wir 10) aa aa ae 14 aa 16 ee 18 19] 20 rae ae 23 24 STATE OF ILLINOIS IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 17TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COUNTY OF WINNEBAGO THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff, ) ) ) } vs. ) Case No. 2014-CF-922 ) RICHARD E. WANKE, ) ) ) Defendant. REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS at the hearing of the above-entitled cause before the CIRCUIT JUDGE ROSEMARY COLLINS, on the 6th day of February, 2015. APPEARANCES: MS. MARILYN HITE-ROSS, Deputy State's Attorney, MR. JAMES BRUN, Assistant State's Attorney, Appeared on behalf of the People; MR. DERRICK SCHMIDT and MS. ERIN HANNIGAN, Assistant Public Defenders, Appeared on behalf of the Defendant. Mary S. Gesmer, CSR, RPR License No. 84-00320010: il 12 13 14 15 16| 17 18 a 20 rhe 22 23 24 THE COURT: This is People v. Richard Wanke. THE COURT: Good afternoon. MS. HANNIGAN: Good afternoon, Your Honor. MR. SCHMIDT: Good afternoon, Your Honor. MS. HITE-ROSS: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Marilyn Hite-Ross and Jim Brun for the People. MR. BRUN: Good afternoon, Your Honor. MR. SCHMIDT: Derrick Schmidt on behalf of Mr. Wanke. Good afternoon. MS. HANNIGAN: Erin Hannigan on behalf of Mr. Wanke. THE COURT: All right. We're set today for continued status regarding the appointment of the public defender's office. We've had extensive argument regarding this, I've heard the arguments of the parties, and what I don't recall was if I had given you the opportunity to make further argument today or if all the arguments were done, that's what I don't remember. MR. SCHMIDT: Two court dates ago when myself was not able to be present, I know Your Honor had requested some information from thewin 10) il 12 a 14 ‘8 16 17 18 19: 20: ie Pe) ri) 24 State and that issue was taken care of. I believe they weren't able -- we're not able to give you further information on the source of the person from the public defender's office who made a -- tipped off the state's attorney's office to talk to a certain individual regarding the death of Attorney Greg Clark and I think the State was not able to come up with an answer on that, so I would just have a little bit more argument concerning that point and one or two others. THE COURT: Okay. All right. MR. BRUN: Your Honor, again counsel is accurate in regards to the Court asking for additional information. As reflected at the last court date, after speaking with Sergeant Whisenand and Detective Regez in regards to who contacted Rockford City Police, there is no additional affidavits. But, the content of their reports, specifically dot-44 supplement just makes reference to a public defender contacting Margie O'Connor who was in our office who then contacted Rockford Police. In regards to all of the arguments, thoseaw so 10) 11 12 a 14 15) 16, 17 18 19 20 aoe 22 ae 24 were previously conducted, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. So I'll hear any further comments that anybody wishes to make. MR. SCHMIDT: Your Honor, couple court dates ago I also adopted Mr. Wanke's motion to supplement defendant's argument. I think the arguments in there speak for themselves, they're very strong. I would just like to direct you to what I believe the two strongest arguments are regarding this case. One, the information that the State gave you regarding that police report dot-44 from Detective Regez, again Sergeant Whisenand advised he was contacted by Deputy State's Attorney M O'Connor who told him she was contacted by the Winnebago County Public Defender's Office regarding an inmate in the Winnebago County Jail having information regarding the murder of Gregory Clark. So right now, we're basically under the specter that the Winnebago County Public Defender's Office as a whole worked against Mr. Wanke's interest back in 2008 and that specter will follow us the entire way. And that we don'twin 10} 11 12 13) 14 15] 16| 17 18) ve) 20 fee 22 23] 24 have any information, we don't know who in fact did that, but we have to take it as the report states and as State's Attorney Brun mentioned, the office as an entity, and that's huge. The second main argument and I think it was also the strongest argument is again my boss, Ms. Sorensen, has been deemed to have a conflict in this case, and any -- and cannot have anything to do with any of the decisions, strategy, cannot talk about this case. And regarding the experts issues in this case, any and all expenditures go through Ms. Sorenson, and that is one thing that the deputy public defender who I've talked to, David Doll, has no control over and that he cannot take over single-handedly. So I would ask that Your Honor consider the arguments in Mr. Wanke's motion to supplement the arguments because those are some very good points, some very strong arguments. However, I do believe the strongest arguments fall within the two points that I have made, that I know Your Honor has asked more information regarding those, so I would ask that Your Honor grant our motion towin 10) ae 12 13 14 15 16| ae 18 19) 20 21 22 23 24 and Mr. Wanke's motion to take the public defender's office off the case. THE COURT: Thank you, counsel. State? MS. HITE-ROSS: Judge, just briefly. We did argument previously. But what I would add is that I know the Court is well aware that each public defender is considered an independent contractor. Even though they are in the same office, they each have their own caseload. It's not uncommon for them to represent defendants that are cojoined in an indictment to have a separate public defender. With respect to whether or not counsel would have resources that he could go to, I would just point out to the Court, and obviously it's within the Court's discretion to grant their motion, that there is the appellate defender's office that often does collaborate with people in the public defender's office throughout the state. So that's the only additional argument that we would add, Your Honor. THE COURT: Any comment regarding that? MR. SCHMIDT: Just other than we certainly can't ask the appellate public defender for10: aa 12 13 14 pee 16| 17 18 19) 20 aa 22 23 24 financial resources, they cannot handle that at all. THE COURT: Well, I've gone through these motions. I agree with the focus of counsel for the defense as to what the main issue is in this case. Because frankly, there is no case law anywhere that says the public defender has to communicate with other public defenders about this case and that the inability to do so is some kind of inhibition or imposes any kind of detriment to their ability to proceed. So there is no right to talk about this case in your office. You know, that is not a right that the Defendant has, that they have a public defender's office that the public defenders can talk to each and every person in the office. In fact, it is very common for there to be cases where different public defenders represent opposing parties on a case. And so -- so that argument really has no merit that they can't communicate with other members of the public defender's office. We have two highly skilled, highly regarded, and very experienced trial attorneys on10 ou a 13 14 15 16| 17 18 19 20 ie ped ae 24 this case. If you were in private practice you might not even have that many. So you have two attorneys that you certainly can talk to, and -- and so there is no validity in this. The fact that Karen Sorensen may have a conflict because of her personal connection to this does not filter down to the other attorneys in the office. And there is no conflict with the two attorneys in this particular case with respect to this case. Now, the issue regarding the fees for experts or going outside the office is an issue. And so the Court has -- I have contacted the chief judge, not about my decision in this case but about financial issues, and the chief judge has given me the authority to authorize expenses for experts in this case if Mr. Dave Doll does not wish to do that. Dave Doll does not have a conflict in and of himself other than he works in the public defender's office, works closely with Karen Sorensen. So if Attorney Doll is unable to authorize any expenses in this case, I can do that.10) 11 a 13) 14 15) 16 ace 18 19) 20 ae ae aan 24 There certainly is precedent for this. If you know the procedure that we followed with death penalty cases in the State of Illinois when we had the death penalty, expenses were authorized by the court because they were paid from a separate budget that was controlled by the State. So there certainly is precedent for the courts to be involved in granting expense request on behalf of the attorneys, and I'm prepared to do that in terms of granting expense requests by the public defenders involved in this case. If they are unable to get authority from Dave Doll in his supervisory role, then I believe you can come to the Court and petition the Court directly for payment of expenses for attorneys -- or for experts and the Court would in fact allow that. This process has been authorized by the chief judge to give me the authority to do that. And so I think that resolves the one real serious issue that the defense did raise, which is that they may not be able to access resources in light of the fact that they cannot go to their direct boss who controls their budget. So for the purpose of this case only, this Court has beena 14 a 13] 14 15) 16) 17 18) a) 20 eae 22 23 24 10 authorized to allow you to access the experts that you need and will in fact grant a request for those budget items to be paid directly. You don't have to get them paid through Karen Sorensen, they'll be paid. So that I believe is the only real substantive issue regarding the public defenders' ability to represent their client that has been raised. The issue regarding someone from the public defender's office calling -- obviously it's not the public defender's office that called, that couldn't happen, it's an attorney in the public defender's office that called and we don't know if that attorney is there or not, but it certainly doesn't show any conflict with the two attorneys that are here now who clearly were not involved in it in any way, shape or form. So the motions, both the amended motion to disqualify filed by the attorneys and also the Defendant's pro se motion will be denied, with the caveat that the Court does see the issue regarding the payment of experts and will handle that. Now, this is the first time you've heard this, so if you want to think about it and see ifwin 10 11 12 ae 14 15 16 alg 18 19 20 21 22 oe 24 il there's any problems with that that you want to raise to my attention, I'm happy to give you time to mull this over. But I think it's a good way to resolve this issue and allow you to proceed in the way that you need to to defend Mr. Wanke. MS. HANNIGAN: Judge, I think we may have some questions regarding the -- the fees and budget issues. I'd like to speak with Mr. Doll regarding Your Honor's decision before we come to any - THE COURT: For guidance on that, you might want to look at how we handled death penalty cases in the past. MS. HANNIGAN: TI understand. THE COURT: So shall we set it for another status next week? Do you want to do that to see -- I don't know if that gives you enough time to mull that over or not, but talk to Mr. Wanke about that and see where we are? MR. SCHMIDT: Yes, Judge. I will be up to see Mr. Wanke before the next court date. THE COURT: I don't want to set it too soon so that you can't have a meaningful conversation with your client, but I want to get10: 11 12 oe 14 15 16| 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 4 this case moving. MR. SCHMIDT: Quite frankly, my schedule next week is pretty good if we were to set it down towards the end of the week some time. THE COURT: Are the parties available the morning of February 13th? MS. HITE-ROSS: Yes. MR. SCHMIDT: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: Do you want to say 10 o'clock? eee eee eee ee eo sets eee eee eae tee eee 10 o'clock then. On motion of defense, time tolled. MR. BRUN: I have one other matter just to bring to the Court's attention. And once again I received legal mail dated today's date directly from the Defendant, it is unopened, and I'm just asking in open court to open it and provide a copy to counsel. THE COURT: All right. You have permission. MR. BRUN: Thank you. MR. BRUN: With the Court's permission, may I make a copy of this back in chambers?10] uel ue a 14 15 16| 17 18 se 20 aa ae oa 24 nicl THE COURT: Yes. MR. BRUN: Thank you, Your Honor. (Attorney Schmidt conferred with the Defendant off the record) MR. SCHMIDT: If I'm correct, Your Honor, I think what Mr. THE COURT: Hold on. Go ahead. MR. SCHMIDT: If I'm correct, I think what Mr. Brun is opening is a second declaration of Richard Wanke. He did file a first declaration a couple weeks back. The way I'm proceeding on that is I'm not adopting that, it's not a motion, it's Mr. Wanke's declaration. I will speak to Mr. Wanke regarding that. I don't think it's relevant as a trial date has not been set at this time. If there was, yes, there would be delay issues and speedy trial type issues. But as Mr. Wanke's attorney, we're not requesting trial at this time, therefore these declarations, as far as any effect, I don't think they have any. So I'm -- Mr. Wanke is free to declare, I'm not adopting them at this time. I've advised Mr. Wanke several times and Your Honor has advised10) 11 12) ae 14 aan 16| 17 18 19] 20 21 Ped bi] 24 14 not to file pro se motions, he is represented at this time and to not send things to the State. That's all I can do regarding that. THE DEFENDANT: Can I speak on this very briefly? THE COURT: Yes. THE DEFENDANT: My understanding of the law surrounding this -- again I'm not an attorney, so I apologize if I'm not doing it correctly. THE COURT: You don't need to apologize. THE DEFENDANT: But under Barker versus Wingo, you know, commonly referred as the Barker factors, if there's delays, if there's, you know, reasons for the delay, if there's assertion of speedy trial rights and if there's prejudice, you know, I'm required to -- where the defendants required to assert those rights. That's basically all I'm doing is following what I read as precedent to assert my speedy trial rights. I filed it when I first got here and was indicted and I've continued to assert it as at least best I know how to bring it to the attention of the Court. The difficulty that I'm having is Iwon 10) 11 12 13] 14 15 16| 7 18 oe 20 21 22 Ex) 24 ec) haven't had anybody to communicate with. Mr. Schmidt back in December 15th of last year cut off all communications prior to doing these types of hearings, so I haven't spoken with him since before the December 15th date. He's not returned phone calls. He's not come to visit me like he's scheduled many times. And he's not responded to letters and he's not communicated with anyone I've had to call him or email him. So it's difficult for me to know in these two months of delays while waiting these hearings to have the State say they don't know what their own reports say, don't know what's happening. So I'm just trying to put it on the record that I believe the shifting of the burden of these delays by the State to the defense when they've spent time looking for who their witness is is improper, and I just want to, you know, put it on the record. I know the Court has disagreed with me but I want to put it on the record. THE COURT: Well, it's on the record. And I do disagree with you and I disagree with your interpretation of the law. Counsel will10 11 12) a 14 a 16 oa 18 19) 20 aaa 22 23] 24 16 be up to see you. And now that this issue of who's going to be representing you has been settled, we can hopefully move forward. THE DEFENDANT: Thank you. MR. SCHMIDT: Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Okay. Counsel, do you have a copy of that? MR. BRUN: For the record, Your Honor, the jail mail that I did receive and after opening it, it is in fact the same second declaration of Richard Wanke as noted by counsel. THE COURT: I'll have my bailiff make a copy. Thank you. (Cause continued to February 13, 2015, at 10:00 a.m.)10 il 12 23) 14 15, 16 17 18 19) 20 21 22 23 24 17 STATE OF ILLINOIS THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 17TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OUNTY OF WINNEBAGO CERTIFICATE | I, Mary S. Gesmer, CSR #084-003200, an Official Court Reporter for the Circuit Court of Winnebago County, 17th Judicial Circuit of Illinois, reported in machine shorthand the proceedings had on the hearing in the above-entitled cause and transcribed the same by Computer Aided Transcription, which I hereby certify to be a true and accurate transcript of the proceedings. IN WITNESS WHEREOF I have hereunto set my hand seal this_jj! day of béue Bonar. Officia? Court” Reporter 17tH Jddicial Circuit | State of Illinois