the
14 three--
15 MR. PODLASEK: The time frame is the time frame
16 from the time period on all of it is the same because they are
17 so close in time to the 14th, 15th, and 16th of December on or
18 about.
19 THE COURT: So I guess my thought is -- and you
20 can both weigh in on it - - it seems to me there should be four
21 forms of verdict, one that goes to the eavesdropping device and
22 one that goes to the divulging of the information.
23 MR. ALBUKERK: Judge, my thinking is there should
24 only be two forms because the elements, Judge, the divulgence is
-- - 85 --
85
DAILY COpy PREPARED
r ---- - - - ~ - - - ~ - -
1 just an added element. So, you know, and we are basically
2 stipulating to the fact that she divulged them because we are
3 stipulating to the fact they're on there. So the only issue in
4 the case is to whether she had a reasonable suspicion or not.
5 In any event, then would she receive two felonies or one felony
6 if she were convicted on both of those? I think there is a
7 I great argument that one is subsumed into the other in any event.
8 MR. PODLASEK: I'm not sure it is, Judge, because
9 it's two separate acts. She could have taken anyone of those
10 three conversations and maybe placed one or two of them on, then
11 she would be charged with only two counts, but could be charged
12 with three counts of eavesdropping.
13 MS. GUNNIGLE: The other issue the State is
14 considering on perhaps the first conversation it could be argued
15 that there may have been a reasonable suspicion, but after
16 I further investigation on maybe conversations two and three that
17 that didn't exist, and that's why it was proposed to do it this
18 way.
19 THE COURT: So where are the verdict forms?
20 MS. GUNNIGLE: I have them right here, Your Honor.
21 THE COURT: How would they know what they are
22 voti ng on?
23 MR. PODLASEK: We wrote them as count 1, count 2,
24 count 3, count 4.
86
1 - ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 8 6 - - - - - -- - - ~ J
DAILY COpy PREPARED
1 1-- --- THE COURT: The jury doesn' t know, they don't get
2 1 the indictment back there. How would they know? They never get
3 I the indictment.
4 MR. ALBUKERK: I think we are creating a lot of
5 confusion if we keep putting in a lot of forms.
6 THE COURT: Well, let me just say this. We are
7 going to finish the case and then I'll take another break. But
8 the jury doesn't get the indictment, so they don't know what
9 count 1, count 2, et cetera, is and I am not tendering them the
10 indictment back. So if you can come up with a different way to
11 delineate it. I think you could take care of it in argument
12 that even if they give her the first conversation being a
13 reasonable belief from the State's point of view, certainly
14 nothing developed toward where it continued taping would be your
15 argument. We'll have to continue with the verdict forms. Let's
16 get back to the case. Concluding instruction forms we'll deal
17 wi th after the evi dence is in.
18 Tell the jury we'll bring them out, please.
19 THE COURT: I also wanted to put on the record, I
20 believe this was during our discussions with the jury
21 instructions, Mr. Albukerk, you indicated it is your position
22 that the defense, the exemption as it's termed in the statute,
23 it's not an affirmative defense but, rather, it's simply a
24 defense to the case?
87 -- --
87
I
I
1
2
DAILY COpy PREPARED
MR. ALBUKERK: Correct.
THE COURT: So the instructions have been written
3 that way. The instructions are not calling it an affirmative
4 defense.
5
6
MR. ALBUKERK: Thank you .
THE COURT: Let's bring out the jury. The plan
7 would be to call however many witnesses you are going to call,
8 rest in front of the jury .
9 MR. ALBUKERK: I'll be ready to go right away. I
10 have Ms. DePooter here from the --
11 THE COURT: When they rest we'll go right to
12 defense case.
13 MR. ALBUKERK: I will make my motion for directed
verdict. If you want me to make that motion now or just so you
understand I'll be making it.
THE COURT: When the case rests their case in
88
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
chief we will do a side bar and then you can make your motion at I
that time.
MR. ALBUKERK: Thank you.
THE COURT: Let's bring out the jury, please.
(WHEREUPON, the jury reentered the
22 courtroom.
23 THE COURT: Everybody may be seated. Good
24 afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. We left off with the State's
- ~ - ~ - -
~ 8 8 - - -
DAILY COPY PREPARED
1 case in chief. State you may proceed.
2 MS. GUNNIGLE: Thank you, Judge. The State would
3 call Robin Sukalo.
4 (WITNESS SWORN)
5 THE COURT: You may proceed when you are ready.
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
I
ROBIN SUKALO
called as a witness on behalf of the People, having been first
duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MS . GUNNIGLE:
Q. Miss Sukalo, would you please state your full name for
the record and spell it.
A. First name is Robin, ROB I N, last name Sukalo.
S U K A L O.
Q. Where do you work, Miss Sukalo?
A. I work for the Clerk of the Circuit Court.
Q. How long have you been working for the Clerk of the
Circuit Court?
A. 18 years .
Q . What did you do previous to that?
A. Previous to working here? I managed a doctor's
office.
Q. I want to talk to you about your work over the last
L_ ------------ - -89 ---- - - - - ----
89
DAILY COPY PREPARED
1 18 years. Do you work here at 26th Street and California?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. What do your job duties include?
4 A. I am a manager. I manage the court clerks, court
5 side, the courtrooms, and any work dealing with the clerk's
6 office, with the front counter.
7 Q. Have you always held this position in management?
90
-1
8 A. No, for the last 10 years. I was a court clerk prior.
9 Q. A court clerk: Does that mean someone who is sitting
10 in the room during a court call?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. As such, do you have experience reading the court
13 documents that would have passed through those hands?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. I woul d 1 i ke to tal k to you about some of the
16 documents that you kept. Does the court clerk keep any sort of
17 electronic logs of what happened to the courtrooms?
18 A. Yes. They data enter from the court sheet into the
19 computer by, you know, codes at the end of the day.
20 Q. I guess let's first talk about those court sheets.
21 Can you tell the Grand Jury (sic) what a court sheet is.
22 A. A court sheet is a paper document that the judge
23 writes what happens in court for each individual person for that
24 day.
~ ~ - . - - - - - - - - - - . ~ - - - 90 - - ~ ~ -- -- ~ ~ ~ ~
DAILY COPY PREPARED
1 Q. What kind of notes would it be on one of those court
2 sheets?
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
A. Whatever happened in court that day, whatever the
judge would write. Whether it would be a continued date or a
sentencing. Whatever happened for the person that day the judge
would write on the court sheet.
MR. ALBUKERK: Judge, I'm sorry, I can't hear.
THE WITNESS: A. I said whatever would happen to
the person on that day that's what the judge would write on the
court sheet.
THE COURT: She said whether it be a continuance
or sentencing or whatever happened to that person.
MR. ALBUKERK: Thank you.
MR. PODLASEK : Q. What would a clerk being in a
courtroom do with those court sheets?
THE WITNESS: A. She would code them and enter
them into our computer which is our electronic docket.
MS. GUNNIGLE: Q. Is there something called a
half sheet?
A. Yes.
MS. GUNNIGLE: Q. And what is a half sheet?
A. A half sheet is what the appellate court considers our
official record. The clerk handwrites what happens in court
that day, usually from the court sheet.
91
91
DAILY COPY PREPARED 92
,- - - - - - - - - - ~ ------ - --- -- - - - - - - --- -
t I
1 Q. So a court clerk would take the judge's court sheet ,
2 put it onto a half sheet --
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. -- and would keep those records and file it, right?
5 A. Yes , that stays in the file.
6 Q. I want to draw your attention to a specific case. Had
7 you been made aware there had been a specific case made pending
8 against an Annabel Melongo in the Cook County court system?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Have you had a chance to review some of the records
11 that the court clerk kept about that case?
12 A. Yes .
13 Q. I woul d 1 i ke to tal k to you about some of those
14 records. First , I would like to talk to you what's been labeled
15 for identification purposes as People's Exhibit 9. Your Honor ,
1 6 may I approach?
17 THE COURT: You may. Thank you, counsel.
18 MS . GUNNIGLE: At this time , Judge , the State
19 would ask to distribute copies of People's Exhibit 9 to the
20 jury .
21 I THE COURT: No objection from the defense?
22 MR. ALBUKERK: No objection.
23 THE COURT: All right , you may.
24 MS. GUNNIGLE: Q. Miss Sukalo, I have just handed
- - - - ~ - - ~ ~ - - - - - - 92 - ~ ~ - -- - ~ --
DAILY COPY PREPARED
2
1 ~ Y O u People's Exhibit 9. Do you know what this is?
I THE WITNESS: A. Yes. This is a copy of our
3 electronic docket.
4 MS. GUNNIGLE: Q. And how do you know that?
5 THE WITNESS: A. Because we do this everyday.
6 This is what our printout is. This is a certified copy of our
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
electronic docket.
Q . The name that appears on this electronic docket sheet?
A. Is Annabel Melongo .
Q. Now I want to talk to you about the kind of notes that
are on this particular electronic docket sheet. The electronic
docket sheet contains the potential charge that is against
someone, is that right?
A. Right.
Q. About halfway down it begins with what appears to be
dates.
A.
Q.
Yes.
Can you tell the jury what those are.
A. That's the dates that the case was up in court, in
what courtroom and which judge, you know, heard the case and
what happened in court that day.
Q. At times it appears there might be some shorthand on
here. I ' d like you to explain what the shorthand might mean.
The very first date appears June 5, 2008 , is that right?
--- 93 -
93
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
I
DAILY COPY PREPARED
A. June 3rd.
Q. I'm sorry, June 3, 2008.
A. Yes.
Q. What does that entry say?
A. What that entry means is that is when the indictment
was brought down to our office by the State's Attorney's office
and it was initialized into our system and given a date in front
of the chief judge, you know, to assign for arraignment.
Q. That would be the next date that's entered?
A. Yes.
Q. What is that date?
A. June 18th .
Q. It reads?
A. It was a case assigned by our chief judge Paul Biebel
and it was assigned to Judge Schreier.
Q. I want to talk to you about the entry below that that
reads June 18, 2008: "Defendant not in court."
A. That's common. With our Chief Judge's call the State
brings down our indictments earlier. What we call is we
randomize . We have a wheel that randomly assigned to judges,
that is done four days prior to the court date assignment, and
we would post those dates on the wall. A lot of people just
look at the wall and just go directly to the courtroom they are
assigned, they don't go to 101. That's why she would not be
L - - - ---- - - - --- - 94 --
94
DAILY COPY PREPARED
1 present there. She would have seen her assigned courtroom on
2 the wall that we post to, you know, what courtroom it was
3 assi gned. 101 is just an assi gnment call .
4 Q. So when you read the entry that says "Defendant not in
5 court; Flood, Lawrence, Edward" underneath?
6 A. That was the judge that sat in for judge Biebel.
7 Q. That says to you that is Courtroom 101?
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
L ~
A.
Q.
Yes.
Let's go to the next line and it reads June 18, 2008
as well and then says "defendant on bond." What does "defendant
on bond" mean to you?
A. It means the defendant walked into the courtroom on
bond.
Q.
present
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
Was not in custody.
So is that a shorthand in fact that the defendant was
Yes.
-- in court on the 18th?
Yes.
And is there a further notation about which judge that
would have been in front of?
A. Judge Schreier. Right here. I need my glasses.
"Defendant on bond. Judge James Schreier."
Q. And is there a way for this docket sheet to tell what
went on in Judge Schreier's courtroom that day?
--- 95 -
95
1
2
3
DAILY COpy PREPARED
~ - . - - - - ~ ~
A. Well, it shows it was continued to July 16th of
Q. All right. Now, had the defendant not appeared
court in Judge Schreier's room would there have been a different
4 I entry that could have been made?
5
6
A.
Q.
Yes, we would have coded it defendant not present.
I like to draw your attention a little further down
7 the page. The second to the last entry, August 25, 2008. Is
8 there an entry there as well?
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
A. Yes . "Motion defendant; continued to 9-22. Defendant
came in 1 ate, 10: 45 a. m. "
Q. So whether a defendant is there or not or late or not
can also be something that is entered into this docket sheet?
A.
Q.
Yes.
I would like to direct your attention to the next
15 page, page 2, People's Exhibit No.9. And just for example,
16
17
18
19
let's look at what the entry would read from March 5, 2009, the
second to the last entry.
A. "Defendant not in court."
Q. That's what the entry would in fact look like if a
20 defendant did not appear then?
21
22
A.
Q.
Yes. Yes, correct.
Okay. I would like to talk to you about how this is
23 made. You said that at some point in time a clerk actually
24 makes these entries into a court's computer?
- - -. - --- - - --~ ~ . - 96 ~ - -
DAILY COpy PREPARED
1 A. When the judge at the end of the day usually will hand
2 her court sheets to the clerk and we transcribe them by codes
3 and the clerk would then data enter them into the computer at
4 the end of the day based on what was written on the court sheet.
5 Q. And what was written on the court sheet is what the
6 judge puts down?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. So if for example the judge missed an entry or the
9 judge failed to take a note about something that happened that
10 day, it woul d not appear on thi s?
11 A. It would not appear on the electronic docket, no.
12 Q. I want to talk to you specifically about arraignments.
13 Do arraignments appear on dockets?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Do arraignments always appear on dockets?
16 A. If the judge wri tes on the court sheet.
17 Q. Have you ever seen an instance where perhaps someone
18 was arraigned but it does not appear on a docket sheet?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And why would that happen?
21 A. Clerks will write their half sheets usually during the
22 court call and they will write what they hear not what they see.
23 But at the end of the day when they do their data entry they
24 will enter what they see. That could be, you know, for the
- 97 - ~ - -
97
I
DAILY COpy PREPARED
1 discrepancy.
2 Q. I would like to talk to you about some of those other
3 forms.
4 [PAUSE HELD]
5 MS. GUNNIGLE: Your Honor may I approach?
6 THE COURT: You may .
7 MS. GUNNIGLE: Your Honor, what I am handing to
8 you and what I am handing to the witness is previously marked as
9 People's 10 for identification purposes, and I would ask to
10 tender copies to the jury.
11 THE COURT: Is there any objection?
12 MR. ALBUKERK : No, Judge.
13 THE COURT: All right. You may.
14 MS. GUNNIGLE: Is the jury short a copy?
15 THE COURT: If you are, take this .
16 MS. GUNNIGLE : Thank you, Judge.
17 Q. Do you recogni ze this document?
18 THE WITNESS: A. Yes.
19 MS. GUNNIGLE : Q. And what is this?
20 THE WITNESS: A. This is the half sheet.
21
22
23
24
Q .
right?
A.
Q.
This is a half sheet for Annabel K. Melongo, ;s that
Yes.
And this is a half sheet for Annabel K. Melongo with a
- ---- - ----- ---------98 - -- - - --- - ---
98
1
2
3
4
5
6
DAILY COpy PREPARED
- ~ - - -
court case that starts 07 CR, is that right?
A. That's correct.
Q. Now based on this court sheet, can you tell what
happened on June 18, 2008?
A. It says "nolle pros case." This case was superceded
by 08 CR 10502 and the bond on that case was transferred to 08
7 CR 10502.
8 Q. You know that by looking at the back of this
9 particular document and in fact the last lines?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. There is a particular notation on there. There is a B
12 and a ci rcl e.
13
14
15
16
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
It means on bond. Bond.
That also means present, is that correct?
That means present on bond, yes.
Thank you. I would like to show you another half
17 sheet -- Your Honor, may I approach?
1 8 THE COURT: You may.
19 MS. GUNNIGLE: At this time, Your Honor, the State
20 is tendering to the witness People's Exhibit No. 11 for
21 identification purposes and would ask to publish to the jury.
22 THE COURT: You may.
23 MS . GUNNIGLE: If we are short copies , I
24 apologize. That is in error.
~ - - - - - - - - - - ~ ~ - --99
DAILY COpy PREPARED 100
1- - - - - - ~ ~ -
2
1 I Q. Miss Sukalo, I have handed
I
you what's I
been marked for identification purposes People's Exhibit 11. Do
3 you know what this is?
THE WITNESS: A. Yes.
MS. GUNNIGLE: Q. And what is it?
THE WITNESS: A. This is a half sheet for OS CR
10502 , 01 defendant.
4
5
6
7
8
9
Q. And defendant in that case was Annabel K. Melongo, is
10
1 1
that right?
A.
Q.
Yes.
So based on this half sheet, can you tell what
12 happened in court on this case , the case starting with OS on
13 June 1S, 200S?
14 A. Yes. She was present in court on bond and on
15 June 1Sth it was given a continuance date to July 16th of 'OS.
16 Q . Both in the 07 and the OS-case there is a notation
17 with a B and a circle that she was in fact in court, is that
18 ri ght?
19
20
21
22
23
A. Yes.
THE COURT: That's on what date?
MR. PODLASEK: June 1Sth of 200S, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay .
MS. GUNNIGLE: Q. Now based on these two half
24 sheets together, can you tell what happened in this case?
L- ___ - ~ - . - ~ - - --- 100 - - --
DAILY COPY PREPARED
1 I ~
I
THE WITNESS: A. The 07 CR case was nollied and
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
it superceded into the 08 CR case, which means it became the
08 CR case, and any pertaining documents in that file were
transferred to the 08-case. 08 CR.
Q. Is this how entries typically appear when a case would
be for example reindicted?
A. Yes.
Q. And it would tend to be assigned a new number, right?
A. That's correct.
Q. That's how the 08 case number would become?
A. Yes, that's correct.
Q. There does not appear to be an arraignment on this
sheet, is that right.
A. That's correct.
Q. Is that unusual in any way?
A. No. Not being in court, I don't know what happened.
That's not unusual.
Q. If the defendant was arraigned on that day, would it
necessarily appear on either of those two half sheets?
A. No, not if the judge didn't write it on the court
sheet.
Q. Next I would like to refer to the two court sheets in
23 this case which have been labeled as People's Exhibit 12 and 13.
24 Your Honor, may I approach?
101
----101 ------------
---- ~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
DAILY COpy PREPARED
THE COURT: You can.
MS. GUNNIGLE: Q. Miss Sukalo, I am handing you
what's been previously marked for identification purposes as
People's 12 and 13 and would ask Your Honor that I be able to
publish these to the jury.
THE COURT: Any objection?
MR. ALBUKERK: No objection.
THE COURT: You may.
MS. GUNNIGLE: Again, my apologies if anyone is
shorted a copy. That is in error.
Q. Miss Sukalo, do you recognize what these
things two are?
THE WITNESS: A.
MS. GUNNIGLE: Q.
They are court sheets.
Specifically with
People's Exhibit No. 12, what is this?
THE WITNESS: A. I don't understand.
MS. GUNNIGLE: Q. You said previously this is a
court sheet, is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. This identifies a specific defendant on this court
sheet, is that right?
A. I'm sorry, yes. 07 CR on this one is Annabel Melongo.
Q. And there is some handwriting that appears here too,
is that right?
- - - - ~ - - ~ ~ ~ ~ - - - ----102 -
102
~ l
DAILY COPY PREPARED
Right. 1
2
A.
Q. Now just looking at this court sheet, could you tell
3 what these notes mean?
4 A. Judge wrote, "Noll e pros case, superceded by 08 CR
5 10502. Bond transferred to 08 CR 10502," and to the right is
6 the court clerk's coding of that entry.
7 Q. So looking at all of these documents together , looking
8 at the court sheets and looking at the half sheets, and then
9 looking at an electronic docket sheet, can you tell why an
10 arraignment wouldn't have appeared on June 18th of 2008?
11 A. Why it wouldn't have appeared?
1 2 Q . Mm - hmm .
13 A. Well, it could appear because she wasn't arraigned or
14 because the judge didn't write it and the clerk just entered
15 into the docket what she saw.
16 Q. All of these documents collectively show that the
17 defendant was in court, is that correct?
18 A. Yes , yes. Was in court.
19 MS. GUNNIGLE: At this time, Judge , the State has
20 no further questions for Miss Sukalo.
21 THE COURT: Thank you. Cross.
22
23
24
- ---- -- -.-- 1 0 3 ~
103
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
DAILY COpy PREPARED
CROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. ALBUKERK:
O. Just so we can keep things straight, Robin. Can I
take a look at those exhibits for a moment. Thanks a lot.
Now, let me start off this way. It is the
clerk's job to keep the records in the courtroom, correct?
A. Correct.
O. And the clerk is supposed to keep accurate records,
correct?
A. Correct.
O. And in fact if the clerk doesn't keep accurate records
it's a crime?
A. Correct .
O. So if the clerk -- so if the clerk makes a mistake,
technically the clerk could get charged?
A. Correct.
O. Now, there has been a lot made here -- now you've
already said that the clerk is supposed to enter whether or not
the defendant was arraigned?
A. No. What I said is sometimes the clerk will write on
the half sheet what she hears and not what she sees but
typically at the end of the day they will enter just what they
see.
O. However, the clerk is supposed to enter into the
- - --- ----
-- - 104 -- - - - - - -- ---
104
UAILY C U ~ Y ~ K t ~ A K t U
1 records when a person is arraigned?
2 A. If the judge writes it. We keep the record. We don't
3 make it.
4 MR. ALBUKERK: May I have a moment?
5 THE COURT: You may .
6 [PAUSE HELD]
7 MR. ALBUKERK: Q. Well, an arraignment is a
8 judgment that's been made on the -record, correct?
9 THE WITNESS: A. Correct.
10 MR. ALBUKERK: Q. And according to the criminal
11 statute that is something that a clerk has to enter, otherwise
12 he or she could be subject to criminal prosecution?
13 THE WITNESS: A. I didn't know that. Okay.
14 MR. ALBUKERK: Q. I wi 11 show you. I wi 11 mark
15 it as Defendant's Exhibit. Make sure I've got the right pages
16 here. Specifically, take a look at paragraph 15. Judge, would
17 you like a copy of this?
18 THE COURT: Sure .
19 MR. ALBUKERK: Q. I wi 11 hand you what I wi 11
20 mark as Defense Exhibit No.1. That's a criminal statute,
21 correct?
22 MS. GUNNIGLE: Your Honor, objection. Side bar .
23 THE COURT: Let's do a side bar . Miss Reporter,
24 please.
1 0 5 ----
DAILY COPY PREPARED
- - - - - - ~ ~ ~ - - -
1 (SIDE BAR HELD AS FOLLOWS:)
2 MS. GUNNIGLE: Judge, I have a real problem if the
3 defense is preparing to enter law in as an exhibit.
4 THE COURT: Let me ask. As an offer of proof,
5 where are you going?
6 MR. ALBUKERK: The whole point is she is trying to
7 say well, it's really not our responsibility. It's not true.
8 According to that statute, it is their responsibility and,
9 therefore, I should be able to show her it is your
10 responsibility . The only way I can do is to say that, that's
11 the law right there and it's your responsibility.
12 THE COURT: I think this is going too far afield .
13 I think the statute is very clear the clerk has to enter of
14 record any order or judgment of his or her court; that means
15 written by the judge. So the clerk if the judge doesn't
16 write something down, the clerk has absolutely no power or
17 authority to enter anything into the record. So the reality is
18 that if the judge didn't write it on the sheets no clerk could
19 get charged with anything. Not to mention it would have to be
20 intentional failure versus just a mistake. I think this is
21 going too far afield. I will sustain it on that basis.
22 (WHEREUPON , the following proceedings
23 were resumed in open court in the
24 presence of the jury: )
~ - - - - - -
- - - 1 0 6 - --
106
DAILY COpy PREPARED
--- - - - ---- - -
1 MR. ALBUKERK: Q. Normally the record, the word
2 arraignment is put into the record, correct?
3 THE WITNESS: A. Yes, if the judge writes it on
4 the court sheet.
5 MR. ALBUKERK: Q. In this particular case the
6 certified statement, well, in this case disposition for
7 Annabel Melongo on June 18th of 2008 doesn't say anywhere that
8 Miss Melongo was in fact arraigned?
9 A. Yes -- no, it doesn't.
10 Q. So it's missing the word arraignment or any indication
11 that my client was arraigned on June 18th of 2008 is missing
12 from the official transcript?
13 A. In the court docket , yes.
14 THE COURT: Just so we are clear, sir, you are
15 referri ng to Peopl e' s No . 9?
16 MR. ALBUKERK : People's No.9.
17 Q. Now these certified statements of
18 disposition, they are used throughout the courthouse, correct?
19 THE WITNESS: A. Yes.
20 MR. ALBUKERK: Q. And state's attorneys get them,
21 correct?
22 THE WITNESS: A. Correct.
23
24
Q.
A.
And defense attorneys get them?
Correct.
--107 - --
107
1
DAILY COPY PREPARED
1- ~ - - ~ ~ - - - ~ - - ~
Q. And they are used in court to prove that something
2 happened in court all the time?
3
4
A.
Q.
Correct.
Now , you made -- we are talking here about Judge
5 Schreier's notes. First I will go through People's Exhibit
6 No. 10. And you said that there is a B with a circle there,
7 correct?
8 A. Correct.
9 Q. And you already told us what that means, right?
1 0 A. Correct .
11 Q. Well, how do you know that that B doesn't mean big
12 case?
13 A. It ' s part of our acronyms. We have abbreviations,
14 just use them all the time . B for bond, C for custody.
15 Q. You knew that Annabel Melongo, she doesn't work for
16 the Clerk's office, does she?
17
18
A.
Q.
No.
So there be no way for Annabel Melongo , if she got
19 that particular sheet , to know what B meant , right?
A. That's correct .
108
--I
20
21 Q. The only thing Annabel Melongo would be able to make
22 out is the word arraignment whether it was there or not?
23
24
A.
Q.
Yes.
And the word arraignment is nowhere on June 18th of
- - - - - ~ - - ~ l 0 8 ~ - ~ - - -
1 '08?
2
3
A.
Q.
DAILY COPY PREPARED
No. Not this one here, no.
And I am going to show you, this is People's Exhibit
4 No. 11 I am going to show you. Again, you told us under
5 June 18th of '08 there is a B here?
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
say
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
that
A.
Q.
Correct.
And there is no way my client would know what B meant?
That's correct, no, she wouldn't.
Under June 18th of '08, nowhere in that entry does it
my client was arraigned that day?
No, it doesn't.
I am going to go to People's Exhibit No. 12. I am
13 going to hand that to you. That is a court sheet, right?
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
right?
A.
Q.
Yes.
That's where the judge writes his orders?
Yes.
And that's the court sheet for June 18th of 2008,
Yes.
And nowhere on that court sheet does it say my client
21 was arraigned?
22
23
24
A.
Q.
A.
No, it doesn't say it.
Does it say anywhere that my client was present?
No.
109 --- -
109
DAILY COPY PREPARED
1 Q. Finally, I am going to show you People's Exhibit
2 No. 13. There is an entry at the bottom People's Exhibit No. 13
3 regarding, and that's a court sheet, right?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. That's where all, the judge puts all his or her orders
6 everyday?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And that's where an order is supposed to go saying
9 that the defendant was arraigned?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And there is nothing under June 18th of 2008 that says
12 my client was arraigned on June 18th of 2008?
13 A. No, it doesn't say that.
14 Q. Is there anythi ng under June 18th of 2008, is there
15 anything that says that my client was present?
16 A. No.
17 Q. So to a layperson who is looking at these records, the
18 only thing that they would know is that they weren't arraigned
1 9 on that day?
20 MS. GUNNIGLE: Objection.
21 THE COURT: Sustained.
22 MR. ALBUKERK: Q. Let me try and rephrase that.
23 The only thing Annabel Melongo would know by gathering up these
24 records is that she was not arraigned on June 18th of 2008.
- - 11 0
110
DAILY COpy PREPARED
1 MS. GUNNIGLE: Same objection, Judge.
2
3
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. ALBUKERK: O. The clerk keeps all of these
4 records in the normal course of its business , correct?
5
6
THE WITNESS: A. Yes.
MR. ALBUKERK: O. And you are familiar with the
7 records keeping process?
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
THE WITNESS: A. Yes.
O. And all of these records that we have just gone
through, they are all records that are kept in the normal course I
of the clerk's business?
A. Yes.
MR. ALBUKERK: Nothing further.
THE COURT: Any redirect?
MS. GUNNIGLE: Just briefly, Judge.
17 REDIRECT EXAMINATION
18 BY MS. GUNNIGLE:
19
20
21
22
23
24
O. Miss Sukalo, you previously testified on cross "we
keep the records, we don't make it , " is that right?
A. Yes.
O. You also previously testified that in these court
sheets , which were People's Exhibit 13 and 12 , that there does
not appear to be an entry about an arraignment?
L ___ ___ _ _ _
~ - l l l - - - -
DAILY COPY PREPARED
~ - - - - ~ -
A. That's correct.
2 Q. There is also no entry that the defendant was not in
3 court, is that right?
4 A. Correct.
5 Q. In your experience had the defendant not been in
6 court , would there have been an entry on these sheets?
7 A. It would depend on the judge. Our clerk keeps whether
8 someone comes in present on bond or if they come in custody.
9 Some judges will indicate on the court sheet, some don't .
10 Q. Well, it sounds like there's a domino effect here. If
11 it doesn't make it to this, to these two court sheets, are you
12 saying that it wouldn't also make it to the half sheet, and if
13 it didn't make it to the half sheet , it wouldn't make it to the
14 court --
15 A. Our clerk always indicates on the half sheet how, you
1 6 know, defendant comes in.
17 Q. All right. Now I want to talk to you about some of
18 these notations. Are these notations, particularly the B with a
19 little circl e around , it would mean defendant in court on bond?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Is that a notation that an attorney would recognize?
22
23
24 I
I
1-
A. I believe so, yes .
MR. ALBUKERK: Objection. Speculation.
THE COURT: Sustained.
- .- - --- -- - - -- 112 - ---
112
I
DAILY COpy PREPARED 113
- ~ - - ~ - - - - - - - -- ~ - - - ~ - - ~ - -
1 MS. GUNNIGLE: Q. It is certainly a notation that
2 a court clerk would recognize?
3
4
5
6
recognize?
THE WITNESS: A. Yes .
MS. GUNNIGLE: Q. And a court reporter would
THE WITNESS: A. Yes.
7 MR. ALBUKERK: Objection, speculation. Ask that
8 it be stricken.
9
10
1 1
12
THE COURT: Overruled .
MS. GUNNIGLE: No further questions.
THE COURT: Anything else based just on that?
13 RECROSS- EXAMINATION
1 4 BY MR. ALBUKERK:
15 Q. You don't know if a court reporter, such as this court
16 reporter here, would be able to interpret a judge's half sheet,
17 do you?
18 THE WITNESS : A. No, I don't.
19 MR. ALBUKERK: Q. All right. And are you aware
20 that when my client gathered these things up she was
21 representing herself pro se, she didn't have a lawyer, were you
22 aware of that?
23
24
THE WITNESS: A. No.
Q. And the B and the other things written there and all
I
' - - - - ~ ~ - - ----- - ~ - 113 - -- --
DAILY COPY PREPARED
1 those exhibits, those are all your codes that you guys developed
2 over time?
3 A. Yes, I suppose.
4 Q. When I say "you guys," I'm talking about the Clerk's
office? 5
6
7
8
9
A. Yes. I mean, yes.
10
MR. ALBUKERK: Thank you. Nothing further.
MS. GUNNIGLE: Just one brief question?
THE COURT: Go ahead.
11 FURTHER REDIRECT EXAMINATION
12 BY MS. GUNNIGLE:
13 Q. Miss Sukalo, you are also aware that when someone
14 represents themselves pro se, that is as their own attorney
1 5 MR. ALBUKERK: Obj ect ion.
16 THE COURT: Overruled. I haven't heard the
17 questi on yet.
18 MS. GUNNIGLE: Q. -- they are held to the same
19 standards as an attorney?
20 THE WITNESS: A. Yes.
21 MS. GUNNIGLE: Nothing further.
22 THE COURT: I am going to sustain that last
23 objection and strike the answer. So jurors, just disregard
24 that. Nothing else? You may step down.
- 114 ---
114
DAILY COPY PREPARED
THE WITNESS: Thank you. 1
2
3
4
THE COURT: You can proceed with your next
witness.
MR. PODLASEK: The State calls James Flood.
5 MR. ALBUKERK: Judge, could we excuse?
6 THE COURT: You are not going to use Miss Sukalo?
7 MR. ALBUKERK: I am not going to.
8 THE COURT: Thank you, ma'am. You may be excused.
9 (Wi tness excused.)
10 THE COURT: Good afternoon, sir. Could you please
11 raise your right hand for me.
12
13 (WITNESS SWORN)
14 THE COURT: Thank you. Whenever you are ready,
15 State.
16
1 7 JAMES FLOOD
18 called as a witness on behalf of the People, having been first
19 duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
20 DIRECT EXAMINATION
21 BY MR. PODLASEK:
22 Q. Would you please state your name and spell your last
23 name for the record .
24 A. My name is James J. Flood. FLOOD.
-.- ._ . ~ . - - - - - -- - - 115 -
115
1
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
DAILY COpy PREPARED
Q. Mr. Flood, what's your profession?
A. I'm an attorney.
Q. How long have you been an attorney?
A. Approximately 32 years.
Q. Drawing your attention to June 18th of 2008. Were you
representing a client named Annabel Melongo?
A. Yes, I was.
Q. How long had you been representing Miss Melongo prior
to that date, if you recall?
A. I don't recall. It was several months , though .
Q. Now, in what capacity were you representing
Miss Melongo?
A. As a criminal defense attorney.
Q. And was Miss Melongo's case
MR. ALBUKERK: Judge, I am going to make an
objection and ask for a side bar.
THE COURT: Let's do a side bar.
(SIDE BAR HELD AS FOLLOWS:)
THE COURT: What's the basis of the objection?
MR. ALBUKERK: Attorney-client privilege.
Obviously we haven't gone into it yet, but I anticipate
attorney-client privilege and would be invoking attorney-client
privilege barring any testimony of this witness.
MR. PODLASEK: Barring any testimony?
~ - ~ 1 1 6 -
116
DAILY COPY PREPARED
1 THE COURT: Where are we going with it?
2 MR. PODLASEK: I am going to have him in the
3 courtroom and talk about the fact he stood up there.
4 THE COURT: Are you going to be getting into any
5 conversation that he had with Miss Melongo?
6 MR. PODLASEK: No, none.
7 THE COURT: Your objection will be overruled. You
8 can proceed.
(WHEREUPON, the following proceedings
were resumed and held in open court in
the presence of the jury:)
9
10
1 1
12 THE COURT: The objection will be overruled. You
1 3 can proceed.
14 MR. PODLASEK: Q. Where was the case being
15 handled? Was it in this courtroom or one of the suburban
16 courthouses?
17 THE WITNESS: A. It was in this courthouse before
18 Judge James Schrei er .
19 MR. PODLASEK: Q. Do you have any independent
20 recollection of the date June 18, 2008?
21 THE WITNESS: A. Not independent recollection,
22 but I have reviewed some of the documents that were able to
23 refresh my recollection.
24 MR. PODLASEK: Judge, I am going to approach the
----117
117
DAILY COpy PREPARED 118
1 I wi 1 1 ook what's previ ous 1 y been-
2 marked as People's Exhibit No.4 for identification purposes and
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
take a moment to review that.
(Witness reviewing exhibit.)
MR. ALBUKERK: What exhibit is that?
MR . PODLASEK: No.4. That's the transcript.
Q. Does that refresh your recollection as
to what was going on or where you were that morning?
THE WITNESS: A. Yes.
MR. PODLASEK: Q. Now, on page 2 of that
transcript you are addressing the court, following the words,
"Good morning, Your Honor. James Flood, FLOOD, on behalf of
Miss Melongo, Your Honor." You were addressing Judge Schreier
at that time?
A. Yes, I was.
Q. And the next sentence was, this is your statement,
"This morning I understand they reindicted my client and the new
complaint is before you for arraignment." Had you anticipated
an arraignment that morning?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And did you know about the reindictment?
A. Yes.
Q. Prior to that date?
A. Yes, I did know about the reindictment prior to that
I
I
---118 -- -
DAILY COpy PREPARED
1 date.
2 Q. You had been tendered transcripts prior to that day of
3 the Grand Jury?
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
on
on
A.
Q.
the
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
was
A.
Q.
I believe I was .
Now, did you proceed with the arraignment on that date
reindicted case?
Yes, I did.
And that was case 08 CR 10502?
That's what's indicated, yes.
And the prior case you were representing Miss Melongo
07 CR 02341 , is that correct?
That's correct.
At the time that you were proceeding on the
14 arraignment was your client present in court?
15
16
17
18
19
20
A.
Q.
To the best of my recollection, yes, she was.
How many arraignments have you done over the course of
your career?
A. Between my time as a prosecutor and defense attorney,
probably several thousand .
Q. And to the best of your recollection, have you ever
21 done an arraignment without the defendant present either as a
22 I prosecutor or as a defense attorney?
23 A. Yes, but only where I was given the authority as a
24 defense attorney where I was given the express authority to
.------- - -- - 119
119
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
DAILY COPY PREPARED
waive the presence of my client.
Q. And at the time do you have any special language that
you put into the record?
A. Yes. I would indicate for the record my client is not
present; however, I received permission to represent that person
without their presence in court.
Q. You have had a chance to read this transcript through?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. Is there anything in this transcript that indicates
that you were representing Miss Melongo at an arraignment
without her being present that day?
A. Nothing I can see, no.
Q. Point of fact lower down you enter a plea of not
guilty and if we go to page 3, line 22 -- actually , let's go
to line 17. The court has a question, "There was some alleged
deficiencies in the first indictment that counsel talks about
07 nolle pros case superceded by 08-10502. " Next statement is,
"Did she have a cash bond on that or what kind of bond was she
out on?" It's not you that answers but rather the defendant who
answers, "I bond," is that correct?
A. Yes . I specifically don't remember --
MR. ALBUKERK: Objection, Your Honor. This is
hearsay.
THE COURT: Overruled.
L _______ ~ _ _ _ - .-- - 120 --
120
1
2
DAILY COpy PREPARED
THE WITNESS: A. I don't specifically
her saying that; however, there was a discussion of
121
remember l
the I bond
3 and I don't think it was my response at that time.
4 MR. PODLASEK: Q. In point of fact, the court
5 ends it by dismissing the 07-case and giving it a date of
6 July 16th of '08, is that correct?
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
THE WITNESS: A. That's correct.
MR. PODLASEK: I have no further questions, Judge.
THE COURT: Cross.
CROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. ALBUKERK:
Q. Mr . Flood, do you still have a copy of the June 18,
14 2008, transcript in front of you , correct?
15
16
A.
Q.
Yes, I do.
All right. If you could take a look at page 2. What
17 did you call this exhibit?
18 MR. PODLASEK: 4.
19 MR . ALBUKERK: Q. This is State's Exhibit 4 for
20 the record and for everyone else. If you could take a look at
21 page 2, line 5. Strike that. Line 3. It says, "Good morning,
22 Your Honor. James Flood on behalf of Miss Melongo , Your Honor.
23 This morning I understand they reindicted my client and the new
24 complaint is before you for arraignment." Is that what that
i __ . ~
- 121
DAILY COpy PREPARED
1 says?
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
THE WITNESS: A.
MR. ALBUKERK: Q.
Yes .
So according to that statement ,
the arraignment occurred -- excuse me, the reindictment occurred
that morning, according to that statement?
A. That wouldn't be my reading of that statement. It was
my
Q. I'm not asking what your reading of it is. I am
asking if that's what it says.
A. That's what it says, yes .
Q. Thank you. But then later on it says, and this is the
same page line 12, "We did have something come in the mail on
the case, it was a Grand Jury transcript." All right?
A. Yes .
Q . All right. If a person had been indicted that morning
there is no way that it could have been sent in the mail to you
that day, right?
A. That's correct.
Q. So something's wrong with that transcript, right?
It's not accurate?
THE COURT: Counsel , be more specific.
MR. ALBUKERK: So in other words if the person
says the person got indicted that morning and there is an
indication that the Grand Jury transcript from that indictment
122 - ~ - - -
DAILY COpy PREPARED
1 got sent in the mail that same day, you can't receive something
2 in the mail when the thing occurred that morning?
3 MR. PODLASEK: Judge, I have an objection to this.
4 Counsel is misreading the transcript.
5 THE COURT: Overruled. Counsel on the stand, sir,
6 you can answer how you interpret that transcript.
7 THE WITNESS: A. Looking at line 6 it says, "This
8 morning I understand they reindicted my client." My statement
9 there meant that that morning I was under the understanding that
10 they reindicted my client.
11 MR. ALBUKERK: Q. Right. But the way you phrased
12 it, it seems that the indictment occurred that morning?
13 THE WITNESS: A. No, it doesn't. I said, "This
14 morni ng I understand"; in other words, I understood at that
15 point that they had reindicted my client.
16 MR. ALBUKERK: Q. Now, you know my client,
17 correct?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. She used to be your cl i ent?
20
21
22
A.
Q.
A.
Yes.
You know she is from Cameroon?
If that's the country she is from. I know she was
23 from a country over in Africa.
24 Q. Far pl ace?
I
l ~ ___ ~ _
~ ~ - 1 2 3 - - ~ - -
123
DAILY COPY PREPARED
Yes. 1
2
A.
Q. You know that she is not familiar with the laws of the
3 United States of America?
4 A. I can't really say that. I don't know.
5 Q. Well, you know that she is not familiar with our
6 justice system the way that you are?
7 THE COURT: You mean as a lawyer?
8 MR . ALBUKERK: As a lawyer or even as a layperson.
9 THE WITNESS: A. Well, as a lawyer I don't think
10 she has a full understanding, no.
11 MR. ALBUKERK: Q. Now, Mr. Flood, you use e-mail,
12 correct?
13
14
15
16 this, please.
THE WITNESS:
MR. ALBUKERK:
MR. PODLASEK:
A. Sometimes, yes.
Q. And your e-mail address is
Judge, could we have a side bar on
17 THE COURT: Okay.
18
19 (SIDE BAR HELD AS FOLLOWS:)
20 THE COURT: Okay.
21 MR. PODLASEK: Judge, these are e-mails between
22 Mr. Flood and Melongo we received them they were actually part
23 of a motion at one point that was put in public record. Your
24 question to me is whether we were going to get into
--- ---- - - -
1 2 4 - - - - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - -
124
DAILY COPY PREPARED
,--- -
1 conversations with Mr. Flood and Miss Melongo. I said no;
2 however, if counsel opens this door I am going to insist that we
3 be allowed to put this e-mail in.
4 THE COURT: Is this the one you are getting in?
5 MR. ALBUKERK: Yeah. Specifically -- let me take
6 a look at it. He, Flood, indicates , that there is nothing wrong
7 with her being present in court. I got to find it here, but he
8 basically says I did nothing wrong, you not having her there
9 MR. PODLASEK: But he is not telling her she
10 wasn't there.
11 THE COURT: Here is my ruling. If you open the
12 door and get into those communications with her, and certainly
13 the State's e-mail is more than relevant, dated Friday,
14 December 18, '09, where she is apol ogi zi ng for maki ng
15 accusations against him, et cetera.
16 MR. ALBUKERK: Judge, that has no relevance to the
17
18
case.
MR. PODLASEK: Absolutely it does. Mr. Flood
19 understands it to mean that she had made a mistake, she didn't
20 understand what she was doing, or she had basically lied to him.
21 One of the three. So we are going to get into a lot more stuff
22 than you really want to get into here.
23 MR. ALBUKERK: Judge , there is no relevance to
24 that at all.
125
- ---- 125 -- ----
___ J
DAILY COPY PREPARED
1 THE COURT: Let's not argue. That's my ruling.
2 If you are going to argue about these e-mails that are dated
3 December 8th of 2009, he is talking about whether he has the
4 file, et cetera.
5 MR. ALBUKERK: Judge, a little further down here
6 is the main thing, it's all of her allegations of how she wasn't
7 there.
8 THE COURT: You would get into the first, the
9 longer e-mail, and then there is another one talks about her,
10 yet she forgot about the clerk docket, no mention of
11 arraignment; and then she does another note to him to say that
12 arraigning her without her knowledge was proper, or, I don't
126
I
13 thi nk that arrai gni ng her wi thout her knowl edge was proper. She I
14 cites constitution , talking about waiver, then she apologizes on
15 December 18th for some accusation made last week. Could be the
16 same one . I don't know if she is backing off. That will be for
17 the jury to determine. My bottom line: If you get into the
18 e-mails , it's up to you, and if he chooses I will allow him to
1 9 do it on red i rect .
20
21
MR. PODLASEK: How much leeway am I going to have?
THE COURT: What else went on? All I have is that
22 memo. I am not privy to the rest of the case.
23 MR. PODLASEK : She was making accusations of the
24 competency of him as an attorney. She was going back and forth
12 6 - ---
DAILY COPY PREPARED 127
--------------------- - - ~ ---
1 saying she wasn't there at the arraignment. I want to ask him ,
2 Did she ever ask you to move this through federa7 court? I want
3 to go through the whole thing.
4 THE COURT: I think that would be relevant if we
5 get into it.
6 MR. ALBUKERK: I can ask him about these --
7 THE COURT: Hold on. When we are at side bar ,
8 please direct your comments to me not to each other.
9 MR. PODLASEK: My suggestion would be to ask a
10 simple question, Did you ever te77 your c7ient that 'I arraigned
11 you without your presence?
12 MR. ALBUKERK: Right I'll just do that.
13 THE COURT: I won't tell you how to do your cause.
14 I am just telling you, if you go into the e-mail I will allow
15 the State to do that. It's up to you how you want to handle
16 that .
17 (WHEREUPON , the foll owi ng proceedi ngs
18 were resumed i n open court in the
19 presence of the jurors:)
20 THE COURT: Go ahead, counsel.
21 MR. ALBUKERK: Q. Mr. Flood, your client,
22 Miss Melongo, said to you at one time that she didn't think it
23 was appropriate that she was arraigned -- Strike that.
24 At one point Miss Melongo said to you that
L
- 127
1
2
3
4
DAILY COpy PREPARED
the Clerk's records didn't indicate that she had ever been
arraigned. Did she ever indicate that to you?
THE WITNESS: A. Something to that effect, yes.
MR. ALBUKERK: Nothing further.
5 THE COURT: Any redirect?
6 MR. PODLASEK : Just briefly, Judge.
7
8 REDIRECT EXAMINATION
9 BY MR. PODLASEK:
10 Q. Mr. Flood , did you arraign your client, Annabel
11 Melongo , on June 18, 2008 without her being present in court
12 before Judge Schreier?
13 THE WITNESS: A. No , I did not. She was in
court. 14
15
16
MR. PODLASEK: Thank you. No further questions.
17 RECROSS-EXAMINATION
1 8 BY MR. ALBUKERK :
19 Q. Earlier you said that this was to the best of your
20 recollection, right?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And the reason your recollection was refreshed was
23 because you looked at the June 18 , 2008 transcript, right?
24 A. That was part of it , yes.
L ___ _____ ~ _ _ _
- - 1 2 8 ~ · ~
128
-- I
I
__ J
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
DAILY COpy PREPARED
O. What other documents did you use to refresh your
lection?
A. I went back through the e-mails that I received from
Miss Melongo and received an e-mail from her where after she
first made the inquiry --
O. I will make an objection and ask that the answer be
stricken, Judge.
THE COURT: Well, the answer will stand. He said
he also refreshed e-mails. You asked him what else he looked at
and so he told you. Nothing further?
MR. ALBUKERK: Nothing further.
THE COURT: Thank you, sir. You may step down.
You can proceed, State.
MR. PODLASEK: The State at this time has no
further witnesses and we would rest.
(SIDE BAR HELD AS FOLLOWS:)
MR. PODLASEK: State, after formal admission of
your exhibits let's take a break for the jury. State has
rested.
MR. ALBUKERK: Judge, I have a motion to make for
21 directed verdict. Judge, the State's burden of proof is beyond
22 a reasonable doubt and they have not proven beyond a reasonable
23 doubt that my client did not have a reasonable suspicion that
24 criminal activity was in fact afoot or criminal activity, that
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - 1 2 9
129
DAILY COPY PREPARED 130
1
-1
of Pamela Taylor, had in fact occurred. What the State has
2 proven , what the State has shown over and over again, is that
3 Annabel Melongo may have been arraigned , but that's not the
4 issue . The State has missed the issue throughout their entire
5 case . What they needed to show is that my client didn't have a
6 reasonable suspicion that the person she recorded, Pam Taylor,
7 wasn't engaged in some criminal activity . That's the issue and
8 they kept missing it.
9 THE COURT: All right. Looking at the evidence in
10 the light most favorable to the State, which is the motion ,
11 which is the standard, rather, for ruling on a motion for
12 directed finding, it is going to be respectfully denied. The
13 transcript indicates that the defendant was there. So that's if
14 she was there, then she certainly would not have had any kind of
15 reasonable belief that the transcript was being falsified. So I
16 think it's ultimately an issue for the jury and there is more
17 than enough evidence at this point to let it go to the jury. Do
18 you want to proceed with any witnesses?
19 MR. ALBUKERK: I do. I have Dana DePooter and
20 want to read some, at least well, we are going to enter --
21 THE COURT: How are you going to handle this blog?
22 I see a copy of the blog, so I don't have to stop. Have the
23 parties agreed to handle this?
24 MR. PODLASEK : We haven't agreed how to handle
~ - - ~ - ~ - - - - ----
· 130 - -
DAILY COPY PREPARED 131
1 I ~ h i S-. - It's on the-:i sc obvi ou: y . - W ~ have--: copy we made-,
2 which is called the Chicago Courthouse, which outlines
3 everything we want to talk about when I use it in closing
4 argument.
5 MR. ALBUKERK: I would be using it in closing
6 argument as well.
7 MR. PODLASEK : What I suggest is we make an offer
8 to the jury that we provide a disc and I will provide my clerk
9 and can go back there with Mr. Albukerk's associate and play it
10 for them on a computer if they want to compare. We made enough
11 copies for everybody .
12 THE COURT: My thought would be to hand out the
13 copies and send it back and we can also make arrangements if
14 they see the disc. What else is on the disc besides anything in
15 here?
16 MR. ALBUKERK: Well , it's a lot more documents.
17 All the documents on the case.
18 THE COURT: Well , we'll have to tell them how to
19 use it and set that up later. Mark it as an exhibit. It will
20
21
22
23
24
be an agreement that it's an accurate exhibit as part of
People's No.1.
MR. PODLASEK: I thought we could call it 1A.
THE COURT: That's fine. You call your witness
and put in whatever you put in , then I will recess the jury and
I
- -- - - -- - - - ---131 -- --
j
DAILY COpy PREPARED
- - ---- - - -
1 have a discussion with Melongo whether she will testify.
2 MR. ALBUKERK: That's fine.
3 (WHEREUPON, the following proceedings
4
5
6
were resumed in open court in the
presence of the jury:)
THE COURT: The State has rested their case in
7 chief, so the defense is going to proceed with their case.
8 Ma'am, if you want to come up here behind
9 the court reporter. Before you sit down I will ask you to
10 please face me and raise your right hand.
11 (WITNESS SWORN)
12
1 3 DANA DePOOTER
14 called as a witness on behalf of the People, having been first
15 duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
16 DIRECT EXAMINATION
1 7 BY MR. ALBUKERK:
18 Q. Ma'am, would you state your name for the record.
19
20
21
22
23
24
I
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
Dana DePooter.
Ma'am, are you currently employed?
Yes, I am.
What do you do?
I am a special agent with the FBI.
All right. And is one of your duties anyway taking
L __________ _
- 132 - - - - ~
132
DAILY COpy PREPARED
1 complaints from the public?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Did you ever meet with or speak with an Annabel
4 Melongo?
5 A. Yes, I did.
6 Q. And did you ever receive an e-mail from Miss Melongo?
A. Yes , several. 7
8 THE COURT: Ma'am , can I have you spell your last
9 name for us, please.
10 THE WITNESS: D E capital P 0 0 T E R.
11 THE COURT REPORTER: Thank you.
12 MR. ALBUKERK: I think I am up to Defense Exhibit
13 No . 2, is that what we are up to? I'll call it Defense
14 I Exhi bi t 2.
15 Q. Handi ng you Defense Exhi bi t 2. Is that
16 an e-mail you received?
17 THE WITNESS: A. Yes, it is.
18 MR . ALBUKERK: Q. Is that a true and accurate
19 copy of the e-mail that you received?
20 THE WITNESS: A. Yes, it appears to be. Yes.
21 Q. You said you had some discussion. Did you ever meet
22 with Miss Melongo in person?
23 A. Yes , I did.
24 Q. So you recognize her here today?
l ~ _
- --133 - ~ ~
133
DAILY COPY PREPARED
Uhm, yes. 1
2
A.
Q. And that's my client sitting, Miss Melongo here at
3 counsel table?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And she complained to you about the falsification of a
6 transcript here at 26th and California, correct?
7 A. In this e-mail, yes, she did.
8 Q. Thank you.
9 I ask that this be published to the jury.
10 THE COURT: Any objection?
11 MR. PODLASEK: Judge, I would like a chance to
12 cross -exami ne .
13 THE COURT: Following cross-examination I'll allow
14 it to be published.
15 MR. ALBUKERK: Nothing further.
16 THE COURT: Cross.
17 Judge, I'm just trying to obtain a copy of this
18 here.
19
20
21
22
23
24
THE COURT: Fine.
~ - - - - - - - --134
134
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
DAILY COpy PREPARED
-- - - ~ - - - - - - - - ~ - -- ---
CROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. PODLASEK:
Q. Had Miss Melongo ever complained to you prior to this
event transcripts being changed?
A. Prior to this e-mail?
Q. Yes.
MR. ALBUKERK: Judge , objection. Assumes facts
not in evidence.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE WITNESS: A. This e-mail was the first that I
recall.
MR. PODLASEK: Q. How long had you been in
communication with Miss Melongo?
THE WITNESS: A. I really am not certain. It
would depend on the e-mails that I had turned over. The dates
of the e-mails that were turned over.
MR. PODLASEK: Q. Well, how did you first become
aware of Miss Melongo?
A. She made a complaint to the FBI office and the
complaint was assigned to me .
Q. How are complaints made to the FBI office normally?
A. They could be through walk ins or phone calls.
Q. What about e-mails? Do you have a hotline e-mails?
A. As far as I'm aware, most of our complaints come
- - 135 ---
135
1
2
3
4 I
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
DAILY COPY PREPARED
through telephone or walks ins.
Q. So your first contact with Miss Melongo was it
telephonically or in person?
A. I met with her in person.
Q. Did you meet with her at FBI headquarters?
A. Yes.
Q. And was that in regard to the forged transcripts?
A. The information that she provided at that time was
not.
Q. So it had to nothing to do with her court cases?
A. The information that she provided to me was not
12 exactly the information that was in this e-mail at the time.
13 Q. How was thi s e-mail resol ved? Or has it been
1 4 reso 1 ved?
15 A. I am not authori zed to answer that .
16 Q. The e-mail itself says another transcript was changed.
17 Did she ever tell you what transcript had been changed?
18 A. Whatever is in this e-mail is all the information I
19 have regarding these transcripts.
20 Q. So thi sis where it ended?
21 A. The e-mail s - - I turned over all of the e-mail s. If
22 this was the last e-mail I turned over, then that's the last
23 one. I don't know the date.
24 Q. The date on this e-mail is Friday, December 18th of
- - - - ~ - - - - - 1 3 6 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
136
DAILY COpy PREPARED
1 2009, is that correct?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And in that e-mail Miss Melongo references taping
4 conversations, is that correct?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Had the FBI authorized her to tape those
7 conversations?
8 A. I am not authorized to answer that question.
9 Q. Judge, I am going to move to strike as nonresponsive
10 the last five questions from this witness, and in fact I will
11 move to strike all of her testimony.
12 THE COURT: Well, your move to strike all
13 testimony is denied. I will instruct the witness to answer the
14 question which said with respect to the taping, specifically of
15 Pam Taylor, and you can provide the dates since you have to have
16 them, I want to know if that was authorized by the FBI, those
17 specific three dates. Period. Nothing further, nothing ongoing
18 now. I will order her to answer that question. Just phrase it
19 appropriately with the right dates.
20 MR. PODLASEK: Q. Did you authorize Annabel
21 Melongo to tape conversations with Pamela Taylor, the
22 Cook County Court Reporters office, on or about December 14th of
23 2009?
24 THE WITNESS: A. Did I authorize her to do that?
1 - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - 1 3 7 - ~
137
DAILY COPY PREPARED
1 MR. PODLASEK: Q. Did you or the FBI? You are an
2 FBI agent.
3 THE WITNESS: Your Honor, may I speak with you?
4 THE COURT: No. I am ordering you to answer the
5 question. Specifically tailored to the December 14th, Pamela
6 Taylor conversations, that's the only thing at issue at this
7
8
9
moment.
1 0 knowl edge?
11
12
THE WITNESS: A.
MR. PODLASEK: Q.
To my knowledge, no.
So the FBI did not, to your
THE WITNESS: A. To my knowledge, no.
MR. PODLASEK: Q. Did you authorize the recording
13 of a conversation between Annabel Melongo and Pamela Taylor,
14 Cook County Court Reporters office, on or about December 15th of
15 2009?
16 THE WITNESS: A. No.
17 MR. PODLASEK: Q. To the best of your knowledge,
18 did you authorize a recording of a conversation between Pamela
19 Taylor and Annabel Melongo on or about December 16th of 2009?
20 THE WITNESS: A. No, I had no knowledge.
21 MR. PODLASEK: No further questions.
22 THE COURT: Anything else based strictly on that?
23
24
l ~ _
- - - - - ~ - ~ 138 --
138
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
DAILY COPY PREPARED
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. ALBUKERK:
Q. The complaint was that my client had a reasonable
suspicion that criminal activity was going on in that a court
transcript had been altered?
A. According to the e-mail?
Q. Right.
A. That is what it stated in the e-mail.
MR. ALBUKERK: Thank you. Nothing further.
THE COURT: Thank you, ma'am. You may step down.
11 Defense, you may publish the e-mail.
139
I
12 MR. ALBUKERK: I would. Also, Judge, may I excuse
1 3 the wi tness?
14 THE COURT: Yes. Thank you, ma'am.
15 (Wi tness excused.)
16 MR. PODLASEK: Judge, we object to the publishing
17 of thi s e-mail .
18 THE COURT: Overruled. Counsel, let me ask you,
19 if you don't have a copy for everybody then I ask you read it
20 into the record so we don't have to wait for fourteen people to
21 read the paragraph.
22 MR. ALBUKERK: All right. "From Annabel Melongo
23 to Dana.DePooter@IC.FBI . gov. Date: Friday, December 18, 2009,
24 7:16 a.m. Subject: Forged court transcript.
139 ~ ~ -
DAILY COPY PREPARED 140
1--- ----- --- ~ -
1
l
I
2
3
"Dear Dana: I can't help but come back, unlike
the last time when my hearing transcripts were changed and I had I
nothing to prove it. This time another transcript was changed
4 and I have strong probable cause showing that something went
5 wrong or something is wrong. I was never arraigned for the case
6 against me. When I became aware of that I got the clerk, the
7 docket, and the transcript. The clerk and the docket don't
8 mention an arraignment. The only thing that does is the
9 transcript. I then called the court reporter office and I taped
10 all the conversations. To listen to them, please go to the
11 website under the Chicago Courthouse subsection and start
12 reading from December 8, '09. The reason I'm contacting you is
13 to know if I have to add this complaint to my existing one or if
14 I should file a new one. If so, should I have to come there and
15 file a complaint or should I do it through the website like I
16 di d the 1 ast time? Thanks." Defense Exhi bi t No.2.
17 THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen, at this time I
18 am going to take a short break. There is a couple things I have
19 to address with the attorneys outside your presence and I will
20 be bringing you back shortly. All rise for the jurors.
21 (WHEREUPON, the jury exited the
22 courtroom. )
23 THE COURT: Counsel, do you have any other
24 witnesses or exhibits you will be presenting?
- ~ - -- - - -- - - 1 4 0 - - - ~ ~
I
~
1
2
3
DAILY COpy PREPARED
MR. ALBUKERK: Judge , if I could have one moment.
[PAUSE HELD]
MR. ALBUKERK: Judge, at this time after
4 discussing the matter with my client and her rights as to
5 whether or not she will testify, she is declining to testify .
6 Of course , and therefore we would rest subject to allowing all
7 the different evidence obviously to come in . We have two
8 exhibits . I know the State will enter their exhibits and, of
9 course, we have the stipulated evidence which needs to come in
10 and, of course, we would be planning on using that in our
11 closing as well.
12 THE COURT: Let's deal with first things first.
13 Miss Melongo, I want to have a conversation with you. You have
14 had a chance to talk about this with Mr. Albukerk and his
15 partner. You understand very clearly that you have the right to
16 testify if you want . You do also understand if you don't want
17 to testify you don't have to. In fact as you heard in my
18 opening remarks, you understand that you don't have to present
19 any evidence at all. So after talking with your attorney about
20 the pros and cons, is it your desire to exercise your right not
21 to testify?
22 THE DEFENDANT: Yes, I don't want to testify.
23 THE COURT: You do not want to testify. And you
24 have talked to him. No one is forcing you not to testify, am I
- -- - -------- - 141 ----
141
DAILY COpy PREPARED
1 correct?
2 THE DEFENDANT: No.
3 THE COURT: You are not testifying because that's
4 your considered choice --
5 THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
6 THE COURT: after listening to both the pros
7 and cons, am I correct?
8 THE DEFENDANT: That's my right and I want to
9 exercise it.
10 THE COURT: That's your right and you want to
11 exercise it. Okay.
12 Let's talk about the exhibits. Let's go
13 through the State's exhibits. Exhibit No . 1 is the disc and has
14 all the information on it. Exhibit No.2 is the stipulation
15 itself.
16 MR. PODLASEK: 1A, Judge, we agreed that we would
17 copy the section called Chicago Courthouse, consists of
18 seventeen printed out pages.
19 MR. ALBUKERK: Yes.
20 MR. PODLASEK: We will use that so both sides
21 can --
22 MR. ALBUKERK: Yes. Yes, I was just hoping I
23 could get a copy of it.
24 MR. PODLASEK: I'm going to give you a copy.
142
142 --
- -- -- ~
-- -- ----------
DAILY COPY PREPARED 143
r- - -
-1
1
2
3
4
5
MR. ALBUKERK: Thank you.
MR. PODLASEK: You're welcome.
THE COURT: You will mark that as 1A?
MR. PODLASEK: 1A, Judge.
THE COURT: And that's part, I think that you
6 I should, my thought would be this, there should be a stipulation
7 in the record that 1A is in fact an excerpt from the disc.
8 People's No.1, were you going to use it at all in your case in
9 chief?
10
1 1
12 going to.
MR. ALBUKERK: Yes.
THE COURT: I thought you had mentioned you were
13 MR. ALBUKERK: Correct.
14 THE COURT: You didn't have any other witnesses.
15 When you come back, is there more you are going to present to
16 the jury?
17 MR. ALBUKERK: No. I would be making arguments
18 from that stipulation.
19 THE COURT: Closing arguments you mean?
20
21
22
23
in chief?
MR. ALBUKERK: Closing arguments, exactly.
THE COURT: So nothing is coming in in your case
MR. ALBUKERK: No. I mean other than the fact
24 that I am adopting those same stipulations obviously.
~ - - 1 4 3 ~ - ~ -
I
I
1
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
DAILY COpy PREPARED
MR. PODLASEK: Judge, I am going to give
Mr. Albukerk exact copy. We have an extra copy. So if you want
an oral stipulation on the record that would be fine.
THE COURT: I think just so the jury understands
where it comes from. Obviously once they open up the disc,
which is People's No.1, they will. But I think in front of the
jury when you rest or you can do it this your case, say that
there is a joint stipulation that that's a true and accurate
copy of the portion of what's contained on No.1, the disc.
MR. ALBUKERK: Okay.
THE COURT: Why don't you do that so when you are
both referring to it in arguments the jury will know where it's
from.
MR. ALBUKERK: Okay.
THE COURT: So your exhibits that you admitted
were what?
MR. ALBUKERK: We have that e-mail and then there
is something else .
[PAUSE HELD]
MR . ALBUKERK: I think we withdrew it. I think it
was the statute. And the statute we are not going to use
because Your Honor sustained an objection .
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. ALBUKERK: So only 2.
144 - ~ - - - -
144
DAILY COpy PREPARED
1 THE COURT: So that's the e-mail?
2 MR. ALBUKERK: That's the e-mail.
3 THE COURT: Any objection other than what you have
4 already voiced?
5 MR. PODLASEK: No, Your Honor.
6 THE COURT: Defense No.2 will come in with
7 respect to the State. No.1 is the disc that will come in.
8 No.2 is the stipulation. Is there any objection to the
9 stipulation itself coming into evidence and going back to the
10 jury?
11 MR. ALBUKERK: I apologize, Your Honor. My
12 client's talking to me.
13 THE COURT: People's No.2, that's the
14 stipulation.
15 MR. ALBUKERK: Yes?
16 THE COURT: I said is there any objection to the
17 stipulation itself coming into evidence and going back to the
18 jury?
1 9 MR. ALBUKERK: No .
20 THE COURT: I will allow the stipulation to go
21 back as well. No.3 is a To-From --
22 MR. PODLASEK: No, No.3 is Laurel Laudien's court
23 sheets which we will not be using or tendering but you wanted it
24 to be made part of the exhibit package.
l . ~ .
--145
145
DAILY COpy PREPARED
1 THE COURT: No. 3 you are not asking to admit --
2 You know what, I apologize. Let me strike that . I opened my
3 book to the wrong trial from yesterday, so no wonder it wasn't
4 matching up.
5 Okay. Exhibit 3 the State is not using.
6 Exhibit 4 is the transcript from the hearing. Any objection to
7 that coming into evidence and going back?
8 MR. ALBUKERK: No.
9 THE COURT: People's No.5 was the transcript of
10 Call No.2. Any objection to that coming in and going back?
11 MR. ALBUKERK: What was that one again?
12 THE COURT: The transcript of the phone call.
13 MR. ALBUKERK: Oh, yeah. No.
14 MR. PODLASEK: This is actually the voice mail.
15 THE COURT: NO.5 is the voice mail?
16 MR. PODLASEK: Yes.
17 THE COURT: And NO . 6 is the transcript of the
18 first conversation. That's what I have listed.
19 MR. ALBUKERK: No objection.
20
21 conversation.
22
23
24
THE COURT: NO.7 is another transcript of the
MR. ALBUKERK: No objection .
THE COURT: No objection to that.
NO.8 is the last conversation, I believe.
- -- -- - 146
146
DAILY COpy PREPARED
1 Any objection to that transcript?
2 MR. ALBUKERK: No.
3 THE COURT: NO.9 is a copy of the electronic
4 docket . Any objection to that coming in and going back?
5 MR. ALBUKERK: No objection.
6 THE COURT: It doesn't make sense. I thought I
7 marked as People's No.1 the Melongo half sheet.
8 MR. PODLASEK: It's No . 10.
9 THE COURT: There we go, No. 10. Any objection to
10 that coming in and going back?
11 MR . ALBUKERK: No.
12
13
14
MR. PODLASEK: Speci fically that is on the
07 -case.
THE COURT: Okay. People's No. 11 is the half
15 sheet for the OS-case after it was superceded. Any objection to
16 that comi ng in?
1 7 MR. ALBUKERK: No.
18 THE COURT: 12 is the court sheet as is 13 . Any
19 objection to them coming in and going back?
20 MR. ALBUKERK: No.
21 THE COURT : Is that it then for the State?
22 MR. ALBUKERK: Yes, Your Honor .
23 THE COURT: Then we have the defense e-mail coming
24 in and going back. So when the jury comes out you are going to
1 47 -
147
DAILY COPY PREPARED
1 rest?
2 MR. ALBUKERK: Yes.
3 THE COURT: State, you have no rebuttal? Or I
4 should ask you, do you have any rebuttal?
5 MR. PODLASEK: No.
6 THE COURT: Let's get back to the instructions.
7 With respect then to the jury instructions,
8 are you going to insert the proper form 1.02 which is with the
9 defendant not testifying.
10 MR. ALBUKERK: Correct.
11 THE COURT: We are going to insert 7A that talks
12 about the jury not being able to consider that she didn't
13 testify, that's 2.04. That is now going into our packet.
14 MR. ALBUKERK: Thank you.
15 I THE COURT: State , you were going to prepare a
16 modified version of 3.14. If you have both copies can you hand
17 that up. That's where we were going to strike the third
18 paragraph.
19 MR. ALBUKERK: Judge, my client needs to use the
20 restroom.
21 THE COURT: Okay. We'll just go off the record
22 and take a break until she gets back.
23 (Discussion held off the record.)
24 THE COURT: Let's go back on the record.
148
1 48 - --
I
- - - - - - ~
DAILY COPY PREPARED
~ ~ ~ - - ~ -
1 Miss Melongo's out.
2 THE DEFENDANT: Yeah, I'm here.
3 THE COURT: Yes, you are here.
4 [PAUSE HELD]
5 THE COURT: You know what, I am going to bring the
6 jurors out. Bring out the jury.
7 THE DEPUTY SHERIFF: Okay.
8 All rise for the jury.
9 (WHEREUPON , the following proceedings
10 were resumed and hel din open court
11 before the jury as follows:)
12 THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen, you may be
13 seated. I apologize for the delay. Here is what I'm going to
14 do. There has been some unforeseen clerical circumstances that,
15 you know, are not related to the substance of the case. So I am
16 going to let you vote on something before you hear the case and
17 it's this, I'll let you go in the back and talk about it. We
18 are going to be able to proceed to closing today, tonight.
19 Although like I said, there's been some clerical issues with the
20 jury instructions, getting them typed correctly is basically the
21 bottom line what we are talking about, and I don't know an exact
22 time as to when they are going to be ready. We have all been
23 ready to go pretty much since a few minutes after we left you.
24 We will be able to conclude today, but that's the hold up. So
- - - 149 -
149
DAILY COPY PREPARED
1 in a couple of minutes I am going to let you go in the back and
2 you can tell me whether you want to wait and finish it tonight
3 or discuss whether you want to come back in the morning and the
4 only thing that you would have is closing arguments.
5 But before we get there, I want to formally
6 finish up . We had left off with the defense case in chief.
7 MR. ALBUKERK: Yes, Judge.
8 THE COURT: Defense, at this time is there any
9 additional evidence you wish to present to the jury?
10 MR. ALBUKERK: No, Judge. We rest subject to
11 entering our exhibits and stipulations.
12 THE COURT: The defense is resting their case in
13 chief. We have known that for awhile they had no additional
14 evi dence .
15 State, you have no rebuttal evidence?
16 MR. PODLASEK: No rebuttal, Judge. One issue is
17 the stipulation to the --
18 THE COURT: Why don't you proceed with the
19 stipulation now and we will finish that. As we talked about
20 before, I know you remember from only yesterday, that a
21 stipulation is an agreement between the parties as to the fact
22 or facts of whatever they are about to say to you. So this
23 piece of evidence will then end the evidentiary portion of the
24 case . Go ahead, State.
150 - ~
150
I
DAILY COpy PREPARED
1 MR. PODLASEK: Defense and the State have entered
2 into evidence that People's Exhibit No. 1A will go into
3 evidence. It is simply an excerpt from the total CD of the
4 website as printed out , so you can go through it, use it as
5 word , making closing arguments , and take it back in the jury
6 room and it consists of seventeen pages.
7
8
9
THE COURT: So stipulated, counsel?
MR. ALBUKERK: So stipulated, Judge.
THE COURT : So that document will go back with
10 you. You haven ' t seen it or heard about it yet from the witness
11 stand but it is part of that CD disc that the parties were in
12 agreement with . It is just an excerpt from it and they may be
13 using it when we get to closing. The State is now resting in
14 rebuttal. That concludes all the evidence.
15 So I will send you back into the jury room.
16 Just knock on the door after you have talked about it amongst
17 yourselves. I want to be thoughtful of your schedules one way
18 or the other . So if you would like to do it this evening
19 according to the plan, that's absolutely what we will do . But
20 if it will work better for you to come back first thing in the
21 morning and just start out fresh with cl osing arguments we can
22 do that also . We will rise for the jury. Obviously you are not
23 discussing the facts in the case or anything like that. It is
24 just strictly do you want to hear closings tonight or in the
151
I
I
,
L_
---151
J
DAILY COPY PREPARED
1 morning.
2 (WHEREUPON , the jury exi ted the courtroom.)
3 THE COURT: Deputies, just come and get me when
4 they knock on the door. It should be a few minutes.
5 [BREAK HELD]
6 THE COURT: Let's bring them out. And if they
7 choose to come back at tomorrow 9:30 in the morning, I want to
8 see the attorneys.
9 (WHEREUPON , the jury reentered the
10 courtroom. )
11 THE COURT: Everybody may be seated . And like I
12 said, I just wanted to give you a little bit of control since
13 you are trapped back there. So what is the collective decision
14 of the jury? Would you like to finish tonight or tomor row
morning? 15
16 THE JURORS: Tonight .
17 THE COURT: I can't promise you a start time .
18 Everyone is working as fast as they can. Hopefully we will be
19 on the road within 30 minutes to closing arguments, okay?
20 That's why I wanted to give you that option. Does that change
21 it for anybody?
22 A JUROR: It is what i t is.
23 THE COURT: Well , do you want to talk about it
24 again? You can send me a note out if you want to talk about it
152
152
DAILY COPY PREPARED
1 a little more. I probably was not as clear as I should have
2 been when I brought you out a few minutes ago. The reason I am
3 giving you the option is because we are not ready to start at
4 this minute. If we were, I wouldn't have given you an option
5 and we would be arguing right now. So I don't think I was as
6 clear as I should have been.
7 My plan is that we will be starting no later
8 than 5:30, which is 30 minutes from now, but I know it is
9 pushing it and you were sitting for awhile and that's why I want
10 to give you the option about tomorrow. So why don't you head in
11 the back, send me a note that just says if you changed your
12 mind, and if you didn't change your mind we'll bring you back
13 out and then we're ready for closing. All right.
14 THE DEPUTY SHERIFF: All rise.
15 (WHEREUPON, the jury exi ted the
16 courtroom. )
17 THE COURT: See what they say . I told the deputy,
18 they had asked the deputy a question on their way into the jury
19 room a moment ago that if we came back tomorrow what time would
20 it be, so I said for them would be 10 a.m. For the lawyers
21 9:30. They don't know about the lawyers, but I told them the
22 10 a.m. start time. So we'll see what they say.
23 [PAUSE HELD]
24 THE COURT: What does that mean?
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ - 1 5 3
153
DAILY COpy PREPARED
1
I ~ - - - - - - - - - - ~ - ~ -
I THE DEPUTY SHERIFF: They're going to stick it
2 out.
3 THE COURT: Okay. I need you back here in
4 10 minutes. I mean I need you back here in 10 minutes. This is
5 a serious case, it is a felony. We've already delayed it an
6 hour, now it's going to be almost an hour and a half. So
7 whatever needs to be done. I suggest you go down to the 11th
8 floor.
9
10 poi nt.
1 1
MR. PODLASEK: We are on the 12th floor at this
THE COURT: I mean get other attorneys involved.
12 I mean there shouldn't be that much really to do. It's actually
13 striking a paragraph from one which we can xerox. This can be
14 xeroxed and this is already done. So I mean just cover up the
15 last paragraph and xerox it, that's done. Then we are talking
16 about these two and the concluding. I suggest in your
17 concluding instruction you've got four forms of verdict: Two
18 that have to do with eavesdropping and two that have to do with
19 the divulging. There is no need for three verdicts on three
20
21
22
23
24
different counts. They should merge together.
back here by 5:20.
[BREAK HELD]
THE COURT: We are on the record.
defendant, please.
--- - - - --- --
- 154 --
So I need you
Let's get the
154
DAILY COPY PREPARED
1 THE DEPUTY SHERIFF: Yes, Judge.
2 THE COURT: We have everybody present in court.
3 Turn the mike on for me . Would you mind? Thanks.
4 The instructions that we are looking to
5 correct , can I have 3.14 which is two paragraphs .
6 (Defendant now present in court.)
7 THE COURT: Hold on. All right, I have a clean
8 copy in this set. So you are withdrawing the one you submitted
9 before. Defense, you've had a chance to look at it?
10 MR. ALBUKERK: Yes .
1 1 THE COURT: So that is going to go in. That's
12 going in as No.9 as modified. Then I believe that you were
13 going to prepare 10A which is a non-IPI where it starts out,
14 "It is not a violation of . . . "
15 MS. GUNNIGLE: That should be in Your Honor's
16 clean copy. The second instruction from the back.
17 THE COURT: Can I have the numbered copy then as
18 well . Thanks. That's going t o go in as 10A.
19 Now, I'm looking for 12.04 as modified.
20 MS. GUNNIGLE: Yes, Your Honor, we had two
21 modifications. They should be the very back of Your Honor's
155
22
I
packet. One pertaining to eavesdropping without consent and one
23 eavesdropping , divulging i nformation.
24 MR. ALBUKERK: What?
I
. - - ~ ---155
J
1
2
3
4
[----- --
5 instruction.
DAILY COpy PREPARED
MR. PODLASEK: You have that.
MS. GUNNIGLE: You do.
MR. ALBUKERK: Which page is that?
MS. GUNNIGLE: It's the fourth and fifth of last
6 MR. ALBUKERK: Okay, I think we've got this.
7 THE COURT: So the first non-IPI that ends with
8 the shorter of the two, that will be Instruction No. 11. Do you
9 have any objection to that, defense?
10 MR. ALBUKERK: So we are talking about, it starts,
11 "To sustai n the charge of eavesdroppi ng by use or di vul gence of
12 i nformati on," and endi ng, "defendant not gui 1 ty." No.
13 THE COURT: Let me just ask are the two non-IPI's
14 you tendered to me, they're not identical, are they?
15 MR. ALBUKERK: It shoul dn' t be.
16 MR. PODLASEK: One should say defendant
17 MR. ALBUKERK: Di vul ges.
18 THE COURT: Well, they both start out by use or
19 di vul gence.
20 MS. GUNNIGLE: I have the correct ones right here.
21 We need one divulgence and one by use of the eavesdropping
22 device.
23 THE COURT: Let me give you these two back. So
24 just tell me, give me the ones you need or want.
156
L ___ _ __ - - - - - -- --- 156
-
1
2
3
DAILY COPY PREPARED
MS. GUNNIGLE: This and this.
(Document tendered to defense.)
MR. ALBUKERK: Thank you.
4 THE COURT: You are tendering me, these are both
5 clean copies?
6 MS. GUNNIGLE: That's right.
7 THE COURT: So these are the two instructions. I
8 see. Can I have the two numbered copies of these then.
9 MS. GUNNIGLE: These are the two numbered copies,
10 Your Honor.
1 1 THE COURT: Any objection to the non-IPI which was
12 12.04 modified?
13 MR. ALBUKERK: Judge, unfortunately I don't have a
14 copy of it, so I have to take a peek at it there.
15 THE COURT: Okay. Why don't you review that.
16 MR. ALBUKERK: Thanks.
17 THE COURT: And that has two propositions.
18 So that would basically be simply to the
19 eavesdroppi ng.
20 MR. ALBUKERK: Right.
21 THE COURT: That's the issues instruction for
22 eavesdropping.
23 MR . ALBUKERK: I have no objection to this one .
24 THE COURT: That issues instruction as to
L _ ______ __ _ _
- - - 1 5 7 ~ - --
157
l
I
1
2 I
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
I
l_
DAILY COpy PREPARED
eavesdropping is going to go in as 11.
MR. ALBUKERK: Okay.
THE COURT: That's going to go in, as I said, as
No. 11.
The second issues instruction the State is
proffering is also 12 . 04 modified, only it has to do with the
divulgence of that information. Any objection to that?
MR. ALBUKERK: It's the same thing --
THE COURT: There is a third proposition in this
one.
MR. ALBUKERK: Oh, I see. The first proposition
is different. Yes, okay. So the only thing that is different
is the first proposition is the first added.
THE COURT: So any objection to that?
MR. ALBUKERK: No.
THE COURT: That will go in as 11A. We are just
down to the concluding instruction.
MS. GUNNIGLE: Your Honor, I think the second
instruction was also requested that we drop "defendant did not
testify," and that's been changed too.
THE COURT: I'm sorry. What number are we talking
about?
MS. GUNNIGLE: People's Instruction No.2, IPI
1.02.
--15 8 - -- - ----
158
l
DAILY COpy PREPARED
1 THE COURT: Thank you. You are correct. You're
2 right about that. So can I have the correct 1.02 version.
3 MS. GUNNIGLE: That should be in that packet. It
4 should be the second one in that packet.
5 THE COURT : I have the clean copy. I just need
6 now the numbered copy of that.
7 MS. GUNNIGLE: Here is the numbered copy of that,
8 Judge.
9 THE COURT: 1.02 without the paragraph talking
10 about the defendant testifying is now in the packet.
11 So now the concluding instruction.
12 MR. ALBUKERK: What number was that?
13 THE COURT: 1.02, and it was No.2.
14 MR. ALBUKERK: I have a 1.02 that's completely
15 different. It says "believability of the witnesses."
16 THE COURT: It starts, "Onl y you are the judges of
17 the believability of the witnesses," but it doesn't include the
18 paragraph about the defendant.
19 Lastly, we are on the concluded instruction.
20 Any objection to the way this is written?
21 MR. ALBUKERK: We are talking about 26.01?
22 THE COURT: Correct. You are going to get four
23 forms of verdict. No?
24 MR. ALBUKERK: No objection.
---- - - - - - ----159 - - - -
159
1
DAILY COPY PREPARED 160
I - - - ~ ~ - ~ --- - ~ ~ - -_.- ~ - I
1 THE COURT : So that's going to be No. 14. And
2 then the verdict forms. Okay. So the first verdict form is
3 guilty of -- we'll do the not guilty of eavesdropping without
4 consent, that will be 15. 16 will be guilty of eavesdropping
5 without consent. 17 will be not guilty of eavesdropping,
6 divulging information. 18 will be guilty of eavesdropping by
7 divulging information.
8 Any other corrections or changes? I believe
9 that's everything, right?
10 MS. GUNNIGLE: From the State's view, yes,
11 Your Honor.
12 THE COURT: All right. Then we are ready to go.
13 MR. ALBUKERK: All right.
14 THE COURT: If everyone takes their seats. Let's
15 bri ng out the jury.
16
17 (WHEREUPON, the following proceedings were
18 resumed and held in open court in the
19 presence of the jury as follows:)
20 THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen, the evidence has
21 been completed. Here is how the arguments are going to proceed.
22 Again , closing arguments like we talked about opening
23 statements, that's not evidence what the lawyers are about to
24 say; it's merely what their view of what the evidence proved to
I
- 160 - _. - --
_I
DAILY COPY PREPARED
1 you. If they say something that doesn't go along with your
2 memory of the evidence, feel free to disregard it.
3 The State will have a chance to make their
4 first closing statement to you , the opening close as we call it;
5 the defense will then have a chance to address you in closing
6 argument; and , lastly, the State will get to address you in
7 what's called the rebuttal argument. They get to address you
8 last and finally because the State , as we said many times, that
9 has the burden of proof.
10 Once clos i ng arguments are done , that when I
11 will read you the law in Illinois , the jury instructions, that
12 you swore to uphold. If you have been a note taker, I am just
13 going to ask that you not to take notes once I am reading the
14 instructions to you. The exact instructions that I read to you ,
15 they are going to go back with you to the jury room. So I don't
16 want you to worry about writing them down, I just want you to
17 hear them one time through . They are written by lawyers so
18 there is a lot of language in there . But it's easy to
19 understand certainly when you break it down line by line, but I
20 just want you to hear it one time through so it's familiar to
21 you. So don't take notes at that point, okay? So I think
22 that's all we need before we get started.
23 Are both sides ready to proceed to closing
24 arguments?
L _____ - ---- - - ~ - -- 161 -
161
I
1
2
DAILY COPY PREPARED
- - - - -----
MR. PODLASEK: Yes , Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right . State, you may address the
3 jury fi rst .
4
5 CLOSING ARGUMENT
6 by Mr. Podlasek:
7 Good afternoon , ladies and gentlemen. Once
8 again, my name is Robert Podlasek. I'm the assistant state's
9 attorney of Cook County .
10 Yesterday we started on what appeared to be
11 a short trial. Today you went through some lengthy testimony by
12 way of recordings. They went on and on but they were necessary.
13 That's what the defendant yesterday , through
14 one of her attorneys, wrote on the board or started to write ,
15 Reasonable Suspicion.
16 In this case what they were talking about is
17 that the defendant had a reasonable suspicion that a crime had
18 been committed or was about to be committed against her. What
19 the State says you should be thinking about when you see that
20 reasonable suspicion which has been sitting up there throughout
21 the entire , which we did not object, is a reasonable suspicion
22 as to defendant's case. The defendant came here, stipulated
23 that she had recorded Pamela Taylor , the head of the court
24 reporters in Cook County of 26th Street, not on one , not on two,
L-_ _____ _ _ _ _ __
--162 - .- -
162
DAILY COPY PREPARED 163
I
1 but on three separate occasions. She probably told the FBI in
2 an e-mail, that was made part of the evidence in the defense
3 case, that she did this recording.
4 The interesting thing about this e-mail,
5 which is already been placed into evidence, is that those
6 recordings took place on or about December 14th, 15th, and 16th
7 of 2009 and she contacted the FBI in December 18th of 2009, well
8 after she had not only recorded these conversations but well
9 after she had placed them on the website www . Illinois
10 Corruption.net of which you have an expert of, and the entire
11 website as we were able to capture it is on a disc and placed
12 into evidence and that was placed into evidence again by
13 stipulation yesterday.
14 The problem with the defendant's case is
15 twofold. One, the defendant was recording someone who didn't
16 have anything to do with creating a transcript which the
17 defendant through certain evidence attempted to place before you
1 8 as forged.
19 Well , let's go through the evidence as what
20 we have. We have the first phone conversation. And if you go
21 through the first phone conversation on and on, I think this was
22 the longest phone conversation I think by the way, it starts on
23 page -- the second to last page, when Miss Melongo is
24 interrogating Pamela Taylor. It's no longer a conversation
~ - - - - ~ - - 1 6 3 - -
I
1
2
DAILY COpy PREPARED
---- --
because it's on and on. "Can you explain the inconsistency
then? Why is the former case?" Pamela Taylor tries to keep a
3 professional attitude, and I think reading the transcript and
4 listening to the actual tapes you'll understand that Pamela
5 Taylor is a very professional woman. She didn't yell at Annabel
6 Melongo not through the first conversation, not through the
7 second, not through the third. She did her job. She told her
8 what to do . Every other sentence, You should really talk to
9 your lawyer. You should go before the judge . If you think
10 there is really something wrong go before the judge. We are not
11 the people who do this.
12 She keeps going on and asking about
13 Laurel Laudi en. And fi nall y she says, "I say, how many persons
14 besides of me contacted you about this case, this particular
15 transcript? 'Pamela: Oh, no one has contacted me but
16 Miss Laudien about this case.' Annabel: So anybody ever pay
17 Mi ss Laudi en to change the t ranscri pt?" And it goes on.
18 So it's clear that this was a fishing
19 expedition to see if there was some evidence to be discovered of
20 some wrongdoing, except you have to have some indicia , you have
21 to have some suspicion that the person you are talking to is the
22 one that's committed or is about to commit the crime. You can't
23 go calling people, recording them without their knowledge, and
24 then looking to the statute to protect you with this blanket
~ - ~ 1 6 4 -
164
I
I
DAILY COpy PREPARED
1 exception. That's not how it works.
2 MR. ALBUKERK: Objection.
3 THE COURT: Overruled.
4 MR. PODLASEK: The first section of www.Illinois
5 Corruption.com. It starts off with the Chicago Courthouse,
6 which is what you have before you. I am just going to fast
7 forward from the beginning to page 14. I am going to read you
8 what is a slight excerpt from this which goes directly to the
9 recordings of Miss Pamela Taylor . "Note: Due to Annabel's
10 accent , all her phone conversations with Miss Pamela Taylor have
11 corresponding transcripts. We recommend you read the transcript
12 while listening to the conversation. The Illinois Eavesdropping
13 Law provides an exemption of Section 14-3 (i) which was the
14 basis used by Annabel to tape the conversation. This exemption
15 is further explained by Jim Ryan, the former Illinois Attorney
16 General, in this document and then there is a link document
17 there." The next paragraph, "Then came Mi ss Pamel a Taylor. On
18 December 10, 2009, while riding the bus, Annabel received a
19 phone call from her. Without letting Annabel speak, she
20 I rehashed Miss Laudien's answers and forced Annabel to believe
21 those facts to be true. Annabel found made up. Some minutes
22 later, Miss Pamela Taylor called back with precise instructions
23 on how Annabel ought to handle the situation. The transcribed
24 version of her voicemail can be viewed here . " And again there
--1 65 ---
165
1
2
3
DAILY COpy PREPARED
~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ -
is a link and it's on the link that will be entered into
evidence.
The next paragraph. "Having had one of her
4 crucial transcript changed before this time, Annabel decided to
5 handle the situation differently. She went to her house, got a
6 voice recorder, and called back Miss Pamela Taylor. Her plan
7 was to play the naive and ignorant immigrant who didn't know
8 about American laws. In doing this, she played a reverse
9 psychology of this tape. She said to herself if Miss Taylor
10 gave her misleading answers then Miss Taylor had something to
11 hide; otherwise, the fault might be on Miss Laudien. We will
12 not tell you our opinions of the conversation. Make your own
13 opinions. Here is the conversation and accompanying
14 transcript." It goes on, the next paragraph, "Smelling blood in
15 the water, Annabel wanted to get to the soul of Miss Taylor.
16 December 15, 2009, Miss Taylor, next business day, Annabel
17 called again. Unfortunately that day either she didn't have
18 time for a lengthy conversation or she was afraid to be caught
19 off guard. Nevertheless, they exchanged the following words and
20 the phone conversation was postponed to the next day. A
21 transcript of the conversation can be viewed here.
22 "December 16, 2009 . Here is the phone
23 conversation and this transcript. Though we can't comment on
24 the conversation, nevertheless consciously falsifying court
- - - - 166 - ~ ~ ~
166
l
DAILY COPY PREPARED
1 transcripts is not only a felony but it's the highest treason a
2 court offi ci al can perform." It goes on, "The FBI actuall y
3 investigates such situations. The last time it happened in
4 Cook County it was called Operation Gray Lord. The biggest
5 story behind this falsified transcripts is that the very persons
6 that are supposed to uphold the law, Lisa Madigan and Anita
7 Alvarez, won't hesitate to transgress the same law to bring
8 bogus cases that personally benefit them."
9 It's clear that the defendant's frame of
10 mind wasn't that Pamela Taylor, the person she was recording and
11 committing the crime was about to commit a crime, there is no
12 reasonable suspicion. She was on a fishing expedition to get
13 evidence of some sort against everybody.
14 As you go through the 17 pages you will see
15 that she attacks almost every judge, every lawyer who has had
16 anything to do with her case prior to this one. So what we
17 have, with this website and with allowing her to take those
18 telephone calls and place them on the web for anybody to listen
19 to, is a form of a threat to the entire justice system in
20 Cook County.
21 MR. ALBUKERK: Objection.
22 THE COURT: Overruled.
23 MR. PODLASEK: I don't say this lightly. This may
24 seem like a simple case, but you've got everybody who is
167
- ~ - 1 6 7 - ~
J
DAILY COPY PREPARED
1 associated with this case now on the web being attacked and now
2 you have a woman --
3 MR. ALBUKERK: Objection.
4 THE COURT: Overruled .
5 MR . PODLASEK: -- now you have a woman who
6 basically is in charge of the court reporters and having her
7 words placed on the Net. Not that there was anything in those
8 conversations that would draw attention to any kind of crime.
9 You heard them, you have the transcripts . I encourage you , I
10 invite you to read them over again if you want while you are
11 back there deliberating. Because what you are going to find is
12 a professional and what you are going to find is a woman who is
13 out to get her to say something. She is trying to lure her into
14 sayi ng, ",Well, thi sis a forged transcri pt, there is nothi ng we
15 can do about it." But you have to ask yourself what the reason
16 for.
17 What was the reasonable suspicion? The
18 Reasonable suspicion was actually articulated to Laurel Laudien
19 in one brief sentence, I can get out of this case if I can get
20 this either removed to federal court or if I can prove that
21 there was no arraignment. The problem is that she knew there
22 was an arraignment because she was there. The transcript says
23 she was there. Her own words on the transcript say she was
24 there. Her lawyer at the time, James Flood, sat up there and
L_ ~ - - - - ~ ---- ~ - - -168 -- - -
168
DAILY COpy PREPARED
1 testified that she was there.
2 Mr. Flood indicated to you that in 34 years
3 of practicing law there was only one or two cases in the
4 thousands of arraignments he has handled either as a defense
5 attorney or former prosecutor where the defendant was not
6 present, and in those cases a record is made. A record is made
7 to protect the defendant and a record is made to protect the
8 lawyer, that he has permission to go ahead and have an
9 arraignment without his client present. That didn't happen
10 here.
11 She was present. She terminates lawyer
12 after lawyer. She then, as counsel stated, represents herself
13 pro se. And pro se means you are representing yourself as your
14 own attorney. It doesn't mean the rules are lowered, the
15 standards are lowered. You have to follow the same rules and
16 guidelines that the lawyers do . If we make a mistake we are
17 called on it . A pro se defendant is called on it also. They
18 are given warnings , the judges question them. All of their
19 rights are safeguarded from the bench on down.
20 She wanted to remove to federal court. The
21 problem is there is a time period from arraignment to go to
22 federal court with a petition saying, I have a federal case.
23 Get my case out of the State courts . That's 30 days. 30 days
24 from arraignment.
~ - ~ - - - --- - - ----169 - -- - - - - --
169
DAILY COPY PREPARED 170
1
2
3
-------
-I
[
4 deadline.
MR. ALBUKERK: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. PODLASEK: The bottom line is she missed the
5 The other part of her case, her thought
6 processes as brought to by Laurel Laudien, she would have her
7 case dismissed if there was no arraignment.
8 But you have something else to look at. You
9 have the actual Certified Statement of Conviction; this is
10 simply the electronic docket. You'll recall that the witness
11 who appeared before you from the Clerk's office went through
12 with my partner and talked about the dates and talked about her
13 writing in this document, and this is supposed to be a history
14 of the defendant's appearances in this courthouse. And the
15 arraignment happened on 6-18-08. That's the date she says she
16 wasn't in court. That's the date she says the transcript was
17 forged. Except after that we have July 16th of '08 continuance
18 by agreement; 8-13-08 we have defendant's attorney withdrawing;
19 continuance; motion defendant. It goes on and on all the way
20 through and including 10-28-09 where there was a continuance by
21 agreement with Judge Flood at that time.
22 If there was a problem with the arraignment,
23 if the defendant said she wasn't there, why was she proceeding
24 with her case? That document shows that she went through the
I
I
I
I
L _______ ~ ___ _
- 17 0 --- -- - - ---- J
DAILY COPY PREPARED
1 court system. Day after day she showed up to court, she
2 I represented herself at times pro se.
3 This is an intelligent woman. We are not
4 talking about someone who doesn't understand what's going on.
5 She may claim to have a language problem, she may claim that she
6 is not a lawyer through her attorney, but that's not what this
7 I shows.
8 These documents that are before you show a
9 case that proceeded after that arraignment. So when you go back
10 to deliberate, you have to ask yourself one question, and that's
11 who had the most to gain from this? The State? The State does
12 thousands upon thousands of prosecutions in this building a
13 year. In Cook County alone last year 2.4 million cases were
14 filed. Not just criminal but civil. 2.4
15 MR. ALBUKERK: Judge, I am going to object.
16 THE COURT: Overruled.
17 MR. PODLASEK: These are statistics to you as
18 public record. There's 5.1 million of us in Cook County; that
19 means for everyone of us there is a lawsuit being filed, some
20 more than a lawsuit . So there is four hundred plus judges
21 throughout Cook County, there's nine hundred plus state's
22 attorneys. There is more than enough work for all of us.
23 To believe this, you would have to believe
24 that her lawyer, the prosecution, the Clerk's office, the court
171
l ______________ _
- 171 --- - - --- -- _1
DAILY COPY PREPARED
1 reporter, the judge entered into some sort of conspiracy to make
2 it look like Annabel Melongo was in a courtroom in this building
3 on June 18th of 2008 for an arraignment when she wasn't. All of
4 those people would have had to participate, all of those people
5 had a lot more to lose than Miss Melongo. All of those people
6 who have worked tirelessly in the justice system.
7 My partner at the beginning of this case
8 told you this about the machine and justice system in
9 Cook County. Well, that's a good way to throw a wrench into it:
10 Cry wolf, say there is a forgery, there is a fraud, everybody's
11 lying, it's a conspiracy. That's not what we have here. We
12 have someone who doesn't want to face up to the criminal justice
13 system one way or the other. Thank you.
14 THE COURT: Thank you , State.
15 Defense, you may proceed with your closing ,
16 si r.
17 CLOSING ARGUMENT
18 by Mr. Al bukerk:
19 The law is clear. The judge is going to
20 give you the law in a little while and she is going to read all
21 those instructions to you. So let's stay focused on the law.
22 Because the problem here with the comments you just heard are he
23 is focused on, well, was my client arraigned or not? That's not
24 the inquiry. The inquiry is right over here: Reasonable
L ~ - - - - - - - - - - - ~ 1 7 2 -
172
DAILY COPY PREPARED 173
------ - ---- - ~ - - ~ ~ -- -- ~ ~ - - ~ - I
1 suspicion. Did my client have a reasonable suspicion that there I
2 was criminal activity going on with Pam Taylor? Was Pam Taylor
3 involved in criminal activity? Did she have that reasonable
4 suspicion?
5 They are trying to get you to focus on all
6 sorts of other things that really aren't important. They are
7 trying to make it sound like there is a huge conspiracy or she
8 is floating some huge conspiracy. None of that is relevant.
9 The only thing that is relevant is whether or not my client had
10 a reasonable suspicion, and nothing has changed from my opening
11 argument. Nothing.
12 There are five ways standing here in the
13 middle of the courtroom that a layperson such as yourselves can
14 find out what occurred on the day in question. There is five
15 ways of doi ng that.
16 There is the clerk. Here is the clerk's
17 computer. There is the court files. Do we have the 08 CR file?
18
19
THE COURT: Right there.
MR. ALBUKERK: If I can have that, please. Thank
20 you, Judge. I appreciate it.
21 What's official goes into that computer and
22 comes out as the official certified transcript. The State was
23 kind enough to enter that into evidence for us. Can you get
24 that out? But the bottom line is we already talked about it, it
~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 7 3 ~ - - - -
DAILY COpy PREPARED
1 is the June 18th official transcript of the clerk and it says
2 she wasn't arraigned that day. It doesn't really matter what
3 happened that day. What matters is whether or not my client had
4 I a reasonable suspicion .
5 If the official record of the Clerk says
6 that an arraignment didn't happen, my client has a right, should
7 be relying on that transcript. The state's attorneys every
8 single day go to the Clerk's office and get those certified
9 transcripts and use them against defendants and use them to
10 prove things all the time. But for some strange reason today
11 they are saying we77, you can't rea77y trust that, it doesn't
12 really matter . It's the official transcript.
13 The clerks keep these files. This is the
14 file in question. The judge, not this particular judge back on
15 I June 18, 2008, but a judge is supposed to keep these notes right
16 here. And the note for June 18, 2008 does not say that my
17 client was arraigned. It doesn't.
18 Finally, there is court sheets -- Judge, is
19 there a court sheet here that I can show?
20 THE COURT: I don't have any.
21 MR . ALBUKERK: And every single day this is filled
22 out by a judge, something just like this, and it's supposed to
23 say that the defendant was arraigned. And it doesn't. On
24 I June 18, 2008.
I
I
L ____________ _
- 174 ---- --- --
174
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
DAILY COPY PREPARED
,--- --- --------- - - - - - - -
Now, the State made a lot of hay out of oh,
look there is a B or a P and it's circled. Again, this is a
reasonable person's standard. Is my client being reasonable?
That's the question. Well, my client is from Cameroon. My
client is from a third world country where justice is a lot
different than it is here. My client is also a computer expert.
She understands how computers work, she understands where data
is and where data goes and how data is stored.
today have some experience with that as well.
And what did my client do?
did was focused on one thing and one thing only.
Some of you here
Everything she
Could that
transcript of June 18, 2008 by the court reporter, could that
transcript have been falsified? And I take great exception
here. She didn't threaten anybody , she didn't threaten the
system, she didn't hurt anyone. You know what was one of the
things you didn't hear a single word about, did anyone even go
to this website? You didn't hear a word of that. Because as
many of you know, when you put a website it's the same thing as
possibly putting up a sign in the middle of a corn field. So
what?
One second.
State just used. Oh, attacked.
There was another term that the
It's an attack. What attack?
So my client recorded some conversations. She put them on a
strange little website in the middle of nowhere. Why? Because
- ---------·----175 ---- -- -
175
DAILY COpy PREPARED
r - - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
1 she was incredibly upset about these charges of computer
2 tampering. She is a computer networking expert. These charges
3 were going to destroy her life and, yes, she was trying to get
4 these things dismissed as anyone would.
5 But my client is not a lawyer. She is a
6 common run-of-the-mill person and she followed the evidence that
7 was available to her.
8 The State is trying to make my client into
9 some sort of super expert, to hold my client to the standard of
10 Bob Podlasek. She is trying to hold my client to the standard
11 of the Clerk of the Court. My client doesn't know how to read
12 this stuff, she doesn't know the law that well. She reads a few
13 things here and reads a few things there. Yes, a little bit of
14 knowledge can be a dangerous thing.
15 But the question remains, the only question
16 remains: Did she have a reasonable suspicion that Pamela Taylor
17 was involved in any sort of criminal activity? Well, what did
18 Pamela Taylor tell you? It's illegal to alter a transcript.
19 She also told you it's illegal to help someone cover that up.
20 And what did my client have? Well, my
21 client had, again, the clerk's computer, the half sheets, the
22 court sheets . That's three. And what did she do? She tried to
23 get the tape recording. She tried to get the tape recording.
24 Now that was pretty curious. Because for some reason
- 1 7 6 ~ -
176
DAILY COPY PREPARED 177
I
1
2
3
4
5
6
Miss Laudien came in here and she said well, I had them and I
checked them, and my memory of what she said on direct and then
once they get moved over to my backup then they get separated
from, you know, get separated from the actual text. It was
only on cross-examination that she claimed that it got destroyed
as well. But we know that doesn't really, that's not really the
7 way it works. We know computer files don't really get
8 destroyed.
9 She is telling us now, well, she couldn't
10 get that audio today. She couldn't get it. But we also heard
11 from Pam Taylor she wasn't going to turn that audio over. She
12 doesn't turn that over because that's her work product. That's
13 what she told you, that's her work product. What does that
14 mean, work product? You got a subpoena, you are supposed to
15 turn that over. She said, that's part of my work product, I
16 don't turn that over.
17 Five things that can prove what occurred
18 that day, and it's not five things that actually occurred, it's
19 five things as a reasonable person in my client's shoes would
20 perceive them. Everything here, you've got three things saying
21 she wasn't arraigned, and you have a tape recording that they
22 won't produce, they won't come up with, that gets destroyed,
23
24
that we had, but we don't have and we're not gonna turn over,
and then you've got the transcript. So only one in five things,
I
I
--- --- ------ ----1 77 --- --- -- -
j
I
DAILY COpy PREPARED
1---- - ----- - -- - -- -- -- --
1 I
that would be the actual transcript says that there was an
2
3
arraignment. That means that everybody else had to make an
error -- the judge, the clerk. Somehow the storage of that
4 wav. file all in error.
5 Well, all those errors, that's a reasonable
6 suspicion. That's a reasonable suspicion that there is criminal
7 activity going on, and if my client has that reasonable
8 suspicion she is allowed to tape record it. She is allowed to
9 make those recordings. There is nothing illegal about it.
10 That's the reason why the judge said to you this being an
11 exemption. It's exempt from the law, you are allowed to do it.
12 There is criminal activity going on; you can record it. That's
13 the law. So yeah, this is how it's done, to echo the State.
14 Excuse me, this is how it works. This is how it
15 works. Let's read that instruction. Because it's going to come
16 up." If you fi nd that the party who recorded the conversation
17 did so under a reasonable suspicion that another party to the
18 conversation was committing, was about to commit, or had
19 committed a criminal offense against that person and there is
20 reason to believe that evidence the criminal offense may be
21 obtained by the recording, then you should find the defendant
22 not gUil ty." Well, you heard - - we woul d have put them in if
23 the State hadn't -- you heard all those recordings. All of
24 those recordings. What's my client talking about? Is she
I
L _____________ _
- 178 -- - - - - - --
178
DAILY COpy PREPARED 179
1--- -- ---- - - - --- - -----
1 I trying to embarrass the Court Reporters office or
2 State's Attorney's office? No. She is asking one thing and one
3 thing only: Is there any way, could it possibly be, could
4 something have been altered, could it have been a mistake, could
5 it have been something worse, could it have been something more
6 nefarious?
7 Mr. Podlasek talks about all the people in
8 the system. Yes, there's a lot of people in the system, and
9 with that many cases there are mistakes made. Big ones
10 sometimes. We know that worse mistakes have happened.
11 Cook County doesn't exactly have the best reputation in terms of
12 being honest and clean. So my client absolutely had a
13 reasonabl e suspi ci on.
14 We have presented to you a lot of
15 information. A lot of information showing that my client's
16 suspicion of criminal activity was in fact completely justified.
17 Now let's talk a little bit about the
18 burdens in this case. The burden remains on the State, is
19 always on the State, and the burden is the highest burden in all
20 of law. You have heard about car accident cases. Well, that's
21 just more likely than not . This is a much more serious case,
22 obviously because this is a felony. It is a serious matter.
23 This person obviously in a criminal courthouse , the consequences
24 are severe. Therefore the burden upon the State is proof beyond
- -------- - - - - - ~ - 1 7 9
DAILY COPY PREPARED
-- - - - --- -
1 a reasonable doubt, and you will get that instruction. The
2 State has to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt .
3 That means they have to prove beyond a
4 reasonable doubt not that she was arraigned , that's irrelevant;
5 they have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she , my
6 client, didn't have a reasonable suspicion that criminal
7 activity was afoot. That's a reasonable person standard, not a
8 State ' s Attorney standard, not a judge standard, not a clerk
9 standard. Someone who doesn't know about the system and doesn't
10 know how the system operates or works. That was my client's
11 greatest fault here was really not understanding this system.
12 Ladies and gentlemen, at the end of this
13 case you are going the to get a big packet of instructions.
14 Those are the instructions I want you to follow. Those are the
15 instructions you are supposed to follow, and note in those
16 instructions that they talk about reasonable suspicion. They
17 don't talk anywhere about whether or not an arraignment
18 occurred, they don't talk about threats to the system because
19 there were no threats to the system. No one's been threatened,
20 no one's been hurt, because the Court Reporters office, nothing
21 stopped the Court Reporters office from doing its job, nothing
22 had stopped the State's Attorney's office from doing its job.
23 Throwing the wrenches into the system? What wrench into the
24 system? Look around us, we're in a courtroom. You guys are
- - - ---- - - - - ---- -
18 0 - - -
180
J
DAILY COpy PREPARED
--_._--
1 sitting right here. There has been no wrench thrown into the
2 system.
3 My client simply had a reasonable suspicion
4 of this criminal activity and she acted on it. And then because
5 she wanted to shine a light, she wanted to shine the light of
6 I truth on things, she put it on her website.
7 The State is arguing to you that, no, we
8 don't want evidence to come out, we don't want to hear things,
9 we want to keep things secret. Annabel Melongo is the one who
10 is trying, she is the one who is trying to bring the evidence
11 out. She is trying to shine the light of truth on what was
12 going on. Right or wrong, it doesn't matter as long as she is
13 being honest and she has a reasonable suspicion.
14 Ladies and gentlemen, at the end of this
15 case you are going to get all the verdict forms and as you can
16 see there is like six forms and there is going to be a bunch of
17 forms for, on both sides. I am going to ask you all please to
18 sign the Not Guilty form.
19 I Now, in a moment I assume one of the state's
20 attorneys is going to get up , and that's because their burden of
21 proof is so high, they not only get to start the closing
22 arguments and start opening arguments, they also get to
23 conclude; in other words, they get to rebut everything I am
24 saying. The only thing I ask that you question, you say to
l ____________ _
- 181 - - - - -
181
DAILY COpy PREPARED 182
-I
1 yourself, We77, what wou7d the defense be saying in this
2 situation? Because I am not going to get another opportunity to
3 get up and answer any of those things at all.
4 You know, you are going to get a copy of
5 the -- actually, you are going to get a copy of the website, get
6 a copy of all those pages, and I would like you to read through
7 as much of that as you feel is necessary. If you take a look at
8 that you'll see this thing about the 30 days. It's not even in
9 her website. It's not even in there. Mr. Podlasek's just plain
10
1 1
wrong.
If you read it on the website -- this is
12 page 12, page 12 of 17 - - it says ri ght there, "She 1 earned that
13 removal ought to be filed 30 days after arraignment or before
14 the start of the tri al ." Well, the computer tamperi ng charge
15 still hasn't gone to trial. So I don't know why they are still
16 making such a big deal out of this 30 days. The 30 days is
17 nothing. My client simply, yes, she was taking every
18 opportunity she could to try to gather evidence and facts, to
19 try to get a charge dismissed against her which she considered
20 to be, she considered to be just an aberration of justice. She
21 considered it to be completely unfair and she was upset.
22 Please, at the end of this case find my
23 client not guilty.
24 THE COURT: Thank you, counsel.
- - - - - - - - ~ ~ ~ - - 182 - - - ~ - ~ - -- ---- ---
I
1
2
3
4
argument.
DAILY COpy PREPARED
State, you may proceed with your rebuttal
MS. GUNNIGLE: Thank you, Your Honor.
5 REBUTTAL CLOSING ARGUMENT
6 by Ms. Gunnigle:
7 Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, when we
8 first met yesterday I welcomed you to 26th Street and
9 California. At this point in time you probably know a lot more
10 about the inner workings of the courthouse and all the
11 professionals that work in it than most people and in fact most
12 citizens.
13 Before I begin to talk about some of the
14 things that Mr. Albukerk referenced, I would like to direct your
15 attention to the parting words on the print-out of the website .
16 Specifically I am looking at page 16 of 17. As Mr. Podlasek
17 read, "Although we can't comment on the conversati on,
18 consciously falsifying court transcripts is not only the highest
19 treason a court official can perform, the FBI actually
20 investigates such situations. The last time it happened in
21 Cook County it was called Operation Gray Lord. The biggest
22 story behind these falsified transcripts is that the very people
23 who are supposed to uphold the law, Lisa Madigan and Anita
24 Alvarez, won't hesitate to transgress that same law to win bogus
I
l __ - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - 183 --
183
I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
DAILY COpy PREPARED 184
,- - - -----~ - ----_ . --- - ---- ~ ~ - - ---,
cases that personally benefit them. A lack of arraignment is
grounds to terminate Annabel's case. There are only three
people in the entire world who had a vested interest in that
transcript: Lisa Madigan, Anita Alvarez, and Annabel
Melongo. Since that transcript was changed only against
Annabel's interests, then the only persons who might have
ordered such a despicable act using Miss Taylor and Miss Laudien
as pawns are Lisa Madigan or Anita Alvarez. There is no word
imaginable to describe such an abuse of power and hypocrisy
surrounding it. Because there is no such word, let's just lend
a word created by one of our friends and call the present
situation the wowie-kazowie." (Phonetic) I'm not entirely sure
I am pronouncing that last word right, but I'll end it there.
The State agrees with this in part. There
are only three people who have a vested interest in the way that
transcript looks and it was the defendant Annabel Melongo who
fought to try to get it changed. It was her who started this
conspiracy theory. And when you look at it, it would have to be
one heck of a conspiracy.
Let's look at all of the people who would
have to be involved to make Miss Melongo's theory reasonable,
even in the realm of something that's imaginable. First, you
heard from the court reporters. In fact, you heard from
Miss Laudien, the court reporter who took the transcript, and
- - - - ~ - - - - - - - - -- 184 - - - - - - - ~ - - -
I
I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16 ~
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
DAILY COpy PREPARED
she was able to tell you exactly how the transcripts are made.
It's no big secret, it's no big surprise. Those audio files are
huge files, and the defense has made much of the fact that after
a transcript is made and after Miss Laudien went through it and
edited it to make sure it was right that those audio files get
purged. And that makes sense. 2.4 million cases in
Cook County. Can you imagine the space that it would take if we
were to preserve via audio every single word? And we don't
because we have reliable court reporters.
One of the instructions that you will hear
is that it is up to the jury. You are the sole judge of the
credibility of the witnesses. Was Miss Laudien credible? Did
she give any indication ever that she had gone and taken what's
insinuated by the defendant money to change a transcript or that
she was influenced by the power of, I guess, our Attorney
General or State's Attorney? Of course not.
You also heard from a member of the court
clerk staff. You heard about how all of the papers that happen
in a courtroom are created. You heard about all those papers
and how all those papers, despite admittedly they don't have an
arraignment on them, and we'll go into that a little bit later,
but all of them put Annabel Melongo in the courtroom at 26th and
California on June 18th of 2008. You also heard from her
attorney, the same attorney who would have to be a conspirator
185
- - - - - ---185 ~ - --------
__ J
DAILY COpy PREPARED
1 in this farfetched conspiracy to make Miss Melongo's theory even
2 reasonable, and you heard that she was arraigned. It doesn't
3 make sense that she wouldn't be.
4 And the reason why, and the defense has gone
5 into this, is that an arraignment is a defendant's opportunity
6 to hear the charges against them and to plead guilty or not.
7 Nobody had an interest in keeping those charges from her, and as
8 you can see from the docket Miss Melongo continued to represent
9 herself on the charges . That she had charges pending against
10 her in Cook County, it was no big surprise and no big mystery.
11 Judge Schreier , I guess would also have to
12 be a member of this conspiracy to make Miss Melongo's theory
13 reasonable. And what we heard is that Judge Schreier apparently
14 didn't make a note on one of his sheets that he in fact
arraigned Miss Melongo. 15
16 But what's the result of that? I mean if
17 merely missing a note. We heard what happens next. We heard it
18 from the court clerk that that note is probably why it didn't
19 appear on the half sheet and probably why it didn't appear on
20 the docket sheet. But if merely missing a note isn't enough to
21 give you reasonable suspicion, it would be merely enough to give
22 every defendant reasonable suspicion to roam the halls of 26th
23 Street every time a judge missed a note and start recording
24 I conversations.
-186 - ~
186
DAILY COPY PREPARED
1 MR. ALBUKERK : Objection.
2 THE COURT: Overruled.
3 MS. GUNNIGLE: In the instructions you will hear
4 today , you will hear actually more about reasonable suspicion
5 than what Mr. Albukerk told you. Because merely having a
6 reasonable suspicion that a crime was committed against you,
7 that's not enough. That's not enough under the statute and
8 that's not enough under the instruction that you will read.
9 Because you don't have to just have that reasonable suspicion
10 that a crime is going to be committed but you also have to have
11 the reasonable suspicion that the person you are recording is
12 the person who is committing that crime against you. And
13 Miss Melongo didn't have that.
14 You can read. You can read from the very
15 first transcript of the phone calls , she doesn't even know who
16 Pamela Taylor is . She asks what her position is. She has no
17 idea how she would even fit into this created conspiracy that
18 she posts to a website. She just doesn't know. And her own
19 website supports this. Let's look at it.
20 I would like to direct your attention on to
21 page 11 of 17. There is a long paragraph and there is a short
22 paragraph at the bottom. I would like to read to you from that
23 short paragraph. It says , "Ti red by the events of the day,
187
24 Annabel took a bus to get to the train station . That's when she
· 187
J
DAILY COpy PREPARED
1 was first contacted by a dramatic creature, a creature that
2 might have well existed in the Precambrian era, who by something
3 strange natural factors had made it to the modern era. So
4 before introducing you to this living, yet undiscovered and rare
5 specimen known as Miss Pamela Taylor, here is a little
6 background to help you understanding why she contacted Annabel."
7 Then it starts talking about her notice of removal to federal
8 court, it starts talking about the certified transcripts. But
9 what it doesn't talk about is how Miss Taylor , when she starts
10 recording these conversations , could have even possibly been
11 i nvo 1 ved .
12 She didn't have reasonable suspicion that
13 Miss Taylor was involved at all when she recorded those
14 conversations. And we know that . We know that this is
15 something that is manufactured after the fact. That's the only
16 thing that makes sense in this case.
1 7 Let's look at what it makes sense. Let's
18 pretend for just a moment that this conspiracy happened, that
19 the court reporters, the court clerk, her own attorney, Judge
20 Schreier, Anita Alvarez and Lisa Madigan were all in a vast
21 conspiracy to manufacture an arraignment for whatever reason
22 against Miss Melongo? What's the reasonable thing to do in that
23 situation? Well, the reasonable thing to do would be what
24 Miss Taylor told Miss Melongo to do: To take it before a judge.
1 88 - - -
188
DAILY COpy PREPARED
,----
1 I She didn't do that. Miss Taylor told her take it to an
2 attorney. She didn't do that. She eventually and this is
3 several days after, according to those conversations, took the
4 case to the FBI. But that was even after it was published to
5 the Web. Now I ask you , if there is actually a criminal
6 conspiracy out there, a criminal conspiracy if it exists
7 undoubtedly deserves to be investigated. Why on earth would you
8 reveal your investigation to the general public on a website?
9 I submit to you , ladies and gentlemen, that
10 Miss Melongo didn't believe that at all, that this website was
11 put together for one purpose and one purpose only, which was to
12 try and draw as many people to it and to try to incriminate the
13 court reporters until they changed her transcript.
14 Mr. Albukerk asked, so what? So what about
15 the website? So what? You put this out in the middle of
16 nowhere and no one comes to view it, so what? But as you will
17 see, there is actually a counter on that website that's been
18 entered into evidence and at the time the website was preserved
19 there were 3400 hits. 3400 possible people who go on to her
20 website reading that and thinking, as Mr. Albukerk put it, that
21 Cook County doesn't have the best reputation and reading about
22 this alleged conspiracy.
23 Today in court, and as Mr. Albukerk has
24 pointed out, Miss Melongo is admittedly not a lawyer. She is
--189
189
DAILY COPY PREPARED
~ - - - - -
1 I here and, i n her own words, playing the role of the "naive and
2 I
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
ignorant immigrant" from her website. But the evidence shows
something much different. It shows that she knew that she was
arraigned and that when she made these calls it wasn't because
she had any sort of reasonable suspicion, it was because she had
a desperation, a desperation to get out of the case against her
and she thought this was her out.
Now today we are going to present to you two
verdict forms actually, it's four verdict forms. One reads:
10 Eavesdropping without consent, guilty or not guilty . And the
11 jury, it is for your consideration everything that we have
12 presented before you today, and we submit to you that you should
13 read every last thing in here. Because you know what, it is
14 important, and it does show that Annabel didn't have any consent
15 from Miss Taylor when she recorded those conversations, she
16 never asked Miss Taylor whether she should be recorded. And
17 that in itself without any sort of reasonable suspicion is
18 enough to find her guilty on that count.
19 There is going to be another two verdict
20 forms for your consideration as well, and the second verdict
21 form will read: Eavesdropping/divulging information. Because
22 under Illinois law it is not just a crime to record someone and
23 not tell them about it but it is also a crime when you make it
24 public. When you make it public to 3400 potential people that
- 190 -
190
DAILY COPY PREPARED
1 1- are on 1; ne. And we are ~ l so go; ng to ask you that you fi nd her
2 guilty on that count. What the defendant did wasn't reasonable.
3 She had no reasonable suspicion . She knew it, she was
4 desperate, and this was her out. As such , I will ask you to
5 find Miss Annabel Melongo, the defendant, guilty of two counts:
6 Eavesdropping without consent and eavesdropping by divulging
7
8
information.
Thank you so much for your time and your
9 careful consideration.
10 THE COURT: Thank you, State.
11 Members of the jury, the evidence and the
12 arguments in this case have been completed and I will now
13 instruct you as to the law. The law that applies to this case
14 is stated in these instructions and it is your duty to follow
15 all of them. You must not single out certain instructions and
16 di sregard others. Whenever I wri te the word "he" in these
17 instructions I mean a male or a female .
18 It is your duty to determine the facts and
19 to determine them only from the evidence in this case . You are
20 to apply the law to the facts and in this way decide the case .
21 You are not to concern yourself with
22 possible punishment or sentence for the offense charged during
23 your deliberation. It is the function of the trial judge , which
24 is myself , to determine the sentence should there be a verdict
L _____ ~ ~
- ~ - - - - 1 9 1
191
DAILY COPY PREPARED
I
1 of guilty.
2 Neither sympathy nor prejudice should
3 influence you. You should not be influenced by any person's
4 race, color, religion, or national ancestry.
5 From time to time it's been the duty of the
6 court to rule on the admissibility of the evidence. You should
7 not concern yourselves with the reasons for these rulings. You
8 should disregard questions and exhibits which were withdrawn or
9 to which objections were sustained .
10 Any evidence that was received for a limit
11 purpose should not be considered by you for any other purpose.
12 You should disregard testimony and exhibits which the court has
13 refused or stricken.
14 The evidence which you should consider
15 consists only of the testimony of the witnesses, the exhibits,
16 and stipulations which the court has received. You should
17 consider all of the evidence in light of your own observations
18 and experience in life. Neither by these instructions nor by
19 any ruling or remark which I have made do I mean to indicate any
20 opinion as to the facts or as to what your verdict should be.
21 Faithful performance by you of your duty as
22 jurors;s vital to the administration of justice.
23 Only you are the judges of the believability
24 of the witnesses and of the weight to be given to the testimony
- - ~ - - - --1 92 - -----
192
DAILY COPY PREPARED
- ~ - - - ~ - -- ----
1 ~ each of them. In considering the testimony of any witness,
2 I ~ o u may take into account his ability and opportunity to
3 observe, his memory, his manner while testifying, any interest,
4 bias, or prejudice he may have , and the reasonableness of hi s
5 testimony considered in the light of all of the evidence in the
6 case.
193
~ I
7 Opening statements are made by the attorneys
8 to acquaint you with the facts they expect to prove. Closing
9 arguments are made by the attorneys to discuss the facts and
10 circumstances in the case and they should be confined to the
11 evidence and to reasonable inferences to be drawn from the
12 evidence . Neither opening statements or closing arguments are
13 evidence and any statement or argument made by the attorneys
14 which is not based on the evidence should be disregarded.
15 Those of you who took notes during the trial
16 can use your notes to refresh your memory during the jury
17 deliberations. Each juror should rely on his or her own
18 recollection of the evidence. Just because a juror took notes
19 does not necessarily mean his or her recollection of the
20 evidence is any better or more accurate than the recollection of
21 a juror who did not take notes .
22 When you are discharged from further service
23 in thi s case, your notes are goi ng to be coll ected by the deputy I
24 and destroyed. Throughout the process your notes will be
- 193
DAILY COpy PREPARED
1 confidential and nobody will be able to see them.
2 The defendant is charged with the offense of
3 eavesdropping. The defendant has pleaded not guilty.
4 The charge against the defendant in this
5 case is contained in a document called the indictment. This
6 document is the formal method of charging the defendant and
7 putting the defendant on trial. It is not any evidence against
8 the defendant .
9 The defendant is presumed to be innocent of
10 the charge against him. This presumption remains with him
11 throughout every stage of the trial and during your
12 deliberations on the verdict and is not overcome unless from all
13 the evidence in the case you are convinced beyond a reasonable
14 doubt that he is guilty. The State has the burden of proving of
15 proving the guilt of the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt and
16 this burden remains on the State throughout the case. The
17 defendant is not required to prove his innocence .
18 The fact that the defendant did not testify
19 must not be considered by you in any way in arriving at your
20 verdict. One moment.
21 [PAUSE HELD]
22 THE COURT: Evidence has been received that the
23 defendant has been involved in an offense other than those
24 charged in the indictment. This evidence has been received on
194
1 9 4 ~ - - ~ ~ -
J
DAILY COPY PREPARED 195
1
2
the issue of the defendant's intent and may be considered by
only for that limited purpose.
you I
3 A person commits the offense of
4 eavesdropping by use or divulgence of information when he uses
5 or divulges any information which he knows or reasonably should
6 know was obtained through the use of an eavesdropping device
7 without the consent of all parties to the conversation.
8 It is not a violation of the eavesdropping
9 law if the person making the recording is a party to that
10 conversation and has a reasonable suspicion that another party
11 to the conversation is committing , is about to commit, or has
12 committed a criminal offense against her and there is reason to
13 believe that evidence of the criminal offense may be obtained by
14 the recordi ng .
15 To sustain the charge of eavesdropping by
16 use of an eavesdropping device the State must prove the
17 following propositions beyond a reasonable doubt. First
18 proposition: That the defendant knowingly used an eavesdropping
19 device to hear or record all or part -- let me start over with
20 that first proposition.
21 First proposition: That the defendant
22 knowingly used an eavesdropping device to hear or record all or
23 any part of a conversation; and , second proposition, that the
24 defendant did so without the consent of all parties to the
--195
1
2
DAILY COpy PREPARED
----- - --- -
If you find from your consideration of all
3
4
the evidence that the first proposition and the second
proposition have both been proved beyond a reasonable doubt and
5 that the individual who recorded the conversation did not have a
6 reasonable suspicion that another party to the conversation was
7 committing, about to commit, or had already committed a crime
8 against her or that there was no reason to believe that evidence
9 of the criminal offense may be obtained by the recording, then
10 you should find the defendant guilty.
11 If you find from your consideration of all
12 the evidence that either one of these propositions have not been
13 proved beyond a reasonable doubt or you find that the party who
14 recorded the conversation did so under a reasonable suspicion
15 that another party to the conversation was committing, was about
16 to commit, or had committed a criminal offense against that
17 person and there is reason to believe that evidence of the
18 criminal offense may be obtained by the recording, then you
19 should find the defendant not guilty.
20 To sustain the charge of eavesdropping by
21 use or divulgence of information , the State must prove the
22 following propositions: First, that the defendant used or
23 divulged any information obtained from a conversation and
24 devices to hear or record all or any part of the conversation ;
196
196 -- ---- -- -- - -,
DAILY COpy PREPARED
1 and, second proposition, that the defendant did so without the
2 consent of all parties to the conversation; and, third, that the
3 defendant knew or reasonably should have known that this
4 information was obtained through the use of an eavesdropping
5 device.
6 If you find from your consideration of all
7 of the evidence that the first proposition and the second
8 proposition, that both were proved beyond a reasonable doubt and
9 that the individual who recorded the conversation did not have a
10 reasonable suspicion that another party to the conversation was
11 committing, about to commit, or had committed a crime against
12 her or that there was no reason to believe that evidence of the
13 criminal offense may be obtained by the recording, then you
14 should find the defendant guilty.
15 If you find from your consideration of all
16 the evidence that either one of these propositions have not been
17 proved beyond a reasonable doubt or if you find that the party
18 who recorded the conversation did so under a reasonable
19 suspicion that another party to the conversation was committing,
20 was about to commit, or had committed a criminal offense against
21 that person and there is reason to believe that evidence of the
22 criminal offense may be obtained by the recording, then you
23 should find the defendant not guilty.
24 The word "conversation" means any oral
------- - --197
197
DAILY COPY PREPARED
~ - - - - -
1 communication between two or more persons regardless of whether
2 one or more of the parties intended their communication to be of
3 a private nature under circumstances justifying that
4 expectation.
5 The term "eavesdropping device" means any
6 device capable of being used to hear or record a conversation,
7 whether such conversation's conducted in person, by telephone,
8 or by any other means.
9 When you retire to the jury room you will
10 first elect one of your own members as your foreperson. He or
11 she will preside during your deliberations on your verdicts.
12 Your agreement on a verdict must be unanimous. Your verdicts
13 must be in writing and signed by all of you, including your
14 I foreperson.
15 The defendant is charged in different ways
16 with the offense of eavesdropping. You are going to receive two
17 forms of verdict pertaining to each particular way that the
18 offense of eavesdropping is charged. As to each particular way
19 the offense of eavesdropping is charged you will be provided
20 with both a Not Guilty and Guilty form of verdict. From these
21 two verdict forms -- Let me back up. From these two forms as
22 to each particular way that the offense of eavesdropping is
23 charged, you should select the one verdict form that reflects
24 your verdict and sign it as I have stated. Do not write on the
- - - 1 98
198
I
DAILY COPY PREPARED
1 other verdict form. Sign only one verdict form as to each
2 particular way that the offense of eavesdropping is charged.
3 The first pair of verdict forms reads as
4 follows, and one of these will come out signed: We, the jury,
5 find the defendant, Annabel K. Me10ngo, not guilty of
6 eavesdropping without consent; or, we, the jury, find the
7 defendant, Annabel K. Me10ngo, guilty of eavesdropping without
8 consent. They are all formatted the same way: The top line is
9 for the foreperson, followed by eleven other signatures. Again,
10 one of these will be signed .
11 The second and final pair of verdict forms
12 reads as follows: We, the jury, find the defendant, Annabel K.
13 Me10ngo, not guilty of eavesdropping/divulging information.
14 Companion verdict form: We, the jury, find the defendant,
15 Annabel K. Me10ngo, guilty of eavesdropping/divulging
16 information. Again, they are formatted the same way.
199
17
18
Can I have the deputies that are going to be I
with me step into court, please. Is there anybody else? The
19 two of you. All right.
20
21
THE DEPUTY SHERIFF: Just us.
THE COURT: Will you both please raise your right
22 hand for me. Do you and each of you solemnly swear that you are
23 going to take this jury to a safe and convenient place provided
24 by the Sheriff of Cook County and keep them there together and
L _ ___ _
- - ~ 1 9 9
DAILY COPY PREPARED 200
1
2
3
4
5
6
--:n · tl et anyone speak to t hem nor tal k to them you rse 1 ves about !
this case, and when they have agreed upon a verdict you will I
return them back into open court to me?
THE MALE DEPUTY SHERIFF: I will.
THE FEMALE DEPUTY SHERIFF: (Nodding)
THE COURT: I will ask John Garius and Marion
7 McClusly, (phonetics) if you two could head to the jury room
8 first and get your belongings and head back out and everybody
9 else can follow. I'm just trying to get them to get a head
10 start into the jury room for their belongings. Now the rest of
11 you can also follow and you will begin your deliberations.
12 We'll have the instructions back with you in a minute.
13
14
15
16
17 6: 40.
THE DEPUTY SHERIFF: All rise for the jury.
(WHEREUPON , the jury exited the
cou rt room . )
THE COURT: For the record the jury is out at
18 I did want to put on the record I noticed as
19 I went through the instructions, and the parties probably saw,
20 there were two presumption of innocence instructions in the
21 packet by accident . So maybe they were just only mine, so I
22 obviously just read one of them, if anybody caught that.
23 All right . Let's get the exhibits . I have
24 the original No.2, I believe, the stipulation. Which is the
L ~ _
- 200 - ~ -
DAILY COpy PREPARED
original? 1
2
3
MR. PODLASEK: This.
THE COURT: This one, okay. Do I have any
4 originals up here?
5 MR. PODLASEK: I don't think so.
6 THE COURT: Why don't you get all of the exhibits
7 together that we agreed on , show them to counsel . Defense, get
8 your exhibits ready as well and go through them, make sure you
9 are in agreement, and we'll send them back.
10 MR. ALBUKERK: That was Exhibit 1. That was
11 Exhibit 1, that subpoena.
12 THE COURT: First do the exhibits and we'll talk
13 about the discs, please.
14 MR. ALBUKERK: Judge.
15 THE COURT: Yes?
16 MR. ALBUKERK: I was wrong. I think Exhibit 1 was
17 the subpoena. That was -- we entered into evidence, we talked
18 about it. That's what I think it was. I got confused between
19 that. I wasn't keeping good notes .
20 THE COURT: So you are saying Defense No. 1 was
21 what?
22 MR. ALBUKERK: Was of a subpoena that was given to
23 Pam Taylor. I think maybe that's what it was.
24 THE COURT: On cross?
I
L
201
201
DAILY COPY PREPARED
1 MR. ALBUKERK: Yeah. Well, does it say anything
2 on here?
3 THE COURT: I don't have that listed in my notes.
4 MR. ALBUKERK: You know what, and I don't have
5 anything listed here either. Although -- well, it's on the
6 website.
7 THE COURT: I don't have that listed.
8 MR. ALBUKERK: Never mind. Thank you. Thanks for
9 checking your notes.
10 THE COURT: Defense, I want you to look at these
11 exhibits so you are in agreement that they are the ones we have
12 discussed, along with yours. Have you brought your exhibit up?
13 MR. ALBUKERK: Give me one second. Well, it's
14 just the one copy we are taking back to the jury, right? Where
15 is that one e-mail? Actually, I think I gave it to Bob.
16 THE COURT: State, do you have that in your
17 packet.
18 MS. GUNNIGLE: I don't believe we have it in our
19 packet, but I'm sure we have it somewhere.
20 THE COURT: It's not going back to the jury.
21 That's coming in and you've got --
22 MR. PODLASEK: Check these other ones.
23 THE COURT: Now, is this the laptop you want to
24 send back there and the TV?
L ~ __ ___ _
---202 - - -
202
DAILY COpy PREPARED
-------
MR. PODLASEK: Yes, Judge. If they want to.
203
-[
2 THE COURT: I will send it back there. Once you
3 are done with these exhibits then I am going to turn my
4 attention to that disc and see how easy it is to operate and
5 I'll have the deputy show them how to do it.
6 MS. GUNNIGLE: Judge, I have State's proffered 3,
7 the one we talked about this morning.
8 (Document tendered to the court.)
9 THE COURT: You know, State, this never got used.
10 Hold on to it. If there is a conviction I'll have you impound
11 it and we'll note that on the court file that it will get
12 impounded.
MR. ALBUKERK: That's everything. 13
14 THE COURT: Except for the disc. So let me --
15 where is the CD? It's in there. So how easy is this? So,
16 deputy, can you see here?
17 THE DEPUTY SHERIFF: Yeah.
18 THE COURT: Let's see how easy this is.
19 You have already lost me. Are either of you
20 guys computer?
21 THE DEPUTY SHERIFF: Can't you just hit Play?
22 MR. ALBUKERK: No, but
23 THE COURT: Let's just leave it up like this. And
24 if they have a question they can continue to look through it or
203
DAILY COPY PREPARED
1 they can get us.
2 MS. GUNNIGLE: And they can navigate it just like
3 that.
4 THE COURT: Just leave it up like that. Just have
5 it up. So, deputies, are you ready?
6 THE DEPUTY SHERIFF: Yeah.
7 THE COURT: Here we go. These are the
8 instructions and the exhibits and then you can take the TV back.
9 We'll get you two on your way in one second.
10 THE DEPUTY SHERIFF: TV or laptop?
1 1 THE COURT: They're not going to need the TV. Let
12 me just ask you this: Unplugging that how complicated is that
13 going to be? Is it going to screw anything up?
14 THE DEPUTY SHERIFF: I'll send the charger back .
15 THE COURT: Off the record.
16 (WHEREUPON, the jury started its deliberations.)
17
18 (WHEREUPON, the foll owi ng proceedi ng
19 was hel d outsi de the presence of the
20 jury as foll ows: )
21 THE COURT: Let's bring out Melongo, please.
22 Everybody is present in court. I had
23 actually called for the State to be brought down. I wanted to
24 discuss with the parties what we were going to do since it was
204
I
~ - ~ - - ~ --204 - - ~
___ J
----------
DAILY COpy PREPARED 205
1 10 o'clock and the jury started deliberating at 6:40.
2 I did get a note from the jurors. It says ,
3 "Can we continue tomorrow?" And it is signed by Richard, and
4 the last name begins with an M. So the position of the parties
5 is what? Are both sides in agreement to have the jury come back
6 tomorrow and start deliberating?
7 MR. ALBUKERK: Yes, Judge .
8 MS. GUNNIGLE : Yes, Judge.
9 THE COURT: I believe it is Richard Miller to
10 clarify the record. My proposed note back to them is this :
11 "Jurors, we wi 11 reconvene in the morni ng. Do you want to start
12 at 10 or 10:30 in the morning?" And then we will wait for their
13 answer which should be momentarily and then we will bring them
14 out with admonitions. Is that all right with everybody?
15 MR. ALBUKERK : Yes .
16 MS. GUNNIGLE: Yes.
17 THE COURT: Both sides in agreement?
18 MR. ALBUKERK : Yes.
19 MS . GUNNIGLE : Yes.
20 [PAUSE HELD]
21 THE COURT: Okay. The jurors do want to start at
22 10 a . m. So can you ask them to bring all of their belongings
23 with them. They can leave their notebooks, we'll lock them up
24 and all the evidence on the table, and bring all their
- - - -- 2 0 5 - ----
J
----------
DAILY COpy PREPARED
1 belongings out. Bring them to the jury box . I'll have a
2 conversation with them. You have folks ready to get to their
3 cars? There is other deputies? Okay .
4 THE DEPUTY SHERIFF: All rise for the jury .
5 (WHEREUPON, the jury reentered the
6 courtroom.)
7 THE COURT: Everyone may be seated.
8 Good evening , ladies and gentlemen of the
9 jury. I just have a few admonitions before I let you go for the
10 evening. It is very important, especially now that jury
11 deliberations have begun. You certainly can't talk to anybody
12 about the case. Certainly those people at home are going to
13 want to know a lot more about what the heck you were doing a77
14 night , why are you so 7ate , what happened during court? So you
15 have to stand firm and not be able to tell them anything.
16 Again, this decision is only among the twelve of you . Now that
17 the deliberations have stopped , you can't even talk to each
18 other about the case while you are on your way to your car or
19 even in the morning when you get here and there is maybe six or
20 eight of you here but the rest have not arrived yet. You can't
21 begin deliberations until I tell you tomorrow once you're going
22 to get all the evidence back and the jury instructions. You can
23 talk about anything else as you are waiting for everybody to get
24 together but you can't start deliberating about the case until I
1 ___ _____ _
- 206 - ---
206
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12 I
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
DAILY COPY PREPARED
tell you it's set to go.
Now I will also tell you this. Over a lot
of years and many, many, many juries that eve been involved in,
I have never -- you are my test case I have never let a jury
go home while they were in the midst of deliberations. So it's
very important that I have you all back here tomorrow. You have
requested the 10 o'clock start time so, of course, I wanted to
give you a little bit of a choice with that since we have had
you here all day. But it's very very important that you do all
return obviously, the case depends upon it, and that you are all
here promptly so that you can all begin to deliberate at ten,
because I can't let you start deliberating until you are all
here.
Tomorrow your day is not going to depend on
me and my court call at all. So walk right on through. We will
probably be doing cases as we were today, so you can come
through. But you won't have to wait until I am done with any of
the cases. Once the deputy gives me word all twelve of you are
in place, you're not going to come out, I'm not going to talk to
you again, I'll just know you are there. You'll get your
evidence and instructions once the twelve of you are there and
you can get started. So you won't be delayed by our call at all
tomorrow. It's just up to you to be there. I am asking you to
please not let me regret my decision to send you home for a
207
207
J
--- --------
DAILY COPY PREPARED
1 rest. You have been here all day today, but we need you to come
2 back tomorrow so that we can continue on.
3 So with that being said, everybody have a
4 good evening. I'll see you tomorrow at 10 a.m. All rise for
5 the jury. And the deputies will make sure you get safely to
6 your cars. They are ready for you out there.
7
8 (WHEREUPON, the jury left the
9 cou rt room and was excused unt i 1
208
10 tomorrow morni ng, January 14, 2011, at
11 10 a.m.)
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
CONTINUANCE TO JANUARY 14, 2011
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ - - 2 0 8
-- --- - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
DAILY COpy PREPARED 209
----- - - _.-
1 STATE OF ILLINOIS )
2 ) ss:
3 COUNTY OF COOK
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
I, KATHIE KERNS, CSR, Official Shorthand Reporter of
the Circuit Court of Cook County, County Department - Criminal
Division, do hereby certify that I reported in shorthand the
evidence had in the above-entitled cause and that the foregoing
is a true and correct transcript of all the evidence heard.
/ /_7
/' -
# , ~ /
/ /
ficial Shorthand Reporte
-
Circuit Court of Cook County
On this 9th day of November, 2011
- 209
r
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
STATE OF ILLINOIS
SS:
COUNTY OF COOK
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS
COUNTY DEPARTMENT-CRIMINAL DIVISION
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
-vs- No. IOCR 8092 01
ANNABEL JVIEI..ONGO
REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS had at the
hearing of the above-entitled cause before Mary M. Brosnahan, one
of the judges of said division, on the 14th day of January, A.D.,
2011.
PRESENT:
MS. ANITA ALVAREZ, Cook County State's Attorney by
MR. ROBERT PODLASEK, Assistant State's Attorney,
MS. JULIE GUNNIGLE, Assistant State's Attorney,
on behalf of the People;
MR. NICOLAS ALBUKERK,
on behalf of the Defendant.
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
PROCEEDINGS
Notes from jury
Prim instruction given
Note from jury
Jury hung
INDEX
PAGE
2
1 (Whereupon the following proceedings were had in court
2 outside the presence of the jury.)
3 THE COURT: If I could have my deputies stand and face me.
4 Do you solemnly swear that you're going to keep this
5 Jury in the jury room in a safe and convenient place provided by
6 the Sheriff of Cook County, keep them there together and don't let
7 anyone talk to them or talk to them about the case yourself and
8 when they've agreed upon their verdict, you're going to bring them
9 back to open court?
10 THE DEPUTY SHERIFFS: I will.
11 (Case passed)
12 THE COURT: Annabel Melongo.
13 (Pause in proceedings)
14 THE COURT: All right. Good morning, ma' am. We've got Miss
15 Melongo present in court on the jury.
16 For the record the jurors did start deliberating at
17 approximately 10: 15 this morning. The computer was delivered back
18 to them along with the evidence and they started their
19 deliberations on the jury.
20 At about 10:30 a.m. I received a question. The
21 attorneys have been notified and here is the question: "Does the
22 Defendant's name have to be on or below line 16 of the transcript
23 that they are present or not? Should Defendant's name be there?"
24 Signed by the foreperson, Richard Miller. So proposed answers to
3
1 the question.
2 MR. PODLASEK: It does not.
3 MR. ALBUKERK: Judge, I believe - - I believe it's not a
4 question that should be answered. I believe they should be given
5 the Prim instruction. You've been given all the evidence to
6 consider. It's already been answered.
7 THE COURT: I '11 interrupt you for a moment because I'm not
8 giving Prim. Nobody said anything about being deadlocked or
9 unable to reach a verdict. They're continuing on with their
10 deliberations. They're into their fourth hour now so Prim is not
11 a possibility just yet.
12 MR. ALBUKERK: In any event, Judge, I don't think it's
13 appropriate for us to corrment one way or another. We've already
14 given the evidence to them and they're basically asking for new,
15 additional evidence. We're not supposed to be doing that.
16 THE COURT: You're saying it's new evidence so your position
17 is this information -- hold on. Be quiet. I'm talking to your
18 lawyer so don't interrupt him.
19 My question to you is is it your position that this
20 evidence never came out during the trial?
21 MR. ALBUKERK: Personally I don't remember it ever comlng out
22 one way or another but I don't -- I don't remember it coming out.
23 I don't remember it coming out.
24 THE COURT: Okay. Let me just ask --
4
1 MR. PODLASEK: It came out through laurel laudien and I
2 believe Pam Taylor because my questions, which in part were
3 written out, include those questions.
4 THE COURT: Let me ask you this: Does any:body have a
5 transcript of any of the testimony from yesterday?
6 MR. PODLASEK: I do not. I left here so late I couldn't --
7 THE COURT: Sure. The Court Reporter was here until 10: 30.
8 If you want to take a minute and see if those transcripts are
9 available, I' 11 let you make that phone call and then we can corne
10 back and go from there depending on what they're answering.
11 MR. PODLASEK: All right.
12 THE COURT: Okay?
13 MR. ALBUKERK: Judge, for the record we would object to any of
14 the transcript being brought back to the jurors.
15 THE COURT: All right. That's a little premature since we
16 don't have one yet. We'll see if that's even a possibility.
17 (Case passed)
18 THE COURT: Bring out Miss Melongo please. Is she dressed?
19 MR. ALBUKERK: No. Do you want me to get her clothes?
20 THE COURT: You can bring her out in her DOC but she should be
21 dressed because ul timatel y something is going to happen.
22 MR. ALBUKERK: Yeah, yeah.
2 3 (Pause in proceedings)
24 THE COURT: Okay. We've got Miss Melongo present In court.
5
1 The jurors had directed an earlier question to us.
2 "Does the Defendant's name have to be on or below line 16 of the
3 transcript that they are present or not? Should Defendant's name
4 be there?" And the State at that time did not have a transcript
5 prepared and now you're tendering to me a four page transcript
6 which is not a transcript in total of Miss laudien' s testimony but
7 rather it's a transcript that appears to answer that question.
8 Defense, you've had a chance to review the -- it's actually a page
9 and-a-half of actual questions and answers.
1 0 !VIR. ALBUKERK: Correct .
11 THE COURT: What's your position?
12 !VIR. ALBUKERK: Judge, for the record I have to obj ect . The
13 evidence has already gone back to the jury. I believe that
14 tendering any new evidence at this time would put too much
15 enphasis on one piece of evidence over another. Also tendering
16 this transcript, although it does appear to answer the question, I
1 7 have to concede that, Judge, you know, you know, again because
18 it's so narrow in its scope it would tend to place undue pressure
19 to that particular point or enphasize that particular point and,
20 therefore, for the record I have to object.
21 THE COURT: Okay. I understand your position and it's my duty
22 as the Court where I can if I can answer a juror's question
23 wi thout introducing new evidence to them or in any way trying to
24 influence their decision, it's my obligation to do that. It was a
6
1 very narrowly drawn question that they had that had to do with
2 People's Exhibit Number 4, the transcript at issue that was in
3 front of Judge Schreier on I believe it's 6-18-08.
4 !VIR. AlBUKERK: Yes.
5 THE COURT : 6-18- 08 . So this snippet of the direct
6 examination answers exactly the question that they asked and, ln
7 fact, if the Court Reporter were to come to court without a
8 transcript prepared and were to be able to find in her notes or
9 her computer the question and answer, I would consider bringing
10 the jury out and having the question and answer read to them.
11 Again this is not any new evidence. We're not
12 formulating an answer. It's just giving to them a portion of the
13 transcript that answers directly the question.
14 And I take it based on the fact it says daily copy on
15 top and that we were in the court until 10: 30 at night that you at
16 this juncture do not have the entire transcript of the testimony.
1 7 !VIR . PODLASEK: I do not.
18 THE COURT: All right . Over the Defense obj ection then I'm
19 going to send this back. I believe i t accurately answers the
20 narrowly drawn question they have so I'm going to send it back to
21 them. Deputy, if you could take this back to them please.
22 And, Miss Melongo, I'm going -- I think she should be
23 changed so that when you do bring her out at some point, the
24 jury - - you'll be in front of the jury today so you can change
7
1 into your jury clothes.
2 IVIR. AI..BUKERK: Judge, my client is asking that the entire
3 Laudien transcript be brought out - - be tendered to the jurors.
4 TI-IE COURT: Okay. Well, at this point there is no entire
5 transcript in front -- in front of me to make that ruling. I
6 don't have the entire transcript. So if the State is getting that
7 prepared and they have an additional question, of course, I would
8 consider your request at that time but we don't have it.
9 IVIR. AI..BUKERK: Could we - - could we order - - could we order
10 that transcript then at this time? I mean because -- and I say
11 this only because when the Defense tries - - tries to add - - tries
12 to get excerpts or tries to get, you know, limited transcripts, we
13 are told that we're not allowed to get that, however, the State is
14 allowed to get limited transcripts and that's the reason I would
15 ask that it be procured in that way.
16 TI-IE COURT: You're asking for Miss Laudien's direct and cross?
1 7 IVIR. AI..BUKERK: Right. Correct.
18 TI-IE COURT: Is that getting worked on, if you know?
19 IVIR. PODLASEK: I don't know.
2 0 TI-IE COURT: Is there anything in particular with the cross
21 examination, a question and answer that you
22 IVIR. AI..BUKERK: Yeah. Well, there is -- there lS -- well,
23 first we think that they should look at her testimony in total and
24 there are things in there that -- we have questions about.
8
1 THE COURT: Well, at this point I don't have that transcript
2 in front of me so I can't rule on sending it back. It's quite
3 simply not here.
4 lVlR. AlBUKERK: Right.
5 THE COURT: As I said, it was a narrow question they had and I
6 would have had the Court Reporter read those questions and answers
7 that were responsive to that for the jury if they were unable to
8 prepare this short transcript that actually has the question and
9 answer on it. So basically I can't rule on it because it's not In
10 existence at this point. If they have another question that
11 relates to Miss Laudien, I will tell the State to inquire to see
12 if it's possible to get the entire transcript prepared but right
13 now we don't have that. As you know, we were here until 10: 30
14 last night and the -- the jury came back at 10: 00 this morning so
15 the Court Reporter I understand was in a different courtroom or
16 working.
17 lVlR. PODLASEK: She was in a different courtroom. She came
18 back--
19 THE COURT: Then they pulled her from the courtroom to go
20 through her notes to find the answer to this question if it was In
21 there.
22 lVlR. AlBUKERK: And so at this time our request to have the
23 entire transcript prepared is being denied?
24 THE COURT: Well, it's not for me to -- I can't order it to be
9
1 prepared.
2 MR. AlBUKERK: Our problem is that the Defense -- it has been
3 my experience in ordering transcripts that the Court Reporter's
4 office will not order just portions of transcripts for the
5 Defense. They will only -- they will only agree to do entire days
6 worth of transcripts. That's the reason why I'm bringing my
7 request to the Court because in the past when I've asked could you
8 just, you know, give me the direct or the cross or one witness,
9 I've been told no, that's not possible but when the State asks for
10 it, they get it and when the Court asks for it, they get it and I
11 understand it's just a custom thing but all the same I don't have
12 it wi thin my power to order - - to order just the whole transcript.
13 THE COURT: Well, I will ask the State to call the Court
14 Reporter and ask her what's the possibility of preparing the
15 entire direct and cross examination and approximately how long
16 would that take.
1 7 MR. PODLASEK: Okay.
18 THE COURT: If it does get here, then you can review it and
19 then we'll see if there's anything that would be relevant. They
20 haven't asked for her whole testimony. They just had a specific
21 question and answer they were looking for, not - - they didn't ask
22 to review her testimony which at times jurors do as we all know.
23 MR. AlBUKERK: Sure.
24 THE COURT: Sometimes they want to review everything from
10
1 start to finish. They haven't requested that.
2 lVIR. AlBUKERK: Right.
3 THE COURT: If you can inquire about that possibility, I'll
4 take it from there.
5 lVIR. PODLASEK: We will and before I do may I ask am I ordering
6 this on behalf of the Defense because they are going to send us an
7 invoice. We had an invoice on this .
8 THE COURT: You can order it from the Court.
9 lVIR. AlBUKERK: Yeah.
10 THE COURT: Order it from the Court.
11 lVIR. AlBUKERK: Thank you.
12 lVIR. PODLASEK: I will.
13 lVIR. AlBUKERK: I appreciate that.
14 THE COURT: Okay. And you brought it back, correct, Deputy?
15 THE DEPUI'Y SHERIFF: Yes, yes. My partner brought it back.
16 THE COURT: Okay.
1 7 (Recess taken)
18 THE COURT: All right. We're back on the record. We've got
19 the parties again present in court.
20 At 11:15 they -- I did receive -- I apologize. 12:15
21 rather I received another note from the jury. It reads:
22 " CUrrently at stalemate. What is next step." Signed Richard
2 3 Miller on today' s date. What's the proposed response of the
24 parties?
11
1 MR. ALBUKERK: Judge, our proposed response to, you know,
2 declare the jury hung and mistrial and that's it. Jury is hung.
3 THE COURT: What's your response, State?
4 MR. PODLASEK: We want them to keep deliberating.
5 THE COURT: Well, I am not going to hang the jury at this
6 point. They deliberated last night for -- they didn't start until
7 6:40 p.m. -- probably about three and-a-half hours last night.
8 They didn't get started today until 10: 15 so it's been another
9 couple of hours today. So there's voluminous amount of testimony
10 and exhibits that they have to digest. Granted it wasn't a very
11 long trial but it was filled with an incredible amount of
12 documentation so I do not believe that we are even close to being
13 at the hung stage just yet.
14 Does either - - with that ruling having been made is
15 ei ther party requesting that I Prim them or do you want me to
16 state at this point you have -- you have all the evidence, please
17 continue to deliberate?
18 MR. PODLASEK: I think we want they have all the evidence,
19 continue to deliberate.
20 MR. ALBUKERK: Yes.
21 THE COURT: You're in agreement with that?
22 MR. ALBUKERK: Yes.
23 THE COURT: Okay. That'll be my response then.
24 MR. ALBUKERK: I'm going to see that the Defendant gets
12
1 dressed.
2 TI.IE COURT: Okay. All right. We'll see everybody back when
3 we hear anything more from them.
4 (Recess taken)
5 TI.IE COURT: Bring out Melongo.
6 TI.IE DEPUTY SHERIFF: Coming out.
7 (Pause in proceedings)
8 TI.IE COURT: All right. We've got Miss Melongo present in
9 court. All the parties are here.
10 The note from the jury at 1:35 reads, "Still at
11 stalemate and both sides have stated there's absolutely no way he
12 or she will change their minds. The vote is eight to four and has
13 been for hours." What's the position of the parties?
14 MR. PODLASEK: Ask for a Prim instruction at this time, Judge.
15 MR. ALBUKERK: Judge, we would ask that the jury be dismissed.
16 The jury is hung and they're not going - - they spent a lot of time
17 doing this. I don't know if we have an official tally of the
18 numbers of hours at this point or a semi official.
19 TI.IE COURT: I can get you that in a minute.
2 0 (Pause in proceedings)
21 TI.IE COURT: Six '- - approximately six and-a-half hours.
22 MR. ALBUKERK: Okay.
23 MR. PODLASEK: It's really not that rruch time.
24 TI.IE COURT: Well, I'm not going to hang the jury. They've
13
1 been deliberating for a while. They're definitely going to
2 deliberate longer.
3 And over the Defense objection I'm going to instruct
4 them on -- the Prim law is very clear that you're not to give the
5 Prim instruction prematurely but certainly at this point this is a
6 textbook note that would require a Prim instruction. I'm going to
7 do that.
8 Take a seat at counsel table and bring out the Jury.
9 MR. AlBUKERK: She's got to get her shoes.
10 TIlE COURT: Hold off for one minute.
11 TIlE DEPUTY SHERIFF: Okay.
12 (Pause in proceedings)
13 TIlE COURT: Okay. Bring out the jury.
14 TIlE DEPUTY SHERIFF: All rise for the jury.
15 (Whereupon the following proceedings were had in court
16 in the presence of the jury.)
17 TIlE COURT: All right, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I
18 obviously have your note and I have an additional instruction for
19 you. It is as follows, and you will get this in the back with
20 you: "The verdict must represent the considered judgment of each
21 juror. In order to return a verdict, it is necessary that each
22 juror agree thereto. Your verdict must be unanimous. It is your
23 duty as jurors to consult with one another and to deliberate with
24 a view to reaching an agreement and if you can do so without
14
1 violence to individual judgment. Each of you must decide the case
2 for yourself but do so only after an impartial consideration of
3 the evidence with your fellow jurors. In the course of your
4 deliberations, do not hesitate to reexamine your own views and
5 change your opinion if convinced it is erroneous but do not
6 surrender your honest conviction as to the weight or effect of
7 evidence solely because of the opinion of your fellow jurors or
8 for the mere purpose of returning a verdict. You are not
9 partisans. You are judges, judges of the facts. Your sole
10 interest is to ascertain the truth from the evidence in the case."
11 And with that instruction having been given please
12 continue on with your deliberations. Rise for the Jury.
13 (Whereupon the following proceedings were had in court
14 outside the presence of the jury.)
15 THE COURT: All right. The record should reflect 1: 50 p. m.
16 the Prim instruction was given.
17 Okay. We'll be off the record.
18 (Recess taken)
19 THE COURT: Can you bring out Melongo. Off the record.
20 (Discussion had off the record)
21 THE COURT: We've got Miss Melongo back present in court. I
22 did get another note at 3: 25 p.m. and it says, "We have once again
23 executed your directions and are still at a stalemate. Serious
24 arguing has started and tempers are starting to flare. Need
15
1 advice. " Signed by the foreperson. What's the position of the
2 parties?
3 MR. AlBUKERK: Judge, our position is that this is a hung jury
4 at this point. The last time was four to eight. There's no
5 indication that it's changed from four to eight. Four to eight is
6 a serious discrepancy and it's not likely that, you know, at this
7 point that there's going to be any movement. If -- if -- if, in
8 fact, that's true and they're arguing in that small roan, I think
9 we're doing them - - the jurors a great disservice by not ending
10 this.
11 'THE COURT: State.
12 MR. PODLASEK: We'd ask that you try and find out what the
13 count is at this point.
14 'THE COURT: Well, I do know prior to reading them the Prim
15 instruction it was eight to four. We know that based upon their
16 note.
1 7 MR. PODLASEK: Right.
18 'THE COURT: My thought would be I want to know if there's been
19 any movement at all which will help gauge whether or not we really
20 are in a position of a hung jury, which we may be. They have been
21 deliberating for sometime but it is only 3:35 p.m. at this point.
22 So my thought would be this: To send back the note which says
23 without telling me which direction you're leaning, what is the
24 count at now?
16
1 lVIR. AlBUKERK: Okay.
2 TIlE COURT: Do the parties have an obj ection to that?
3 lVIR. PODLASEK: No .
4 MS. GUNNIGLE: No.
5 lVIR. AlBUKERK: I don't have any objection to it either.
6 TIlE COURT: Okay.
7 (Pause in proceedings)
8 TIlE COURT: We're back on the record now.
9 I immediately got a response to my note and it says
10 seven to five.
11 lVIR. AlBUKERK: Seven to five.
12 TIlE COURT: Seven to five. So
13 lVIR. AlBUKERK: Well, Judge, all the same I would think that
14 we're pretty deadlocked so I think -- I still say this is a hung
15 Jury.
16 TIlE COURT: State.
1 7 lVIR. PODLASEK: I agree.
18 TIlE COURT: I'm in agreement at this point. I was thinking
19 perhaps it would have moved in the other direction and there would
20 be some light at the end of the tunnel but this just seems to be
2 1 going in the other direction so I will hang the jury.
22 MR. AlBUKERK: Okay.
23 TIlE COURT: So it's 4:40. You can tell the jury, Deputy, to
24 stop deliberating and if you can gather up the exhibits, the
17
1 instructions and the computer and bring them back out. Okay?
2 IVIR. Al.BUKERK: Judge, my client would like to be made of
3 record that she says that the stipulation was not her idea. It
4 was my idea and
5 THE COURT: What stipulation are you talking about?
6 IVIR. Al.BUKERK: The stipulation that went into evidence.
7 DEFENDANT MElDNGO: It was - - it was something that was
8 imposed on me five minute before the trial.
9 THE COURT: You know what? Knock it off. Knock it off.
10 Imposed on you. I've had it with you.
11 The stipulation was done by your lawyer and the State.
12 They were working on it for weeks since this j my was set. I
13 passed the case. I gave you a chance to review it. You're not
14 the lawyer of the case. Mr . Albukerk was the attorney on the
15 case, but you had a chance to review it.
16 DEFENDANT MElDNGO: It was - -
1 7 THE COURT: There was no obj ection made and you know what? He
18 hasn't imposed anything on you. It was --
19 DEFENDANT MElDNGO: It was five minute before the trial. I
20 never had the time.
21 THE COURT: You're not a lawyer.
22 DEFENDANT MElDNGO: And I wanted to change stuff and then he
23 say we won't go to trial if it's not change. It was imposed on
24 me.
18
1 THE COURT: You know what, Miss Melongo . I've seen your
2 behavior and you make stuff up as you go and after things happen
3 and go do'lNIl, you rewrite history.
4 DEFENDANT MElDNGO: Okay.
5 THE COURT: Canpletely rewrite history. That's not the
6 history of this stipulation. The stipulation had been worked on
7 from the past court date to the trial. Your attorney and the
8 State talked about it on the record in front of you previously.
9 They said they were hammering out the specific details of it.
10 Your attorney said he got the final copy that morning. That part
11 of what you said is true. And I said go ahead and talk about it
12 with her and he had certainly discussed the stipulation with you
13 and what was going to be in it but it's true you hadn't seen the
14 formal copy of that until that morning but I passed it and let him
15 look through it with you and it was put on the record that
16 everything was fine and you were okay with. I didn't see him
1 7 holding you do'lNIl. I didn't see him covering your mouth with
18 anything and we proceeded to trial so I don't want to hear
19 anything from you right now. You are not the lawyer on the case.
20 He is. And what you're saying is not supported at all by the
21 record or anything I saw. You walked into the courtroan. You
22 looked at that stipulation with him. We passed the case for I
23 think it was 15 minutes to a half hour, if not more. I believe we
24 were in the posture of waiting for the jury to come in. You sat
19
1 down and your attorney said there's no problem with the
2 stipulation and you didn't say a word and we proceeded on with the
3 trial. So do not rewrite history in my courtroom and try and talk
4 about something that I was present for 100 percent of the time.
5 We're done.
6 lVIR. AlBUKERK: Judge, in any event, considering it's hung it's
7 actually an irrelevant matter at this point.
8 THE COURT: Well, besides the fact that it's irrelevant but my
9 point is Mr. Albukerk has catered to your every whim. Most
10 attorneys would have turned to you when you just said you wanted
11 to put something on the record about an issue that has no merit
12 anymore because it's a hung jury, they would have told you to be
13 quiet and it's a ridiculous thing to put on the record but not
14 him. He went ahead and put it on the record and you're still
15 arguing about it. Apparently you should have gone to law school
16 to be a lawyer because you really like arguing in court whether it
1 7 mat ters or not.
18 DEFENDANT MELONGO: I -- I like it.
19 THE COURT: I can tell you like it. So we'll be here agaln so
20 the good news is you'll have a chance to do it again.
2 1 DEFENDANT MELONGO: Okay.
22 THE DEPUTY SHERIFF: Excuse me, Judge. You said that the
23 jurors were hung at 4:40 instead of 3:40.
24 THE COURT: Oh. Thank you for the correction. If I said 4 :40
20
1 on the record, then let me correct it. 3 : 40 . Thank you.
2 THE DEPUI'Y SHERIFF: So I'm good to stop them now and gather
3 the evidence?
4 THE COURT: Yes.
5 THE DEPUI'Y SHERIFF: Just wanted to make sure.
6 THE COURT: Yes. Thanks . Okay.
7 MR. ALBUKERK: I've never done this. Do you give them an
8 instruction or do you just tell them thanks, good bye?
9 THE COURT. Yeah. I'm not bringing them out.
10 MR. ALBUKERK: Okay.
11 MR. PODLASEK: can we talk to them?
12 THE COURT: Yeah. I'm going to talk to them first and then,
13 you know, their jury service is over.
14 MR. ALBUKERK: Sure.
15 THE COURT: If either side wants to talk to them, you're free
16 to do that.
1 7 MR. ALBUKERK: Okay.
18 THE COURT: I'll give them the option, of course. If they
19 want to just get on their way, they have the option to do that
20 too.
21 MR. ALBUKERK: Right.
2 2 TI-IE COURT: Okay.
23 MR. ALBUKERK: Thank you.
24 THE COURT: Mr. Albukerk, if you could just draw that up
21
1 different. So I'm holding you to trial - - I did hold you to trial
2 on Miss Melongo's matter so I'm not disputing any of that.
3 MR. ALBUKERK: No . I know.
4 THE COURT: My number will be available. I will actually try
5 to reach out to Judge Love to see if I can catch her.
6 MR. ALBUKERK: I mean this is not -- the situation is not at
7 all your situation.
8 THE COURT: Right.
9 MR. ALBUKERK: Unfortunately Matt misunderstood, Mr. Prengarnan
10 misunderstood and gave some poor instructions and now I got to try
11 and--
12 THE COURT: Okay. Well, if you craft an order that the matter
13 is set for 9:45 a.m. to begin the jury trial, you know, on that
14 date . So was it yesterday?
15 MR. ALBUKERK: Yes.
16 THE COURT: It was yesterday, of course.
1 7 MR. ALBUKERK: Yes.
18 THE COURT: And that the parties need to be present at 9: 45
19 a.m. in room 303 at 26th and California so that will get you out
20 from whatever rock you were under for that.
21 MR. ALBUKERK: I hope so.
22 THE COURT: What date do the parties want? So the mistrial is
23 at 3:40 p.m. So what position are we in now, ready to set it down
24 again?
22
1 JVIR. AlBUKERK: I'm going to need to talk to my client
2 momentarily.
3 THE COURT: Sure.
4 JVIR. AlBUKERK: But other than that, yeah, I'm ready to try
5 this thing.
6 THE COURT: Okay.
7 JVIR. AlBUKERK: The problem, Judge, I do have is that I'm
8 starting a couple -- I got a couple of trials coming up. I got
9 my - - and also I have a big jury trial starting February 7th. I
10 hope to go beyond that at this point.
11 JVIR. PODLASEK: Judge, the problem obviously is that Miss
12 Gurmigle will be on leave.
13 THE COURT: You may have to get someone else to try the case.
14 I'm not giving you a three month date with all due respect.
15 JVIR. PODLASEK: I'm not asking for a three month date but I do
16 have two juries up between now and February.
1 7 THE COURT: What's the earliest date that you're talking?
18 JVIR. AlBUKERK: And, Judge, assuming for -- and just to be safe
19 I assume we're talking about a three day window.
2 0 THE COURT: Well, I would say we would put it in a three day
21 window this time just to be on the safe side and if we end sooner,
22 we end sooner.
23 JVIR. PODLASEK: It's going to depend on whether there's a
24 stipulation as to the ownership of that website or not because if
23
1 not, we'll have people cOmlng In from out of state.
2 THE COURT: Well , obviously it's a new case so the Defense lS
3 not bound by any stipulations or --
4 MR. PODLASEK: I understand that.
5 THE COURT: Well, I know you do. I'm just saying it for the
6 record so that Miss Melongo understands it also. Obviously the
7 Defense is not bound in the new trial by stipulations so --
8 MR. PODLASEK: So until we find out, you know, I can't tell
9 you how long it's going to take.
10 THE COURT: We'll say four days at the most.
11 MR. ALBUKERK: At least at this point. They're going to need
12 at least an extra day.
13 THE COURT: You're going to need
14 MR. ALBUKERK: It's a big trial. How about the 22nd?
15 THE COURT: 22nd?
16 MR. ALBUKERK: No.
17 THE COURT: 28th.
18 MR. PODLASEK: I have a jury on the 14th and the 28th of
19 February .
20 THE COURT: How about 22? Because we all know these juries
21 don't all go.
22 MR. PODLASEK: These two are. One is before Judge Goebel and
23 one is before Walsh. They're both involving towing cases. Those
24 are fairly old cases.
24
1
2
3
4
5
THE COURT : Give me a date. I'm looking for the sooner date.
JVIR. PODIASEK: How al:::x::)Ut February 1st or the week of the 31st?
JVIR. ALBUKERK:
JVIR. PODIASEK:
JVIR. ALBUKERK :
January 31st.
Yeah.
I think I'm totally booked.
6 THE COURT: That's fine.
7 JVIR. ALBUKERK: I have a demand trial set at the Daley Center
8 on the 31st.
9 THE COURT: How about February I?
1 0 JVIR. PODIASEK: February 1 is fine.
11 (Pause in proceedings)
12 JVIR. ALBUKERK: No. I've got - - I've got a demand. I've got a
13 demand case on the -- on the 3rd and I got a demand case and
14 then - - and then my calendar is full for those other two days. So
15 I'm sorry. I can't make it before my jury on the 7th. I believe
16 this is all way -- you said your jury is February what?
1 7 JVIR. PODIASEK: 14 th .
18 JVIR. ALBUKERK: February 14th.
19 JVIR. PODIASEK: The first one is on the 14th.
20 THE COURT: How about the 22nd?
21 JVIR. PODIASEK: How about the 7th, the week of the 7th?
22 JVIR. ALBUKERK: I'm doing a jury trial starting the 7th.
23 THE COURT: Where is your trial on the 7th?
24 JVIR. ALBUKERK: The Daley Center. It's a med mal. It should
25
1 take about a week and-a-half.
2 THE COURT: Well, let me just ask how certain is it that those
3 cases will go? I'm unfamiliar with civil court.
4 rvIR. AlBUKERK: 99 percent. It was set literally -- this case
5 lS a ten year old case.
6 THE COURT: How about this: You should know probably by the
74th if it's really going to go or not, right? How does it work
8 there?
9 rvIR. AlBUKERK: It works -- once it's set literally I had to
1 0 voluntarily dismiss this case once because that's - - that was my
11 only option. Once they set them they will not let that date go.
12 It's pretty serious, especially for big cases like this. They're
13 really serious about them going. It's not like -- it's not like
14 here where they're always kind of jumping around. It's a really
15 old case.
16 THE COURT: How about February 16th as back up because I don't
17 want to give it a two month date. If for some reason your case
18 falls through on the 14th, you would probably know the lOth
19 whether it's going or not so we can give it the 16th knowing it
20 would be the back up to your 14 th jury.
21 rvIR. PODLASEK: All right.
22 THE COURT: Does that work?
2 3 rvIR. PODLASEK: That's fine.
24 rvIR. AlBUKERK: Okay, Judge. Judge, for the record my client
26
1 wants at least a two month continuance. She wants a long
2 continuance.
3 THE COURT: For what reason?
4 IVIR. ALBUKERK: Because she needs to - - she needs to fully
5 assess the case and she needs to get the funds together and she
6 needs to talk to her family so she is the one asking for a long
7 date. I only put that on the record because obviously it would
8 accarrnodate my schedule and Mr. Podlasek' s schedule as well but I
9 didn't want the record to in any way indicate that we were hurting
10 my client's rights.
11 THE COURT: I don't understand what you mean.
12 IVIR. ALBUKERK: In other words, you know, she has a right to go
13 to trial quickly and I didn't want - - I didn't want any record to
14 be made to say that we were in any way stalling her -- you know,
15 stalling her wishes, you know, the concept of a speedy trial here.
16 So, Judge, with all due respect I'm going to ask for the beginning
17 of March is where I'm good. It looks like February 28th, 29th.
18 IVIR. PODLASEK: 28th I'm on trial.
19 IVIR. ALBUKERK: February 28th you're on trial? How long do you
20 think that trial is going to go?
21 IVIR. PODLASEK: That one?
22 IVIR. ALBUKERK: Yeah.
23 IVIR. PODLASEK: At least a week.
24 IVIR. ALBUKERK: At least a week. Can we go to the following
27
1 week? Is that going to cramp you too much? That would --
2 fv1R. PODLASEK: Give me a minute here.
3 fv1R . AlBUKERK: March 8th. Sorry .
4 fv1R. PODLASEK: Judge, if we're going into March, my partner
5 tells me she can be back around March 21st. She'll push back her
6 materni ty .
7 TIlE COURT : I don't want to give it a two and-a-half month
8 date . I don't want to do that .
9 fv1R . PODLASEK: I was thinking about next week .
10 TIlE COURT: So let's - - how about next week?
11 fv1R. AlBUKERK: Next week. Judge, A, my client doesn't have
12 the money, B, my client really wants more time. She's
13 absolutely - - she's begging for more time.
14 TIlE COURT: Well, I can't imagine one shred of discovery that
15 hasn't already been gotten. I'm not understanding.
16 fv1R. AlBUKERK: That's true but my client wants all the
17 transcripts, number one, and that's going to be quite expensive.
18 Number two, my client is going - - has already indicated to me she
19 wants to try the case ln a completely different manner. I mean I
2 0 wanted to - - obviously it was my judgment that we stipulate. She
21 wants me to try the case in a completely different manner.
22 TIlE COURT: I'm going to do February 16th. I'm going to set
23 it as a back up date and you can tell me where you're at. If, Mr.
24 Podlasek, the trial goes, we know about that so if it goes on the
28
1 14th, it'll have to get a different date, but between now and then
2 the parties can talk about the issues such as stipulations, et
3 cetera, so you can let me know where you're at.
4 lVIR . AlBUKERK: Okay.
5 THE COURT: So we'll hold it over by agreement 2-16-11.
6 That ' ll be with for jury. As to the other matter, the non-elected
7 case, you're going by agreement February 16th to the same date on
8 the cOITputer tarrpering?
9 lVIR. AlBUKERK: Well, yeah. Obviously this is the elected case
10
11
12
still, right?
lVIR . PODLASEK:
lVIR. AlBUKERK:
Yeah.
Right .
13 THE COURT: You are still keeping this the elected case? I
14 guess I should ask that.
15 lVIR. PODLASEK: Yes, your Honor.
16 THE COURT: That'll be for the status of the elected case.
1 7 We'll see everybody on 2 -16 and then obviously you'll be in touch
18 with one another.
19 lVIR. AlBUKERK: Thank you.
20
21
22
23
24
(Which were all the proceedings had)
29
1 STATE OF ILLINOIS )
) SS:
2 COUNTY OF COOK )
3 I, ELIZABETH A. REYES, Official Shorthand Reporter of
4 the Circuit Court of Cook County, County Department-Criminal
5 Division, do hereby certify that I reported in shorthand the
6 evidence had in the above-entitled cause and that the foregoing lS
7 a true and correct transcript of all the evidence heard.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
C:) / . ~
Dated this CA W
O i c ~ ~ d Reporter
License No. 084-001910
Circuit Court of Cook County
County Department
Criminal Division
day of October, 2011.
30

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful