Bat Rattle Repair, Rent House In Birmingham B19, Does Rob Gronkowski Have A Sister, Illinois Breach Of Contract Elements, Articles D

In rejecting the State's argument, this court relied on the holding of our supreme court in People v. Williams, 138 Ill.2d 377, 150 Ill.Dec. [People v. Henderson, 36 Ill.App.3d 355, 370, 344 N.E.2d 239 (1976).] At the time, he was also in the police station and was bleeding after having been beaten by police. A subpoena is a compulsory process for obtaining witnesses or documentary evidence in all criminal prosecutions and is guaranteed by the sixth amendment. On November 4, 1988, after receiving reports of an abandoned car blocking an alley, police discovered the body of David Ray McCoy, lying face up with three gunshot wounds to the head, in the back seat of his car. On appeal, this court rejected the defendant's argument which we characterized as being based on a claim of new evidence. This new evidence consisted of a report from OPS and transcripts of testimony from other alleged victims of abuse. This ruling meant that defendant was allowed to testify to the content of the medical records. Clearly, defense counsel was aware of the applicable law concerning accountability and presented a defense based on that law, not on any "misapprehension" of it. He was 52 years old. Defendant acknowledges that the support for his contention is not contained in the record, but he raises the error "so as to present defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claim in it's (sic) proper perspective," promising to file a post-conviction petition raising this issue. As the defendant in the instant case objected to her sentence in the circuit court and on her direct appeal, we apply a harmless error analysis. Sheila was slapped with an 80 year sentence and Tyrone was hit with 60 years. Rumor has it that David's death was caused by a disagreement over a high power bill. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm defendant's conviction, vacate her sentence and remand for resentencing. Applying this logic to the case before us, we reject appellate counsel's assertion that where neither a trial court nor a court of review has considered a legal issue, the law of the case doctrine is inapplicable to that issue. The special circumstances present in Jones was the fact that the appellate court had previously reversed the defendant's conviction and held that the trial court's denial of a motion to suppress as to one of three statements was erroneous. As a result of the beating, defendant sought treatment at Little Company of Mary Hospital. PEOPLE v. DANIELS | 595 N.E.2d 83 (1992) | 5ne2d831664 - Leagle Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. She agreed to go along with the police because she was no longer able to resist and she wanted to go home. Defendant's conviction arose from the November 12, 1988, shooting death of McCoy in the garage of the home that he, defendant and her daughter shared at 1654 East 92nd Street in Chicago. Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Second Division. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). There are various reports of the motive behind McCoy's murder. Cummings again advised defendant of his rights and interviewed him for approximately 45 minutes. The State lastly presented the testimony of Mitra Kalelkar, the medical examiner, who stated that she was unable to determine which bullet had been fired first, the one in the back of McCoy's neck or the two in his forehead. Finally, defendant contends and that her 80-year extended-term sentence is unconstitutional under the United States Supreme Court's decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. Hobley II, 182 Ill.2d at 448-49, 231 Ill.Dec. His lover, Sheila Daniels, and her brother, Tyrone, were found guilty of his murder. David Ray Mccoy was brutally killed on 13 November 1988, in Chicago, Cook County, Illinois, USA, at the age of 53 years. at 1527, 128 L.Ed.2d at 296. In People v. Maxwell, 173 Ill.2d 102, 219 Ill.Dec. Consequently, Judge Toomin did not allow Anthony to testify during the hearing on that motion. Defendant then took the gun away from his sister and put it in his pocket. Aug. 13, 1997: WOMAN CONVICTED AGAIN IN SLAYING In general, under the law of the case doctrine, a rule established as controlling in a particular case will continue to be the law of the case, provided the facts remain the same. The Jones court relied heavily on the holding in People v. Enis, 163 Ill.2d 367, 206 Ill.Dec. A review of Judge Toomin's statements in open court establishes that he applied this test when ruling on defendant's motion to suppress. There, the defendant had asserted in his motion to suppress that he had been beaten by the police. The fact that the trial court did a more thorough job of analyzing the issues than did this court speaks well of Judge Toomin's abilities. Defendant contends next that the trial court erred in not allowing the admission of medical records regarding treatment she had received following a beating from McCoy. See Supreme Court Rule 413(c) (134 Ill.2d R. 413(c)) (requiring that the State be informed of, and permitted to inspect and copy or photograph, any reports or results, or testimony relative thereto, of physical or mental examinations ***.). Family Members . Before trial, counsel for defendant filed several motions to suppress statements made by defendant after his arrest and to suppress evidence the police recovered in defendant's apartment. The court then found such an independent basis existed and defendant was again convicted upon retrial. After the stipulations to the transcripts, Cummings gave essentially the same testimony that he had given in the suppression hearing. In denying defendant's request for a hearing on her motion to quash arrest and suppress evidence, Judge Urso stated that the issues raised in the motion were properly litigated at the trial level and ruled upon by the appellate court. Judge Urso found that there was no new evidence nor were there exceptional circumstances warranting a hearing on the motion. After defendant told police where Anthony lived, he was picked up and taken to the police station. The officers then drove defendant to the police station, where they placed him in an interview room. *, concur. Learn more about FindLaws newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy. Thereafter, the assistant State's Attorney spoke with defendant and advised him of his rights. Thereafter, defendant drove McCoy's car to an alley near McCoy's place of business, with Sheila following in her own car. After hearing argument on the City's motion, the trial court quashed defendant's subpoena seeking photographs of the officers assigned to Area 2 at the time she was questioned there. container: 'taboola-right-rail-thumbnails', Daniels, 230 Ill.App.3d at 532, 172 Ill.Dec. 185, 786 N.E.2d 1019 (2003), to determine whether a different result is warranted. Defendant was not hit or struck or in any manner mistreated during his interrogation. by January 24, 2023 sanford bishop wife. At 3 a.m. she was placed under arrest for McCoy's death and advised of her Miranda rights. On remand, the trial court allowed the State to use the other two statements that the appellate court had not addressed. After the defense rested, the State objected to the admission of the medical records into evidence, on the ground that a proper foundation had not been laid. In an unpublished portion of the opinion issued by this court on June 28, 2002, we vacated the defendant's 80-year extended term sentence based on the trial court's finding that the offense was accompanied by exceptionally brutal or heinous behavior indicative of wanton cruelty, we remanded the case for re-sentencing. After defendant let the officers into his apartment, the police asked him his name and, when he answered, they placed him under arrest, advising him of his constitutional rights. 312, 556 N.E.2d 1214. This court reversed, holding [s]ince the State did not raise the attenuation and independent basis issues at the hearing on the motion to suppress, the State cannot raise them after the order to suppress is final and has been affirmed on appeal. Lawson, 327 Ill.App.3d at 65, 261 Ill.Dec. 343, 795 N.E.2d 1011 (2003) and People v. Alvarez, 344 Ill.App.3d 179, 278 Ill.Dec. We further note that there was credible evidence in the record that the deceased was an abusive domestic partner, indicating the existence of mitigating factors under sections 5-5-3.1(a)(4) and (a)(8) of the Unified Code of Corrections. at 2351, 147 L.Ed.2d at 442. Cline responded, She was not under arrest. 499, 734 N.E.2d 207 (2000), where this court stated: [P]rinciples of collateral estoppel do not bar relitigation of a pretrial ruling after remand, where special circumstances are present. Certainly, the failure to file or to present a viable motion to suppress could constitute ineffective assistance of counsel (see People v. Brinson (1980), 80 Ill.App.3d 388, 35 Ill.Dec. She signed the court-reported statement without reading it because she did not have her eyeglasses. 12, 735 N.E.2d 616. In People v. Hinton, 302 Ill.App.3d 614, 236 Ill.Dec. Defendant appears to be redrafting motions to suppress, after having the benefit of Judge Toomin's ruling and our affirmance of that ruling, in an attempt to put a new spin on an old motion. After giving his statement to Cummings, defendant spoke with Sheila in the interview room. At the age of 53, David Ray Mccoy was brutally murdered in Chicago, Cook County, Illinois, on November 13, 1988. In Apprendi, a New Jersey hate crime statute was declared unconstitutional because it allowed the trial judge to increase penalties for crimes upon a finding the crimes were committed with a purpose to intimidate *** because of race, color, gender, handicap, religion, sexual orientation or ethnicity. Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 468-69, 120 S.Ct. While searching the apartment, the police told him to get dressed, giving him some of his clothes; they did not, however, provide him any underwear or socks. 241, 788 N.E.2d 1117. iloveoldschoolmusic.com. See Greenspawn, 346 Ill. at 491, 179 N.E. david ray mccoy sheila daniels chicago. The supreme court cited two facts which have been found to be special circumstances supporting a trial court's decision to hold new de novo hearings on motions to suppress after remand. Tyrone did testify in this case at his own motion to suppress, which was completed before defendant's own motion was completed. Defendant also argues that the trial court erred in failing to allow her to reopen her case in light of the testimony Tyrone and Anthony would present at a hearing on her motion to suppress. Hobley I, 159 Ill.2d at 312, 202 Ill.Dec. People v. Davis, 322 Ill.App.3d 762, 765, 256 Ill.Dec. Finally, the court found incredible defendant's testimony that the assistant State's Attorney purported to be her attorney, and stated that no credible evidence existed that her will was overborne or that she had invoked her right to counsel. Daniels I, 272 Ill.App.3d at 334, 208 Ill.Dec. Defendant then wiped all fingerprints off Sheila's gun and left it in the car by McCoy, locking all the doors of the car, which he left there. Following a second jury trial before Judge Joseph J. Urso, defendant was again convicted of first degree murder and was sentenced to 80 years' imprisonment. David was killed by his then-long-term girlfriend, Sheila Daniels, and her brother. 58, 539 N.E.2d 368 (1989), this court stated: With regard to pretrial motions to suppress evidence, the rule is that once a motion to suppress has been ruled upon by one judge, that motion cannot be relitigated later before another judge, absent a showing of exceptional circumstances or of additional evidence that has become available since the first hearing to suppress. One such circumstance was where the defendant's conviction was reversed and remanded for a new trial where the State failed to call a material witness at the hearing on the defendant's motion to suppress statements. The Jones court subsequently found this error did not require reversal. She asserts that had this court and Judge Toomin had the benefit of the United States Supreme Court's ruling in Thompson v. Keohane, 516 U.S. 99, 116 S.Ct. 1526, 128 L.Ed.2d 293 (1994). The court in Taylor held that once a suppression order is entered, it may be reconsidered or appealed, but a second hearing on the merits may not be held. Defendant argues next that recent case law and significant changes regarding the voluntariness of a defendant's confessions require a hearing on her motion to suppress. David Ray McCoy Cause Of Death: What happened to LisaRaye's father? People v. Enis, 163 Ill.2d 367, 387, 206 Ill.Dec. A person is legally accountable for the conduct of another when either before or during the commission of an offense, and with the intent to promote or facilitate such commission, he solicits, aids, abets, agrees or attempts to aid the other person in the planning or commission of the offense. Further, there is no credible evidence in this record that the defendant's will was overborne ***.. Anthony was questioned and released. George M. Zuganelis, Berwyn, for defendant-appellant. 241, 788 N.E.2d 1117 (2001) and People v. Thurow, 203 Ill.2d 352, 272 Ill.Dec. The trial court denied the defendant's request for a new suppression hearing. People v. Feagans, 134 Ill.App.3d 252, 89 Ill.Dec. 698, 557 N.E.2d 468.) Therefore, only those facts necessary for proper consideration of the instant appeal will be repeated here. David's death shocked many of his business associates as he spoke fondly of Daniels, and the two had been together for over ten years. 143, 706 N.E.2d 1017 (1998), this court addressed the defendant's contention on appeal that he was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his postconviction petition because he had new evidence which showed systematic torture at Area 2. 1000, 688 N.E.2d 693. People v. Enis, 163 Ill.2d 367, 386 [206 Ill.Dec. In Daniels I, defendant argued, inter alia, that Judge Toomin had erred in denying her motion to suppress statements. We do not dispute that a change in the law is an exception to application of the law of the case doctrine. In the instant case, defendant's discovery requests are much broader than those in Hinton. The fact that defendant did not ask for this to be done indicates that defendant's theory in her first motion to suppress had nothing to do with Tyrone's condition. See e.g., People v. Lee, 319 Ill.App.3d 289, 307, 253 Ill.Dec. However, the issue is whether a proper foundation was laid for admission of them into evidence. Viewing the matter in terms of the doctrine of law of the case, there is no bar to the trial court conducting a new hearing. On September 16, 1997 just one year before Lisa Raye made her debut in The Players Club and during the height of Da Brats multiplatinum selling career- their dads girlfriend, Sheila Daniels, was officially convicted AGAIN for his murder. Defense counsel argued that the necessity and/or sufficiency of Miranda warnings had not been previously raised. After denial of her motion, defendant filed written offers of proof, which stated that, if called to testify at a hearing, Tyrone and Anthony would substantiate the allegations of abuse contained in her second amended motion to suppress. In this appeal, he contends that he was deprived of his right to effective assistance of counsel because his trial counsel (1) allegedly failed to effectively present his motion to suppress statements; (2) allegedly failed to effectively argue the applicable law regarding accountability; (3) successfully obtained the admission into evidence of the extrajudicial statement of Sheila Daniels, a codefendant; and (4) allegedly refused to permit him to testify at trial. See also People v. Watts (1992), 226 Ill.App.3d 519, 168 Ill.Dec. This court first looked to the holdings in People v. Hobley, 159 Ill.2d 272, 202 Ill.Dec. As no such special circumstances were presented in Enis, there was no abuse of discretion in the trial court's refusal to revisit its rulings on these matters in preparation for [the] defendant's second trial. Enis, 163 Ill.2d at 387, 206 Ill.Dec. Therefore, based upon the facts before us, we find that Judge Urso did not err in refusing to grant defendant a second hearing on her motion to suppress based upon new evidence. However, we are unpersuaded by defendant's reliance upon Thompson. The trial court's ruling with respect to a motion to quash a subpoena will not be reversed unless the trial court's finding of fact was manifestly erroneous. 5-2(c); People v. Foster (1990), 198 Ill.App.3d 986, 145 Ill.Dec. 688], 721 N.E.2d 1219, 1221 (1999), [judgment vacated by People v. Huff, 195 Ill.2d 87 [253 Ill.Dec. 594, 789 N.E.2d 768) and reconsider our decision in light of the holdings in People v. Crespo, 203 Ill.2d 335, 273 Ill.Dec. People v. Enis, 139 Ill.2d 264, 300, 151 Ill.Dec. Applying the analysis used in Hobley I and Hobley II to the facts before it, this court in Hinton held that the new evidence presented in the defendant's postconviction petition did not entitle the defendant to an evidentiary hearing because he, like Hobley, did not present sufficient evidence of an injury. The Tragic Story, Why Millionaire Dad Of Lisa Raye & Da Brat Was The court also found that probable cause existed after defendant spoke with the polygraph operator and admitted knowledge of the murder. 0. david ray mccoy sheila daniels chicago. He was found shot to death in the back seat of his Cadillac, which was parked in a Southside Chicago alley. In this appeal, defendant asserts that Tyrone is now available to testify that the police beat him, corroborating defendant's testimony that she saw him in an injured state. Please try again. Their beloved father was a paraplegic who was also a wellestablished Southside Chicago businessman. Judge Toomin cited several cases which supported his holding and made extremely detailed findings of fact. Issues (1) and (2) will be considered in published portions of this opinion and issues (3) and (4) will be determined in unpublished portions of this opinion. During cross-examination, Cummings acknowledged that there was nothing in his investigation which would indicate that defendant had knowledge of, or assisted in, Sheila's plan to shoot McCoy. 321, 696 N.E.2d 313 (1998) (Hobley II). Lisa Raye (best known to us old schoolers as Diamond in the Players Club) and rapper, Da Brat, are biological sisters with the same father, David Ray McCoy. Is it pretty much common knowledge that Lisa Raye McCoy grew up a Although Sheila's statement is not contained in the record, the court's and the attorneys' allusions to that statement indicate that defense counsel attempted to use it to show that defendant was unaware that Sheila was going to shoot McCoy. Defendant lastly argues that defense counsel improperly refused to allow him to testify. 256, 637 N.E.2d 992. Her brother, Tyrone, was convicted and is serving a 60-year sentence for shooting McCoy twice more to make sure he was dead. Defendant eloquently states her position in her reply brief, where she explains that in her view: [T]he [law of the case] doctrine applies not to motions' as such, but, rather, to legal issues determined almost invariably after a hearing. In finding error in the trial court's refusal to admit the X-rays, the supreme court stated they should have been admitted because they tended to sustain the defendant's alibi. Greenspawn, 346 Ill. at 491, 179 N.E. According to Chicago Tribune, three of McCoys other daughters, Jehlan, Morgan, and Cynthia, believe Daniels killed their father because she found out he was about to cut her out of his will. During its deliberations, the jury sent a note to the trial court asking if plaintiff's medical records pertaining to the 1980 beating were available to the jury. Defendant agreed, and while accompanied by three officers, arrived at the police station around 5:30 p.m. that day. 604], 645 N.E.2d 856, 864 (1994). Enis, 163 Ill.2d at 387 [206 Ill.Dec. Shortly thereafter, defendant was interviewed by an assistant State's Attorney, who advised him of his rights. In making this determination, the Supreme Court stated that [o]ther than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 490, 120 S.Ct. 58, 539 N.E.2d 368. Defendant also argues that Judge Urso should have held a hearing on her motion to suppress based upon the Supreme Court's decision in Stansbury v. California, 511 U.S. 318, 114 S.Ct. Maxwell, 173 Ill.2d at 120-21, 219 Ill.Dec. 441, 473 N.E.2d 1246.) The facts surrounding her stay at the police station and the content of various statements she made to police, including a statement taken by a court reporter wherein defendant admitted to shooting McCoy but claimed it was in self-defense, were laid out at length in Daniels I. As we pointed out in Daniels I, defendant never asserted in her motion to suppress ruled upon by Judge Toomin that she confessed because she saw her brothers in a beaten condition. In addition, Cummings testified that, at 4 a.m. in the police station, after he had been advised of his rights, defendant initially denied involvement in McCoy's murder. Working through a trace of the gun used in the murder, police returned to defendant's house on November 17, 1988, to question her again about McCoy's death and some telephone logs the police had acquired. In response, the police told him that he "might as well tell everything * * * because your sister is fixing to go to jail for a murder." In Crespo, the defendant stabbed the victim 24 times with an eight-inch knife and pulled her hair with such force that part of her scalp was torn from her head. Likewise, during closing argument, defense counsel argued that nothing in defendant's statements indicated that he had any knowledge of Sheila's intent to shoot McCoy or in any way "aided, assisted, abetted, or [was] otherwise involved in this.". A South Side woman has been convicted for the second time of killing millionaire David Ray McCoy, her live-in boyfriend, in 1988. 38, par. She alleged that police informed her that they would continue beating Tyrone and might even subject her to physical cruelty unless she made admissions relating to her involvement in McCoy's murder. In reliance upon Cannon, Patterson and King, defendant argues the OPS report constitutes new evidence, entitling her to a hearing on her reoffered amended motion to suppress. A jury of nine women and three men returned a verdict of. Choices which are made on the basis of strategic considerations after a thorough investigation of all matters relevant to plausible options have traditionally been considered to be unchallengeable. Defendant argues that Sheila's statement "figured prominently" in the court's determination and thus, because that statement was "admitted solely due to defense counsel's efforts[,] obviously defendant has been deprived of effective assistance of counsel.". In a separate bench trial, defendant's brother, Tyrone Daniels, was also convicted of first degree murder in connection with McCoy's death. Although he was doing nothing illegal, defendant was then placed under arrest. In fact, the motion to suppress at issue in Daniels I makes no mention of Tyrone's or Anthony's condition as a basis for defendant's statements. Each of the Taylor line of cases speaks of an order itself, not merely of issues upon which the order may or may not have turned. Williams, 138 Ill.2d at 390-91, 150 Ill.Dec. 604, 645 N.E.2d 856 (1994). The trial court's decision not to revisit a matter previously litigated in reliance upon the law of the case doctrine will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion. Defendant directs us to the testimony at her second trial where Lt. Phillip Cline of the Chicago police department was asked on redirect why on November 12 and 17 of 1988, he did not advise defendant of her Miranda warnings. Accordingly, we find that defendant was not denied effective assistance of counsel due to his attorney successfully obtaining the admission of Sheila's statement. DAVID RAY MCCOY - We Africa Preview 528, 589 N.E.2d 928. list of chicago mobsters; sudocrem on scalp; best ucla dorms; recent food poisoning cases in australia 2021. uber santa barbara airport; hanako greensmith actress; wireshark serial port; gold rush todd hoffman. Following a hearing on the motion, the trial court denied the motion. That fact alone distinguishes defendant's case from the Greenspawn case where the X-ray technician had testified as to the authenticity of the X-rays. In addition to what he had told Cummings, defendant told her that Sheila and McCoy had been arguing when Sheila accidentally shot McCoy. After a recitation of more testimony at the hearing, the court denied defendant's motion to suppress based on the fourth amendment, finding that she was not in custody until after she gave an incriminating statement to the polygraph operator. The State argued that the doctrine of law of the case barred a subsequent hearing on defendant's motion. Her parents were never married. The court finds on the basis of the credible evidence that *** there was no invoking of the right to counsel. Consequently, we find that defendant was not deprived of effective assistance of trial counsel by his counsel's failure to present the argument that defendant was psychologically influenced by his sister. 38, par. 698, 557 N.E.2d 468.) Immediately after his arrest, defendant was taken to the police station, where he was questioned by the police. His conviction and sentence were affirmed in People v. Daniels, 230 Ill.App.3d 527, 172 Ill.Dec. david ray mccoy obituary chicago - sherifemodas.com In Crespo, our supreme court determined that sentences which violate Apprendi are reviewed under a plain error analysis when the defendant failed to object to the sentence in the circuit court. After Sheila left, defendant decided to cooperate with the police; however, he was still not advised of his constitutional rights. The motion was denied and our supreme court affirmed that ruling. The section of Cleary and Graham defendant relies upon relates to the personal knowledge requirement of testifying witnesses, not the requirements of admission of medical records. Detectives eventually found out that McCoy was killed over something extremely senseless. Throughout the years, Da Brat and Lisa Raye havent spoken much publicly about their fathers murder. In her motion, defendant asserted that she had been illegally arrested in her home without a warrant in the absence of probable cause, which was a violation of her fourth amendment rights as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. On appeal, defendant contends: (1) that the trial court erred in refusing to hold an evidentiary hearing on her motions to suppress statements; (2) that the trial court erred in quashing her subpoenas to the City of Chicago (City); (3) that the trial court erred in refusing to send her medical reports to the jury during its deliberations; and (4) that her 80-year sentence is unconstitutional under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. (See People v. Majer (1985), 131 Ill.App.3d 80, 86 Ill.Dec. 1, 670 N.E.2d 679 (1996), the defendant similarly alleged that he was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his postconviction petition because of newly discovered evidence regarding Area 2 which disclosed a pattern of brutality directed at suspects in custody. But she contended at the second trial that she had shot him only after McCoy verbally abused her and threatened her with his own gun. Defendant next argues that his counsel erred in successfully obtaining the admission of Sheila Daniel's statement into evidence. Here, defendant has never said she was beaten. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688-89, 104 S.Ct. At that time, he had a girlfriend named Shiela Daniels. 143, 706 N.E.2d 1017. On June 4, 2003, our supreme court directed us to vacate our opinion in this case (204 Ill.2d 667, 273 Ill.Dec. Defendant testified that she later saw Tyrone at the police station and that he apparently had also been beaten. Defense counsel specifically asked Detective Cummings whether there was "anything in any of Mr. Daniels' statements that would lead you to believe that Tyrone Daniels did anything to aid, assist or participate with Sheila Daniels in any way until after Sheila Daniels had shot Mr. McCoy," to which Cummings answered, "No." at 2362-63, 147 L.Ed.2d at 455. 143, 706 N.E.2d 1017. Defendant further argues that because she had first-hand knowledge of the accuracy of the records, the trial court should have admitted them into evidence. Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Second Division.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png. [Editor's Note: Text omitted pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 23. 767, 650 N.E.2d 224. 12, 735 N.E.2d 616 (2000), the defendant was convicted of two counts of murder committed during a forcible felony and was sentenced to death. The trial court overruled the objection, stating that defendant could look at the records while testifying, but could not read from them. Defendant now appeals. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986), the defendant was granted a new trial, where he again moved to suppress statements, arguing now that he could prove other suspects had also been tortured at Area 2.