The People assert that the defense experts repeatedly suggested that defendant "regarded the boy prostitutes he picked up as trash," and that defendant "thought that he was performing a service to society by disposing of human trash, namely homosexual prostitutes.". The assistant State's Attorney stated that he had the name of an "interviewer" who was told by Dr. Rappaport that he was available for an interview, but would not disclose the name unless instructed by the court to do so. Donnelly passed out. During closing argument, the prosecutor argued: We find Yeager distinguishable. Defendant told Donnelly that he had killed girls before, but that he had stopped doing this, because he found killing "guys" to be more interesting. In March 1977, Jeffrey Rignall accepted a ride and an offer of marijuana from John Wayne Gacy, only to be chloroformed as soon as he got into the vehicle. In other instances cited by defendant, no error was committed because counsel was given the opportunity *32 to suggest additional questions concerning the potential jurors' opinions as to defendant's guilt and failed to do so, or the juror was excused for cause. 2d 684, 688, 85 S. Ct. 741, 745]; and that their determination of probable cause should be paid great deference by reviewing courts, Jones v. United States [(1960), 362 U.S. 257, 270-71, 4 L. Ed. Here, Lieutenant Kozenczak's complaint indicated that he had information concerning the suspect's criminal history and had discovered a significant pattern of sexual misconduct involving young men. Defendant contends next that the failure to sequester the jury between the time of their selection and the beginning of trial denied him his right to a fair and impartial jury. The defense called two other psychiatrists. 1005-3-2(a)) of the presentence investigation report. When defendant *36 did ask that the remainder of the voir dire be closed to the public, he did so only on the bare assertion that prospective jurors were not being fully candid. Dr. Richard Rogers, a clinical psychologist, administered the Schedule of Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia test (SADS) on defendant. He testified concerning defendant's anxiety regarding his sexual identification and his anger at being called a homosexual, and that defendant showed no emotional affect when he described the stabbing of his first victim. Rather, the People assert, all of the People's experts stated that he was suffering "from a mere personality or character disorder.". A search warrant issued on December 21, 1978, authorized the police to search defendant's home for the remains of the body of Robert Piest. Considering that after a lengthy trial the jury required approximately 1 hour and 45 minutes to reject defendant's insanity defense, we conclude that defendant was not deprived of the right to be convicted by a "rational tribunal.". April 20, 2022 Latest News Showtime's Catching Lightning: Where is the Make-Up Artist Michelle Hogg Now? Despite this, defense counsel asked Dr. Cavanaugh whether defendant, if he were acquitted, could be civilly committed. The assertion that the complaint contained insufficient facts to establish probable cause is without merit. 2d 913, 924-26, 96 S. Ct. 2960, 2968-69, the Supreme Court rejected this argument with respect to similar wording in a Florida statute. We find no error. Not that he never killed. Defendant has also contended that his sentences must be vacated and the cause remanded for resentencing because the court sentenced him without the benefit of a presentence investigation report. Defendant's father held defendant against the wall and said: "Hit me * * * what's the matter with you? 'John Wayne Gacy: Devil in Disguise': 11 Shocking Revelations From Legally, Dr. Cavanaugh explained, a person could escape responsibility only when "an extreme situation arises" where the person's ability to form an intent is questioned. If defense counsel wished to inquire whether Dr. Hartman had ever diagnosed a patient using one of the previous labels for this condition, he could have done so. Officer Schultz indicated that he had smelled the odor of at least 40 putrified human bodies and that the smell in defendant's home was similar. When Ried turned around and saw him coming, defendant stopped and stated that he thought there might be trouble. The cost of the venue evaluation was estimated at approximately $38,000, although confining the survey to a limited number of counties and applying other cost-cutting measures could have reduced the budget. Defendant next asserts that the complaint was fatally defective in that it failed to state the time when the informants made their observations. The assistant State's Attorney argued: Defendant did not object to this argument and any alleged error is waived. Defendant's assertion that this murder was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt rests upon a distortion of the record. Tony Antonucci also worked for defendant. The lime was used, defendant explained, to sweeten the smell of the crawl space. In People v. Brownell (1980), 79 Ill. 2d 508, 528-36, we considered whether the sentencing standards of our death penalty statute are vague, and found them to be sufficiently specific. Nowout of print, used copies can go forhundreds of dollars online. If he does, he is legally responsible." Moreover, defense experts were able to explain how the events of defendant's childhood and adolescence, as corroborated by numerous friends and relatives of defendant, affected defendant's development. He stated that Greg Godzik had dug his own grave, and that he had killed John Szyc because he had asked for more money. Defendant relies upon Henry v. Wainwright (5th Cir.1981), 661 F.2d 56, vacated and remanded (1982), 457 U.S. 1114, 73 L. Ed. Defendant's other citations to trial counsel's alleged incompetence are without merit. Dr. Lawrence Freedman reviewed all the police reports, all of defendant's statements, newspaper articles from the very inception of the case, defendant's criminal history, the reports from other psychiatrists and psychologists, *56 and the book Jeffrey Rignall wrote concerning defendant's assault upon him. * * * Hit me. Apparently he has not seen his own children since he left Iowa. Dr. A. Arthur Hartman, a clinical psychologist, was called to examine defendant by Dr. Robert Reifman, a psychiatrist, at the inception of the case due to the seriousness of the charges. Defendant then "patched up" Ried's head. Defendant also complains that his trial counsel made an incompetent closing argument. Jeffrey was beaten, raped, and tormented in the house, and he went in and out of consciousness multiple times. Mais ds que Jeffrey a pris quelques bouffes, il a senti un coup . Defendant also argues that the assistant State's Attorney's opening statement at the death penalty hearing was improper because, when commenting on the statutory mitigating factor that the murders were committed while the defendant was under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance, he told the jurors that they had flatly rejected that factor when they found defendant guilty and that the mitigating factors were simply statutory guidelines, and not loopholes for the defendant. They began wrestling, and defendant managed to put handcuffs on Antonucci. While defendant has a fundamental right to be present at any critical stage of the proceedings against him, he does not have an absolute right to be present also at the argument of motions subsequent to verdict. The court then instructed the jury to disregard any remarks concerning *82 this matter. Dr. Ney explained that in all these categories, there was "more of this type of emotionally impacting material" in Cook County than in any of the other outlying counties. The court stated that neither side could raise an irrelevant issue and instructed the jury to disregard the colloquy because it was irrelevant to the issues of the case. Citing People v. Brownell (1980), 79 Ill. 2d 508, the People argue that the decision at sentencing in a capital case is a balancing process in which the seriousness of the crime must be weighed against whatever mitigating factors exist. We decline to disturb the jury's determination. Our statute provides that a defendant may be sentenced to death if he "has been convicted of murdering two or more individuals * * * regardless of whether the deaths occurred as the result of the same act or of several related or unrelated acts so long as the deaths were the result of either an intent to kill more than one person or of separate premeditated acts * * *." 58 StrawberryLeche 1 yr. ago The fact he was ignored is what makes me sad. Defendant, in his reply brief, asserts that he never abandoned his claim of innocence because "at jury selection and at the time of jury instructions the jury was informed that there were two issues to be resolved: guilt and sanity." (39 Ill. 2d 489, 509.) Jeffrey Rignall (August 21, 1951 - December 24, 2000) was an American author who survived a 1978 attack by serial killer John Wayne Gacy. 3, 15-19, 210 A.2d 763, 769-71, is: We need not, however, decide the question here for the reason that our review of the record shows that defendant's experts were not precluded by the circuit court's ruling from stating, or explaining to the jury, the basis for their conclusions. The record shows that the defense attorneys were sufficiently able to distinguish between the defense of insanity and the mitigating factor of extreme mental or emotional disturbance. The next morning he telephoned his lawyer *84 and was later arrested. No gross amount of water was found in his lungs, which suggests that he might not have drowned. Defense counsel was free to argue that the evidence did not support the assistant State's Attorney's conclusions but rather supported the conclusion suggested by him. Defense counsel then proceeded to impugn the reputation of the psychiatrists who would testify for the People, calling Dr. Robert Reifman "a mechanic for the State," stating that Dr. James Cavanaugh had "an iron-clad inflexible bias," and that Dr. Jan Fawcett would testify on behalf of the People because defendant's cause was too unpopular for the doctor to associate himself with the defense. He stated that defendant was very sensitive about where the employees dug, and would place markers designating the specific area in which the trenches were to be dug. The People contend that the items seized were in plain view and there was sufficient information in possession of the officers to support their conclusion that the ring and receipt in some manner connected defendant with Piest's disappearance. Therefore, we hold that defendant waived his opportunity to discover more about the prospective jurors' attitudes about the death penalty by failing to tender additional questions during the voir dire. We cannot agree. These witnesses also recounted that defendant experienced episodes of what appeared to be heart attacks. Defense counsel could have questioned the expert as to particular symptoms and then asked if that was consistent with the diagnosis of "borderline." Defendant then punched Donnelly, and once again held his head in the bathtub until he passed out. Several weeks earlier, defendant and Ried were attempting to break into a house and Ried saw defendant coming from behind him with a tire iron in his hand. On those facts, the defendant was granted a new trial. He stated that all the boys were in a certain age group and of a certain build because these boys represented the fit and trim build he was unable to attain as a youth. The more articles and news reports disseminated in a particular location, the more likely that area's inhabitants would recall the event. In particular, human interest stories appeared predominantly in the Cook County news media. He testified that defendant once asked him if he would engage in homosexual activity if it "meant his job." Defendant next contends that his trial counsel was incompetent since he failed to present other mitigating evidence. In view of the fact that defendant stated he threw five bodies from the I-55 bridge and all five bodies were found in the same general vicinity, a reasonable inference to be drawn was that O'Rourke was one of defendant's victims. Defendant, in his brief, examines at length both the expert and lay testimony concerning defendant's insanity defense and concludes that because all the defense experts arrived at consistent diagnoses, and the People's experts did not, the People failed to meet their burden. Once inside, Gacy tortured the young man, tying him up and repeatedly beating, raping, and chloroforming him. In March of 1978, Jeffrey Rignall woke up at 5 a.m. by the steps of Lincoln Park. Third, defendant complains because he was not allowed to ask Dr. Hartman: We agree with the People that his question was vague and ambiguous. Although defendant asserts that there "were no signs of any trauma," the doctor performing the autopsy testified that strangulation could not be ruled out as a possible cause of death. Dr. Heston found that there was "grossly insufficient evidence to support" the psychoanalytic scenario concerning how defendant "went about committing these killings," and that the diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenic was based on "pure inference." When he regained consciousness, defendant took him into the bathroom, shoved Donnelly's head against the wall, then placed something around Donnelly's neck and started twisting it. Stat. Defendant appeared very relaxed. Defendant argues that the assistant State's Attorney *89 improperly stated that Dr. Heston had not been compensated for examining the defendant. It should be noted that in each of the other references to the record that defendant contends show insufficient questioning on this matter, defendant was given an opportunity to suggest further questions when the court had completed its interrogation, and failed to do so. Not only did defendant fail to object to the use of these statements, he stipulated to their use and, at least in part, relied on them in arguing that his mental defect constituted a factor in mitigation which should preclude the death penalty. Apparently referring to one of his four personalities, defendant told police that "Jack does not like homosexuality." We fail to see the relevance, however, of evidence that Russell and his future wife had the names of their children already picked out and that Mrs. Nelson would not divulge the name of Russell's girl friend because she was trying to make a life of her own and was very upset about *86 what had happened. He remembers John being naked and masturbating in front of him. 38, par. Defendant told Finder that he usually killed his victims for one of two reasons: because the victim demanded more money than originally agreed upon or because they posed a threat to him by exposing his sexual preferences to his neighbors. In reviewing the sufficiency of the complaint we are guided by the Supreme Court's statement in Spinelli v. United States (1969), 393 U.S. 410, 21 L. Ed. The night before defendant's sister was to marry, defendant and his father got into an argument over whether or not defendant would take a bath that night. In describing the disposal of Robert Piest's body, defendant told Investigator Bedoe that he had to make "two or three passes" at the bridge where he was going to throw the body in the river before the bridge was clear of other traffic. Its decision will not be reversed unless the determination is so improbable or unsatisfactory as to raise a reasonable doubt as to defendant's sanity.'" Defendant also complains that Officer Schultz did not promptly notify Lieutenant Kozenczak about the smell of decaying flesh and this casts doubt on the veracity of Officer Schultz' conclusion. We note that it was defense counsel who injected the issue of bias of the expert witnesses into this trial with the remarks in opening argument that the People's experts were "mechanics for the State" or had "inflexible biases." Moreover, defendant's attorneys would have been aware that the Des Plaines police had positively linked defendant to Robert Piest's disappearance and that further links between defendant's young former employees and their disappearances would be discovered. The fact that this was the only test given which related to nonorganic brain damage and that Dr. Garron did not examine defendant for the purpose of diagnosing nonorganic brain disorders affects the weight, not the admissibility, of his testimony. Defendant placed the gag back in Donnelly's mouth, and started "playing around with" the object which was inserted in Donnelly's rectum. The two Chicago newspapers carried many of these first two types of articles when the story first broke, but discontinued them a week to a month later. 38, par. Defendant complains of the colloquy between the judge and the first prospective juror. She stated that defendant never hid the fact that he was bisexual. Defendant argues that trial counsel failed to tender an instruction to the effect that the jurors could only consider defendant's statements made to the examining expert witnesses with reference to his mental condition. Dr. Ney identified four principles which could be used to gauge the effect these factors had on the reading audiences exposed to these materials. On cross-examination, Dr. Freedman stated that he had given such an opinion in the Simon Peter Nelson case. It is a guess." Defendant then stated he had come into the house to get something, but left with nothing, and when she looked through the curtains she saw a young boy with blond hair get into the car. This court rejected that argument in People ex rel. At that time he was diagnosed as having antisocial personality. Defendant argues that any of the expert witnesses who testified for either side should have been examined at the sentencing hearing on this point. Defendant had confessed *93 that he had picked up one of the young men whose body was found in the river at Clark and Lawrence in Chicago, one block from where O'Rourke and his transsexual lover were living. jeffrey rignall testimony transcript We see no basis upon which to find that a formal written presentence investigation report would alter the judge's determination on the facts of this case. The writer E. Jean Carroll on Wednesday told a Manhattan jury a harrowing story of being raped in the mid-1990s by Donald J. Trump in a department-store dressing . Defendant argues too that the information presented to the warrant judge did not support a reasonable belief that the crime of unlawful restraint had been committed. The evidence established that defendant offered his wife to adolescent boys in exchange for oral sex. Defendant argues that Lieutenant Kozenczak's statements were conclusional and did not identify the sources of his information or answer basic questions such as "Who stated John W. Gacy was in the store two times? We conclude that the issuing judge had a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed, and we decline to disturb his determination. He stated that he did not believe that there was not a psychoanalytic answer *59 for the 33 murders committed by defendant. Defendant then told Donnelly to dress, put Donnelly in his car, and told him it would be his last ride. Edward Lynch, a classmate of Donald Vorhees, testified that while he was at defendant's house in Iowa defendant threatened him with a carving knife and forced him into his bedroom. On cross-examination, Dr. Brocher was asked if he realized that the "reason for the motive that someone does something has nothing to do with [the Illinois] standard [for insanity]?" Fourth, certain articles compared defendant to other notorious mass murderers. Defendant next asserts that he was not proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of committing indecent liberties and deviate sexual assault on Robert Piest as there was no corpus delicti for these offenses. Third, "human interest" stories focused on an individual's involvement in the case rather than the actual facts of the case. He pulled the trigger between 10 and 15 times, spinning the chamber between pulls of the trigger, until the gun finally went off. Dr. Freedman explained that during the homosexual encounters with his victims, he projected his own anxieties about himself onto his victims, thinking that they, and not he, were "trash." Traisman noted that there was an unusual and significant disparity between defendant's verbal and nonverbal scores on the Wechsler test. The assistant State's Attorney repeatedly stated the proper test, and the jury was not misled by this one statement. Dr. Eliseo had been asked by defense counsel to examine defendant and make a diagnosis without reviewing any of the information thus far gathered in the case, ostensibly for the reason that they did not wish him to be "prejudiced" by this information. We cannot agree with defendant that the People's questions admit to only one inference. The factors are: failure to prepare for the hearing, failure to present any evidence on the statutory mitigating factor of extreme mental or emotional disturbance, failure to present other mitigating evidence, and failure to make a competent closing argument.