375 Ill. App. 3d 1101 - People v. Turner

How this case has been cited

Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently July 2024

21 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

PRESIDING JUSTICE LYTTON,

¶1specially concurring:

¶2Section C of the majority’s analysis correctly finds that the defendant waived a trial by jury because she did not object to her counsel’s waiver of jury and request for a bench trial and because she signed a written jury waiver.

¶3After resolving the issue however, the majority continues, saying that, “while not necessary to our decision,” defendant’s prior criminal convictions gave her a familiarity with the criminal justice system and, thus, she knew the import of a jury waiver. 375 Ill. App. 3d at 1109. I do not believe this discussion belongs in the order for two reasons: (1) it is, as conceded by the majority, dictum; and (2) it is wrong.

¶4The majority cites two prior criminal convictions and six prior traffic convictions as evidence of defendant’s familiarity with jury waivers in the criminal justice system. However, the two criminal convictions, one of which was a misdemeanor, occurred in 1995, between 10 and 11 years prior to defendant’s guilty plea in this case. The interval of more than a decade between those offenses and this case makes whatever information defendant did retain stale to the point of morbidity. It is speculative at best to expect a layperson to retain substantial knowledge of how the criminal justice system works under these circumstances. Furthermore, the six minor, fine-only, traffic tickets were not exactly fresh: illegal possession of alcohol in 1980; no insurance and failure to wear a seatbelt disposed of on the same day in 1998; no insurance in 1998; speeding in 2000; and an uninsured motor vehicle in 2003. The traffic cases, like the criminal convictions, had aged substantially before defendant encountered the instant case.

¶5So there we have it. Defendant’s “familiarity” with the criminal justice system was a 10-year-old felony, a 10-year-old misdemeanor, and a smattering of traffic tickets handed out over a period of 23 years. Taken together, they give the defendant little basis for knowing the nature and import of a jury waiver. Thus, I would omit any reference to defendant’s supposed knowledge of the criminal justice system.