10-04-16 Transcript Case 922

STATE OF ILLINOIS
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE 17TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

WINNEBAGO COUNTY
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE
VVVVVVVV
OF ILLINOIS,
VS. NO. 2014-CF-922
RICHARD WANKE, HEARING
Defendant.
COPY
REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS at the hearing in the
10 above-entitled matter before the Honorable Rosemary
11 Collins, Judge of said Court, heard on Tuesday, the 4th
l2 of October, 2016.
13 APPEARANCES:
14 MS. MARILYN HITE ROSS,

Winnebago County State's Attorney,
15 Chief of the Criminal Bureau,
appeared on behalf of the People;
16
MR. JAMES BRUN,
17 Winnebago County Deputy State‘s Attorney,
Criminal Bureau,
18 appeared on behalf of the People;
19 MS. PAMELA WELLS,

Winnebago County Assistant Deputy State's Attorney,
20 appeared on behalf of the People;
21 MR. NICK ZIMMERMAN,

Winnebago County First Public Defender,
22 appeared on behalf of the Defendant;
23 MR. ROBERT SIMMONS,

Winnebago County Assistant Public Defender,
24 appeared on behalf of the Defendant.
Brirtyn Higdon, CSR, RPR

Official Court Reporter
CSR License #084—004810
This is People vs. Richard Wanke. Good
THE COURT:
morning.
Mr. Wanke, do you need to talk to your attorneys
before we get started?
THE DEFENDANT: I'm not certain what has been filed
prior to me being here. So the State had talked about
filing several updates.
THE COURT: So are you saying you do wish to talk to
your attorney to find out what's going on or not?
10 MR. ZIMMERMAN: Judge, if I may, the State did file
11 some motions, various motions. We just received those so
12 I wouldn‘t anticipate getting to them today. So I think
13 we can proceed with what we're ready to proceed on today
14 and then ask that the other ones be heard on one of our
15 future court appearances.
16 THE COURT: Before we go any further though, I'm
17 just asking a simple question to Mr. Wanke.
18 Do you wish to speak to your attorneys before we
19 proceed here this morning or have you had ample time to
20 speak to them before this and you're ready to proceed?
21 THE DEFENDANT: If I can have just a moment?
22 THE COURT: Mm-hmm.
23 (Discussion held off the record.)
24 THE COURT: Okay. So I think the answer to this is
Brittyn Higdon, CSR, RPR

CSR License #084-004810
yes, you do need some time.
THE DEFENDANT: I've read the one motion that —— I
don't think so, your Honor. Thank you.
THE COURT: Okay. So you're comfortable proceeding,
before we
you don't need any more time to speak to them
get started this morning?
THE DEFENDANT: Correct, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. So where we are, where we
ended up before we got to the motion to continue was the
10 defense motions. And so we had spent a lot of time
11 Friday on the motion to exclude evidence number 1. The
12 Court denied that motion.
13 The allegations —— or the request in 6 and 7
14 were withdrawn. The Court denied the request to exclude
15 the evidence from Officer Juanez, however, the Court did
l6 grant the continuance to give the defense some additional
17 time to proceed on that, or to prepare for that.
18 So we're on the defense motions in limine. We
19 have defense motions 5, 6, 7 and 8 that we're going to
20 begin with and we'll start with defense 5th motion in
21 limine.
22 MR. SIMMONS: Your Honor, I apologize. It was my
23 understanding we had already argued defense motion in
24 limine 5.

THE COURT: Did we?
MR. SIMMONS: We had submitted an addendum outlining
but I —-
specific statements we were seeking to bar,
I do have the addendum. All right. So

THE COURT:
notes
we don't have anything left —F it could be that my
aren't correct. So we've already argued 5 and you're
comfortable with that?
MR. SIMMONS: Yes, I believe so.
THE COURT: State, do you have any further response
10 on 5?
11 MS. HITE ROSS: No, Judge.
12 THE COURT: Okay. So then we have number ——
13 defendant's 6 has been withdrawn; is that correct?
14 MR. SIMMONS: I don‘t believe so.
15 THE COURT: Okay. Do you have a copy of that?
16 MR. SIMMONS: Here you go.
17 THE COURT: So this is important that we do this
18 because their docket entries are incorrect. Because it
19 does say in the docket entry that the 6th motion in
20 limine was withdrawn. So we will fix that. So that's
21 why we're here a lot.
22 MR. ZIMMERMAN: Judge, what that could be is that I
23 think both 5 and 6 are related to motions filed by the
24 State, kind of the counter argument for motions filed by

CSR License "084-004810
the State ——
THE COURT: It could be, but ——
MR. ZIMMERMAN: -— and argued, but
THE CLERK: SO I'll take it out.
THE COURT: So the ROA needs to be fixed. Okay.
THE CLERK: Yes. I do have a copy.
THE COURT: You do have it?
THE CLERK: Yes.
THE COURT: Sometimes we have other clerks up here
10 and one day I know we had a clerk who wasn‘t really
ll experienced in criminal law and so that‘s why it’s great
12 we have a clerk now who's very experienced. And so
13 hopefully we'll avoid any of those issues in the future.
14 Okay. Defendant's 6.
l5 MR. SIMMONS: Thank you, Judge. Just very briefly,
l6 this is our general objection to any evidence regarding
17 the relationship between Mr. Clark and our client
18 Mr. Wanke. The types of communications and the amount of
19 communications between the two has been documented in
20 other arguments.
21 It's our stance overall that these are not
22 relevant to the charges absent some sort of threat of
23 physical harm or just threat in general. Any of the
24 communications between Mr. Clark and Mr. Wanke are normal

7
a client. We
communications between an attorney and
charges before
don't think they‘re relevant to any of the
the jury.
THE COURT: Thank you. All right.
State's response? And I know that many of these
are kind of interconnected, so
MS. HITE ROSS: Judge, this basically relates to all
our motion amended 27. And just for the record I did
I gave
have an additional case to give to the Court that
10 to counsel this morning, People vs. Robert Gacho,
11 122 Ill.2d 221. It not only relates to amended 27, but
12 also motion in limine number 33 and 34. So I wanted to
13 give that to the Court.
14 But basically, Judge, our position is, as we've
15 stated in our written motion, is that the relationship is
16 important because it is the contentious relationship
17 which is the State's theory as to why the defendant
18 killed Mr. Clark.
19 We attached numerous correspondence between the
2O defendant and Mr. Clark and we believe that it is
21 relevant and is not privileged because the correspondence
22 that we have attached to the amended motion in limine
23 number 27 go directory to the relationship into the
24 contention that was discussed in open court before Judge

Prochaska.
I won't go through all of the letters, Judge,
but just briefly, there's a letter dated December 3lst
notifying the defendant of his sentencing hearing on
February 8th, 2007. Obviously Mr. Clark was killed two
days prior to that sentencing hearing and based upon the
contentious relationship that had been developed and that
had been discussed in open court before Judge Prochaska,
we believe that obviously that correspondence is
10 relevant. The defendant did not want Mr. Clark to
11 participate in a criminal prosecution, that being the
12 sentencing hearing that was scheduled for February 8th.
13 In addition, we have attached correspondence
14 dated October 18, 2007, where Mr. Clark, again, as he had
15 indicated in open court, is telling the defendant you
16 have refused to respond to my requests for information
17 and I need this information. And again, the cases that
18 we have cited to the Court in the rules of evidence and
19 the rules of professional conduct, once an issue is aired
20 in open court, that privilege is gone.
21 Mr. Clark had a right to respond. That
22 privilege was waived. It was waived intentionally
23 because the defendant raised that in open court. And
24 these correspondence letters that we've attached go

OI! icial Court Repot ter
CSR License 11084—004810
, whether or not
directly to the issue that was at hand
a point where
the communications had deteriorated to
Mr. Clark should be allowed to withdraw.

t,
Judge Prochaska heard evidence at one poin
dence that he had
Mr. Clark reads portions of a correspon
denied that such
sent to the defendant when the defendant
correspondence existed, indicated there had been an
pt that
affidavit attached as indicated in the transcri
we've given the Court.
10 So certainly these letters go to the very motive
11 and intent of the defendant and they are not
12 attorney-client privilege because that privilege was
13 intentionally waived. These correspondences go directly
14 to that point.
15 In addition, Judge, again, we've given the Court
16 several attachments, letters, and I know the Court has
17 had a chance to read those, but again, they go to the
18 nature of relationship. And the additional case that
19 we've cited today that we're tendering to the Court, the
20 Gacho case, basically talks about if there is some
21 communication between a defendant and a victim, it is
22 relevant to establish the relationship.
23 And again, the Court is well aware that relevant
24 evidence is something that makes something more likely as

CSR License “084—004810
issue.
opposed to not and that bears directly on that
And we believe that this correspondence and the

h)
statements made by Mr. Clark in open court bear directly

U)
on the issue as to why he was killed and we would ask the
Court grant our motion.
THE COURT: Thank you.
Anything else from the defense then on 6?
MR. SIMMONS: Your Honor, just again, we think that
these communications are of the sort that are common
10 between an attorney and a client. To allow the jury to
11 hear what we characterize as common everyday discussions
12 or correspondence between an attorney and a client is
13 going to mislead to the jury and to what those
14 communications actually mean.
15 There's nothing out of the ordinary between
16 communications that the State seeks to admit. We do not
17 think they're relevant to these charges.
18 THE COURT: Thank you.
19 MS. HITE ROSS: Judge, if I could just add one more
20 thing.
21 THE COURT: Sure.
22 MS. HITE ROSS: And I apologize. And I know the
23 Court is not aware, but just so the record is clear,
24 these are correspondences that were found pursuant to a

10
home.
search warrant in the defendant's possession at his
So the very nature of him indicating in open court to the
judge on certain dates that there was no correspondence.
These are letters and correspondences that Mr. Clark had
sent to the home. They refer to what he had brought up
in open court regarding witnesses. Some of these
letters, as the Court knows, refers to that. They were
found in his possession, Judge, pursuant to a search
warrant.
10 THE COURT: Thank you. I did not know that.
11 MR. SIMMONS: Well, your Honor, I believe based on
12 the transcript that I did review that there was only
l3 discussion about two letters, not the, and I don't have
14 the number, but the stack that the State submitted, the
15 discussion at the hearing was in regard to two letters
16 prior to the sentencing hearing and one of them was
17 claimed to have been received.
18 MS. HITE ROSS: But our position, Judge, is that all
19 of the correspondence because that issue was litigated in
20 open court are relevant and that privilege is waived and
21 that they do come in. That's the State's position.
22 THE COURT: All right. Number 7?
23 MR. ZIMMERMAN: Thank you, Judge. Judge, during the
24 search of 1113 Grant Avenue, police found a single

CSR License 31084~004810
11
unspent round of ammunition. That bullet that they found
was from a Remington Peters .38 Short Colt. The bullets,
based upon the shell casings found at the scene of where
Mr. Clark was killed, the bullets were Federal .380 Auto.
The State submitted the bullet, the unspent
bullet found at 1113 Grant Avenue as well as the shell
casings to the State Police Crime Lab. The State Police
Crime Lab examiner or expert found that there was a tool
mark on the primer of the unspent bullet that was
10 possibly a firing pin impression, but no matter what,
11 that expert determined that it was not made by the firing
12 pin that made the firing impression, pin impressions on
13 the fire cartridges found at the scene of where Mr. Clark
14 was murdered.
15 Consequently, you have a bullet of a completely
16 different caliber, a completely different make that
17 possibly is a dud that had been fired in a gun, but not
18 the gun that was used to kill Mr. Clark.
19 In fact, I think the evidence, ultimately, if
2O the Court allows it in, would show that the Remington
21 Peters .38 Short Colt is a gun designed for a revolver,
22 whereas the Federal .380 Automatic are automatic which is
23 the reason why the spent shell casings were found at the
24 scene of Mr. Clark's murder.

CSR License 11084-004810
12
I've cited two cases that I provided to the
Dinwiddie, Dei—n-w—i—ded—i—e, and

Court, People vs.
People vs. Miller. Both of those cases stand for the
proposition that weapons are inadmissible or are

to the
admissible only if there's proof to connect them
crime. And as cited here, it is not necessary for the
used
State to prove that the weapon was the one actually
in the crime, it's only necessary that the weapon be
suitable for commission of the crime and in some way be
10 connected to the crime.
11 Here there's no connection at all between the
12 one single bullet found at 1113 Grant Avenue and the
13 weapon used to kill Mr. Clark. It's a different caliber.
14 It's a different type of gun. And if this unspent bullet
15 had been fired and misfired, I guess, it was fired by a
16 different gun altogether according to the State's expert
17 from the State Police Crime Lab.
18 This is a situation where we think that allowing
19 the State to admit this one bullet into evidence is, it's
20 irrelevant, number one, because it has no connection to
21 the crime in question and it would be unduly prejudicial
22 to Mr. Wanke in that the State would -— the jurors would
23 decide the case believing that he had possession of other
24 firearms or things of that nature and there's no evidence

13
of that at all.
And so they would decide the case, rather than
deciding it based upon the facts in question, they decide
the
it based upon speculation and conjecture about what
meaning of this random bullet is at 1113 Grant Avenue.
So we would ask that the Court exclude that.
THE COURT: There's also no connection, no possible
connection between this bullet and the earlier shooting
at Mr. Clark's?
10 MR. ZIMMERMAN: There were no shell casings found at
11 the earlier shooting at Mr. Clark's. The —- so there's
12 no way to compare the firing pin impression with any
13 firing pin impression of the earlier shooting.
14 The State's expert concludes that the bullets
15 fired in the earlier shooting and the bullets fired at
16 the time of his death were the same, were fired from the
17 same gun. We're not conceding that ——
18 THE COURT: Which could not be the gun that fired
19 this bullet.
20 MR. ZIMMERMAN: Correct. If the —- what the expert
21 says is there's possibly a firing pin impression on the
22 unspent bullet, but that is not made by the same gun that
23 fired, that made the firing pin impressions on the
24 bullets that killed Mr. Clark.
Erittyn Higdon, CSR, RPR

14
THE COURT: Okay.
MS. WELLS: Judge, we believe that this evidence is
He
relevant and shows that he had access to firearms.
has made statements specifically to Karina Curry and

he
articles back around the time of the offense where
indicated he doesn't use guns, he doesn't believe in
guns, he doesn't have access to firearms and so this
directly contradicts that.
In addition, the -— although they're not
10 identical calibers of bullets, they can be fired from the
11 same, same type of weapon. So although it is not
12 identical caliber, it can be fired from the same size
13 weapon.
14 Counsel's correct when he says that in this
15 particular case they did look and saw something that
16 could be a firing pin impression and it doesn‘t match the
17 three casings that were found at the scene of the murder,
18 but we believe that it does show access to firearms,
19 firearms and ammunition, therefore it is relevant given
20 his statements to other people that he doesn't have
21 access to guns, doesn't use guns, doesn't believe in
22 guns.
23 At the very least it should be admissible for
24 rebuttal if he does testify to that, but we believe that
Britt n Higdon, CSR, RPR

. ‘<
f iCial Court Reporter

R Li ense i084~004810
15
it should be admissible in our case in chief.
THE COURT: Any further comment?
MR. ZIMMERMAN: To the extent that the State wants
to submit this for purposes of impeachment, I guess you
would say, it's completely tangential in every regard.
The fact that there's a bullet still doesn't disprove the
statement that I don't have guns, don't use guns or
anything of that sort. All it says is that there's a
bullet there. So, again, we would ask that the Court
10 exclude it.
ll THE COURT: On this one I can give you the decision
12 now. I agree with the defense with their original
13 position, that it doesn't seem that it's connected to
14 this shooting or to either shooting at Mr. Clark's.
15 So I agree that it would not be brought in the
16 State's motion, in the State's case in chief. I also
17 agree though with the State that it could be relevant
18 because I am specifically finding it's not relevant. It
19 could be relevant though depending upon what the
20 defendant's position is or statements that he makes.
21 So while the Court is going to grant the
22 defendant's motions in limine 7, that it cannot be
23 brought in the State's case in chief, I will allow it to
24 be brought in rebuttal depending upon the testimony that

16
is brought forward. It should be brought to my attention
before it is asked about.
MS. HITE ROSS: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: So I'm not —— so if the State intends to
use it in rebuttal, they should ask the Court for
permission to use it in rebuttal before they actually do
it.
MS. HITE ROSS: Understood, your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay. And defendant's 8th motion in
10 limine.
11 MR. SIMMONS: Thank you, your Honor. This goes
12 somewhat in line with our 6th motion and our request for
13 an expert, so I‘ll try to make this brief.
14 Basically there are other clients of Mr. Clark's
15 who did experience communication issues throughout the
16 years where he worked as a criminal defense attorney. We
17 are seeking permission to admit proof of some of those
18 other communication issues solely by way of court filings
19 and that we do find we did attach one in particular to
2O our 8th motion in limine. But we would like to be able
21 to rebut the State's evidence that the communication
22 issues between Mr. Clark and Mr. Wanke demonstrate intent
23 and motive by showing that, again, this is not an
24 uncommon occurrence between a criminal defense attorney

17
and his or her clients.
So we would ask the Court to grant our 8th
motion in limine to allow us to rebut the State's

his
evidence in regard to Mr. Wanke's relationship with
attorney.
THE COURT: Okay.

MS. WELLS: Judge, I find that I'm at a disadvantage
here because the only evidence that we have been provided
that counsel —— that's attached to the 8th motion in
10 limine is a motion to appoint counsel other than attorney
11 Greg Clark by a woman by the name of Patricia Wakenight.
12 It did not have a case number on it, but I was
13 able to locate it. It's 00—CF-1078. It was filed by the
14 Court, or it was filed in August 26th of 2002. We're
15 talking six years prior to these events.
16 It was heard and granted. Attorney Braun was
17 appointed for Ms. Wakenight. That is the only evidence
18 of any -— of any communication issues between Mr. Clark
19 and a client. We do not have the transcript to know why
20 the Court granted it in this case or what it was based on
21 other than what is in the petition, therefore we do not
22 believe it's relevant.
23 It does not actually prove or disprove any
24 material issue to this case because it's not dealing with

CSR License 11084—004810
18
e. The
the relationship between Mr. Clark and Mr. Wank
what
evidence of that is the transcripts related to
LON
ns with his
Mr. Wanke said in court about his communicatio
n
attorney, what Mr. Clark said about his communicatio
been
with his client and the numerous letters which have
provided to the Court.
We do not believe that communication between
Mr. Clark and some other clients, the only one we're
d
aware of is Ms. Wakenight is relevant or somehow woul
10 assist the trier of fact. We believe it would confuse
11 the trier of fact and it should be excluded.
12 THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.
13 Defense?
14 MR. SIMMONS: Judge, we only provided one because
15 we're still in the process of investigating this point
16 and this was just, this was the one we found as we were
17 drafting the motion. So as we find more, we will turn
18 them over.
19 But, again, between Mr. Clark and Mr. Wanke
20 there were no threats of harm and we think that's
21 important because absent any threats, the communications
22 were normal between an attorney and a defendant.
23 We'd like to present other instances where
24 Mr. Clark had similar experiences and obviously those

CSR License #084‘004810
19
behalf
don't show intent or motive for any wrongdoing on
.of the client. It's just the way a relationship between
a criminal defense attorney and his client works.
I know you keep saying that, but, but I

THE COURT:
ant
do not think it's appropriate or acceptable or relev
that Mr. Clark may have had a motion filed in another
case with a different defendant.
This case is about the relationship between
Mr. Wanke and Mr. Clark. It's not about Mr. Clark‘s
10 relationship with other people. It's about the
11 relationship with Mr. Wanke.
12 And so the Court, that this evidence that you're
13 requesting in your 8th motion in limine is irrelevant and
14 does not have anything to do with the facts and
15 circumstances of this case. I do agree that it would be
16 misleading and not helpful to the jury and the
17 defendant‘s 8th motion in limine will be denied.
18 I believe we have then argued all of the defense
19 motions; is that correct?
20 MR. ZIMMERMAN: I believe so, Judge.
21 THE COURT: Okay. Now, the State had filed motion
22 in limine number 32. They have today filed motion in
23 limine 33 and motion in limine 34. And I believe those
24 are the only filings that the Court has not heard

20
argument on for the State; is that correct?
MS. WELLS: There's also a motion to bar the
testimony of Diane Chavez that was filed, I believe,
today as well.
THE COURT: Okay. I didn't see that one yet.
MS. WELLS: I have a copy if the Court needs.
MR. BRUN: Your Honor, again, as I was approaching
the Court earlier —-
THE COURT: I think you were starting to do that
10 when I interrupted you.
11 MR. BRUN: Your Honor, at this time the State would
12 be filing supplemental answer number 30 and 31 in
13 addition to the motion to bar testimony of Diane Chavez.
14 These are the Court's courtesy copies of all the filings.
15 In addition to motions for evidence depositions for three
16 individuals, namely Amanda Soland, Sheila Zerouali and
17 Eugene Koelker. In addition to motions for out—of—state
18 witnesses to testify, again, for Amanda Soland and Lauren
19 Schubert. Motion to bar is on top, your Honor.
2O THE COURT: All right. Are these the Court's ——
21 these are the official copies?
22 MR. BRUN: The original, yes, and the Court has a
23 courtesy copy.
24 THE COURT: All right. These all go to the clerk.

21
MS. WELLS: There are tabs where the Court would
need to sign for the out-Of—state witness certificates as
previously, so we did mark those for you.
THE COURT: Let me do those right now so that I
don't forget.
MS. WELLS: And then other than the things the Court
has mentioned, there were a couple housekeeping matters
that I had notes on as well when you're ready for that.
THE COURT: Okay. Okay. So I have a motion to bar
the testimony of Diane Chavez, motion for evidence
11 deposition, another motion for evidence deposition,
12 another motion for an evidence deposition and then the
13 motions to subpoena out—of—state witnesses.
14 All right. Let's, let's start with the evidence
15 deposition on Eugene Koelker. I've read it over. Any
16 objection to that?
17 MR. ZIMMERMAN: Judge, we would. The —— with
18 respect to all three of these, the determination that the
19 Court has to make whether or not a person's available or
20 not is to be made at the time of the trial, not now, a
21 month in advance of the trial.
22 We don't think that the State's complied with
23 the rules for an evidence deposition as they're
24 delineated. The way it would have to be done in this

CSR License #:084~004810
22
case is we'd have to do a discovery deposition pursuant
Rules of Civil Procedure. And

to Rule 212 of the civil,
then if Mr. Koelker or any of the other two witnesses are
unavailable at the time of the trial, then portions of
that discovery deposition could be admitted as an
evidence deposition in this case.
But as it stands, I don't think they've made a
sufficient showing of what they need to show in order to
get an evidence deposition with respect to any of the
10 three people. So we would object.
11 THE COURT: All right. State, with respect to the
12 one for Eugene Koelker?
13 MR. BRUN: Your Honor, first of all, just factually
14 reference Mr. Koelker as indicated in our motion for that
15 deposition. Mr. Koelker does, in fact, have some health
16 concerns that as over the past couple months his health
17 is, in fact, deteriorating.
18 I would indicate that he does have a service
19 dog. The nature of that service dog is to assist his
2O mobility. He has trouble going around and, actually as
21 walking, looses balance and the service dog is, in fact,
22 assisting him.
23 But, again, I would note that the progression of
24 his health concerns is the basis for the request for the

23
evidence deposition. And obviously from a procedural
perspective, the evidence deposition is, in fact —— it is
timely to be filed at this time based on our
representations that, of his health concerns.
And if we were to, in fact, wait until the day
of trial as counsel's requesting, it would, in essence,
be requesting that he is unavailable on a day of trial
and therefore do a deposition which would apparently
continue that trial.
10 But it is appropriate to ask for an evidence
11 deposition at this time, your Honor. What I have done in
12 the past is have the motion filed, we would do an
13 evidence deposition and submit it for the Court's review.
14 And again, you'd introduce that into evidence at the
15 actual trial.
16 SO, again, based on Mr. Koelker's health
17 concerns, the State is requesting an evidence deposition
18 be conducted.
19 THE COURT: Counsel?
20 MR. ZIMMERMAN: I wasn't suggesting that we wait
21 until November 7th to determine whether or not he's
22 available. I mean, that is the standard, but we can do a
23 discovery deposition, determine whether or not he's
24 available. If he's unavailable, if the Court determines

24
then that comes in. If

he's unavailable on November 7th,
he is available, then he testifies.
Frankly, I'm not sure —— in my mind the State
hasn't delineated any reasons beyond what a person would
normally experience to be in a, to testify here as
opposed to in a conference room at the State's Attorney's
Office or wherever they intend to take these depositions.
The person's got to go somewhere and there's no
difference between being here testifying and being
10 anywhere else testifying based on the State's
11 representations of the condition of this person.
12 THE COURT: Well, I'm glad you clarified that
13 because it did sound originally like you were saying that
14 we had to wait until the trial date to find out if he was
15 not eligible, or not able to testify and then take the
16 deposition. But it makes much more sense the way you
17 clarified it.
18 And I agree that if he's able to testify, that's
19 obviously the first and best way to do it. But if his
20 health is deteriorating and will continue to deteriorate,
21 then there needs to be an evidence deposition.
22 This case is set for trial in November. And
23 believe me, I intend to try this case in November. But
24 as we found out recently, things can happen and the trial

25
date may get continued again, although, you know, I'm not
planning on it. I'm not saying go ahead and make a

to
motion to continue because that is not what I'm trying to

L0
suggest. But just in case something happened that we
weren't able to proceed to trial in November, the
situation could get even worse with his health.
So I agree with defense counsel's latter
explanation, that if he's able to testify in November
that's of course what I want, but I will authorize the
10 taking of an evidence deposition so that his testimony
11 can be preserved in case he is not able to participate in
12 the trial due to health concerns. And we'll do that,
13 we'll make that decision, decision as to that factor at
14 the trial.
15 With respect to the evidence deposition then for
16 Sheila Zerouali, she also is probably going tO be able to
17 testify in November. If it gets continued over, she may
18 not be able to testify, but she's probably able to
19 testify in November.
20 The Court's going to grant the request for an
21 evidence deposition on that also, although don't do that
22 until you —— I give you my rulings because I think that a
23 lot of questions the State may ask without those rulings
24 are going to be different than the, they might ask with
Br‘ittyr‘. Higdon, CSR, RPR

CSR License “084-004810
26
the rulings.
But it seems prudent as particularly since child
birth is such a dangerous thing actually for, for people,
you know. God willing she'll be fine, but you never
know. And so the Court is going to allow the evidence

of
deposition also for Sheila Zerouali with the caveat,
course, that I want her to testify in person and that is
what I expect will happen, but it's not a bad idea to
preserve her testimony just in case.
10 And then the Amanda Soland, also called Richerd,
11 Amanda Richerd, Richerd. She is also not able to fly
12 during her pregnancy. And she, she's the witness in
13 Texas, right?
14 MR. BRUN: That's correct, your Honor.
15 MS. HITE ROSS: Yes.
16 THE COURT: And that's a problem. Now, it's a real
17 problem to do an evidence deposition of a witness in
18 Texas because, because the defendant has to be there. So
19 you're not going to be able to take the defendant to
20 Texas. So it's going to be complicated on how you're
21 going to be able to do that. The jail guard can't go to
22 Texas. So that's a lot more complicated to do.
23 Now, she could also do other forms of
24 transportation. I don't know how far along she is in her

27
pregnancy, but there are other ways of transportation
that might not be as convenient as flying, but might be
more available.
So I will also grant the request for the
evidence deposition in her case, but I'm not sure how
you're going to do it. I don't know if you know yet.
MS. HITE ROSS: Judge, if I may just address that
issue. What we had anticipated, if the Court granted the
motions with respect to Mr. Koelker and Ms. Zerouali
10 since we had already been scheduled for trial, we would
11 hope that we could maybe do those next week in open court
12 and if the Court were available we would welcome the
13 Court to be there for those.
14 With respect to Amanda Soland, we were thinking
15 possibly about Skyping the defendant. I know that —— or
16 Skyping Amanda Soland so that she could be questioned.
17 But those are just some things that we were thinking
18 about.
19 THE COURT: You're not going to be able to Skype the
20 defendant. The defendant's going to have to be
21 physically present at the time it occurs.
22 MS. HITE ROSS: Those are some things that we were
23 thinking about, so
24 THE COURT: Yes. The Court will make its courtroom

CSR License #084—OO4SIO
28
available for these depositions so that you can do it. I
do have other cases set. Tuesday afternoon I have
nothing set, so that would be a good time to schedule
depositions.
I am sure the attorneys have nothing set too
because of the trial, we were definitely going to be
going over to next week. So why don't we book Tuesday
afternoon for depositions. I don't have my —— let me
look at the date real quick.
10 MS. HITE ROSS: Judge, that is ~-
11 MR. BRUN: The 11th, your Honor.
12 MS. HITE ROSS: Is that the 11th, your Honor?
13 THE COURT: That's the 11th.
14 MS. HITE ROSS: That is a date that filled up for me
15 yesterday, Judge. I just say that I have a medical
l6 appointment for ——
17 THE COURT: Okay. How about the 12th in the
18 afternoon?
19 MR. BRUN: State would be available at that time,
2O your Honor.
21 MR. ZIMMERMAN: That's fine.
22 MS. WELLS: I have to double check with one of the
23 witnesses who has doctor's appointments, but I'll verify
24 that with her.
Hrittyn Higdon, CSR, RPR

CSR License ﬁ084—004810
29
THE COURT: I do have some other things, but I know
there's a judge that's not available. And so we can
either use that courtroom or I can move things in this
courtroom to that courtroom. So there are options
available for the 12th really either morning or
afternoon.
MR. BRUN: Let's look at the availability of
witnesses.
THE COURT: And so to keep things from filling up,
10 how about the, how about the 14th in the afternoon?
11 MR. ZIMMERMAN: That‘s fine.
12 MS. HITE ROSS: The 12th and the 14th are both fine.
13 THE COURT: Let's do the 12th and the 14th. I have
14 cases set on both days, but I'm not sure that I need to
15 be there for these evidence depositions and if we have
16 other issues that we need to have, I can probably work
17 around some of my other scheduling. So 1:30 then on the
18 12th in this courtroom and 1:30 on the 14th in this
19 courtroom. We'll add those to our list of dates.
20 But just so it's clear, the Court would, the
21 Court does want all those witnesses to be present if
22 possible.
23 MS. HITE ROSS: Yes, Judge.
24 MS. WELLS: That's understood, your Honor. Our

30
intent is to make sure their testimony is preserved in
case there is an unavailability at the time of trial.
MR. ZIMMERMAN: I'm sorry, I didn't hear what the
State said, Judge.
THE COURT: Could you repeat it, please.
MS. WELLS: I said our intent is to preserve the
testimony in case they're unavailable at the time of
trial which would be what the Court would have to
determine. It is our intent to have them testify.
10 THE COURT: Okay. What about the motion to bar the
11 testimony of Diane Chavez?
12 MS. WELLS: Your Honor, we were provided a list of
13 witnesses last week by counsel. It included Ms. Chavez
14 on it. If that was only so that the jury is questioned
15 about Ms. Chavez to see if they know her, that's one
16 thing, however, she has been present in court for
17 arguments on substantive motions in limine where time
18 frames, detailed information is discussed and there was a
19 motion to exclude witnesses that was heard and granted
20 without Objection.
21 In addition, the People filed motion in limine
22 number 22 where we asked about her being admonished in
23 case she was called to testify. On that date, there's a
24 transcript, this would have been on June 24th of 2016.

31
Your Honor specifically asked if Ms. Chavez was being
called to testify because in our motion in limine we
specifically say we're not calling her. And
Mr. Zimmerman indicated correct, that they are not
calling Ms. Chavez.
She has then since been allowed to sit through
all of these proceedings and we believe it would be
inappropriate for her to testify at this point.
And I have the transcript if the Court would
10 like that.
11 THE COURT: Actually I do recall that.
12 MR. ZIMMERMAN: Judge, it's People's 8th motion in
13 limine ——
14 THE COURT: People's 8th motion in limine?
15 MR. ZIMMERMAN: Yes, that's the motion to exclude
16 witnesses.
17 THE COURT: Okay. Okay.
18 MR. ZIMMERMAN: That motion in limine says, asks
19 that the Court exclude witnesses from remaining in the
20 courtroom during the presentation of evidence.
21 We've abided by that. We've never —— since this
22 motion's been granted there hasn't been any evidence
23 presented. There's been argument. So we would ask that
24 the Court deny the State's motion to bar testimony at

32
this time.
THE COURT: What does your motion say?
MS. WELLS: Which motion, your Honor?
THE COURT: Your 8th motion in limine.
MS. WELLS: I'd have to pull it out and look at it.
THE COURT: Pull it out and look at it.
MS. WELLS: I know it was addressed previously at
the motion to suppress and Ms. Chavez was excluded. And
our concern here is that she has heard things that other
10 witnesses would not be privy to by being present.
11 MR. ZIMMERMAN: Judge, I have a copy of the motion.
12 MS. WELLS: I have it, your Honor. And this motion
13 in limine was specific to the trial.
14 I agree, counsel is correct that it is specific
15 to the presentation of evidence during trial, however,
16 the Court does have discretion where witnesses have heard
17 all other information and we believe that it should fall
18 under that situation given the detail with which motions
19 in limine have been argued.
2O And then when counsel specifically says that
21 she's not being called as a witness, to have her sit
22 through everything and then say now she's being called as
23 a witness after she's heard all of this information. We
24 don't believe it's appropriate.

CSR License #084H004810
33
MS. HITE ROSS: Judge, if I could add, the motion
that we filed regarding the motion to admonish the
defendant went specifically to this defendant as a
witness in the trial. And what the motion alleged was
that we didn't want to wait until a trial if she was
going to testify, but we wanted the Court to admonish her
in advance.
At that point, they said specifically they were
not calling her. So we had not objected to her sitting
10 in all of these proceedings. Had they not made that
11 statement that they were not calling her and that was a
12 specific statement at the trial, the State would have
13 objected to her sitting in for these numerous hearings
14 where the Court is making substantive rulings on evidence
15 that will be allowed, that will not be allowed and she
l6 has been privy to that information. If it were reversed
17 they would be making the same motion to bar our
18 witnesses.
19 But, again, the motion to admonish specifically
20 addressed this particular witness and they said they were
21 not going to call her and the State relied on that which
22 is why we did not object to her sitting in.
23 THE COURT: Defense?
24 MR. ZIMMERMAN: I don't have anything further to

CSR License ”084—004810
34
add, Judge.
THE COURT: All right. Do you happen to have handy
your motion to admonish? The clerk is looking for it.
We know there's been a lot of motions here.
MR. BRUN: The 22nd motion in limine to admonish
witness, your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay. Yeah. It's the 22nd motion in
limine. I got it. Okay.
What else Mr. Zimmerman?
10 MR. ZIMMERMAN: Nothing further, Judge.
11 THE COURT: Okay. So the 22nd motion in limine to
12 admonish the witness was, as I recall, was heard and
13 granted and the Court did, in fact, admonish the witness.
14 And that's, that's what this motion asked for and so it
15 was heard and granted.
16 The 8th motion in limine was to bar witnesses
17 who were going to be testifying at the trial and I
18 believe that was also heard and granted without
19 objection.
20 DO I agree with you that defense counsel should
21 have said that? Yeah, they should have and they
22 actually, you know, deliberately said the Opposite, that
23 she wasn't going to be testifying. Now they have said
24 she is going to be testifying. So —— and since she is

35
going to be testifying, I just wonder why it wasn't
brought to my attention yesterday by the defense or
earlier today because if you —— you filed a motion, that
motion was filed yesterday saying she was listed as a
witness; is that correct?
MS. HITE ROSS: It was when we got the —— when the
Court had requested the list of witnesses, Judge, I
believe that's when.
THE COURT: So when was that filed? When was that
10 list of witnesses prepared? Was it last Thursday?
ll MS. WELLS: Yes, your Honor, Thursday, which is why
12 I prepared the motion to bar over the weekend and got it
13 to counsel yesterday.
14 THE COURT: So why didn't the defense follow the
15 Court's rule as soon as you had stated in court you have
16 the intent to call Ms. Chavez as a witness?
17 MR. ZIMMERMAN: Judge, I didn't —— the Court's rule
18 as far as I'm concerned was that she not be present
19 during the presentation of evidence and we have followed
2O that rule. I mean, I didn't -— and the Court asked for a
21 list of witnesses. We gave a list of witnesses.
22 Frankly, I don't specifically recall saying that
23 we weren't going to call her, but if there's a
24 transcript, then apparently I did.

36
But as the Court's aware, strategies change,
things change especially as you get closer and closer to
trial and
THE COURT: All right. So, State, you are making
another motion in limine with respect to, and maybe you
have this one prepared, to clarify what you mean by
trial? I mean, because that really in your 8th motion in
limine is referring to trial proceedings.
You have not requested that witnesses for the
10 trial be excluded from arguments on motion in limine,
11 although I note that the State's witnesses have not been
12 present during the motions in limine. Even though from
13 time to time a witness may have wandered in, they left.
14 So the State had not had their witnesses here in the
15 motion in limine.
l6 MS. WELLS: Judge, I would make an oral motion at
17 this time for witnesses to be excluded. We can follow
18 that up in writing from all proceedings where there is
19 substantive discussion of the evidence in the case and
20 that would include motions in limine.
21 THE COURT: Counsel?
22 MR. ZIMMERMAN: I'm not going to take a position on
23 that, Judge.
24 THE COURT: The motion then will be heard and

37
granted. It'll apply to both sides. So when there are
substantive discussions about the testimony in this case,
the witnesses may not remain in the courtroom.
MR. ZIMMERMAN: Judge, incidentally, I understand
the Court's rule. The State does list Chavez on their
list as well.
THE COURT: When was that filed?
MS. WELLS: I explained that to the Court that based
on a previous trial I had with your Honor, we wanted the
10 jury questioned as to Ms. Chavez's, their knowledge of
11 her, not that we were calling her as a witness.
12 And as a matter of fact, in our motion in limine
13 22 we specifically say we're not intending to call her.
14 We are not intending to call her, but we do believe it's
15 appropriate for the jury to be questioned as to whether
16 we know her because her name's going to be coming up in
17 trial and we thought the easiest way for that to happen
18 would be ——
19 THE COURT: I recollect that.
20 MS. WELLS: Yes.
21 THE COURT: And that was, in fact, stated here in
22 open court.
23 Do you recall that also?
24 MR. ZIMMERMAN: When they indicated they were not ——

38
THE COURT: They were not going to call her. They
listed her on the witnesses just so that I would ask the
jury if they knew her.
MR. ZIMMERMAN: Right. I understand their motion
back when, when they said they weren't going to call her,
but I was just making the Court aware that they did list
her as a witness very recently.
THE COURT: But that's not what they're doing.
They've indicated they did that just so the Court would
10 ask. SO it's not that they intend to call her. They
ll always said they weren't going to call her and they are
12 still saying that.
13 I'm just going to step off the bench just for a
14 quick moment and I'll be right back.
15 (A recess was taken.)
16 MR. ZIMMERMAN: Judge, may I address the Court?
17 THE COURT: Yeah, mm—hmm.
18 MR. ZIMMERMAN: When the State mentioned that I had
19 apparently said that we weren't going to call Ms. Chavez,
20 as I indicated, I didn't remember that. I took their
21 word at it and they indicated they had a transcript of
22 it. But, frankly, I feel like they have misled the Court
23 as to what is in that transcript.
24 THE COURT: Okay.

39
MR. ZIMMERMAN: On June 24th we filed our notice of
alibi. The State asked, well, there's no witnesses
listed in the alibi. There's no address or there's no
witnesses listed to confirm the alibi.
The Court then asked me, "You don't have any
witnesses?" And I said, "No. It goes to our motion to
dismiss for pre—indictment delay, that there are no
witnesses we have presently." The Court said, "So you
don't intend to call like a Diane Chavez to testify that
10 she was with him at the time of the murder?" And I said,
11 "No.” And that was exactly what I said.
12 And, frankly, it's dishonest of them to suggest
13 that I had misled anyone about whether or not we were
14 going to call Ms. Chavez. They couched it in terms of
15 whether or not it was when Ms. Chavez was called to up to
16 be admonished by the Court. At that point in time I
17 didn't say a word about whether or not we were going to
18 call her. It was only when the Court asked about whether
19 or not we were going to call her as an alibi witness that
20 I said we weren't going to call her as an alibi witness.
21 I'm upset, Judge, and I apologize, but this is
22 frankly unacceptable. I feel like they've impugned my
23 character in front of your Honor and
24 THE COURT: All right. Thank you, counsel, and I

40
appreciate your explanation. I don't know if the State
cares to respond.
MS. WELLS: Yes, your Honor.
MS. HITE ROSS: Yes. Yes, we do, Judge.
MS. WELLS: Judge, on page —— they are talking, you
are talking about alibi, but that's not how it was
phrased.
At line 20, "All right. So you won't be calling
like a Diane Chavez?" Mr. Zimmerman said ”Correct." He
10 didn't say "correct" as to alibi. He didn't say
11 ”correct” as to anything else. He said that they weren't
12 calling Diane Chavez. That's how I read it. If he
13 intended something else
14 Now, there was discussion about alibi during
15 that time and I have the transcript here. I understand
16 what Mr. Zimmerman is arguing, but the way we took it at
l7 that time, whether he intended it that way or not, the
l8 way we took it is they weren't calling Chavez. That was
19 what was said. It wasn't we're not calling her as to the
20 alibi. And especially in light of the fact that this was
21 during the same time that you were admonishing related to
22 motion in limine 22.
23 So I've got the transcript. You can read it. I
24 don't think there's a whole lot more to argue here. I'm

41
not trying to impugn Mr. Zimmerman's integrity, but we
read it, or we heard it one way and we read it one way.
If he intended it some way else -— it does not say "I'm
not calling her as to alibi.” If it had said that, we
would have understand, understood he might be calling her
for something else, but he's not calling her for alibi.
All it said is, "You're not calling like a Diane Chavez?"
It says, ”Correct.”
MR. ZIMMERMAN: Judge, I would ask her to read every
10 single word of it because what it says is, "You're not
11 calling like a Diane Chavez?" And then it says, me
12 interrupting in parenthesis, "Correct" and then your
13 Honor says, "As to alibi?” Me nodding my head
14 affirmatively.
15 It was all part of the same discussion about
16 whether or not we disclosed alibi witnesses. How the
17 State read it is ridiculous, frankly.
18 THE COURT: All right. The Court has moved on and I
19 appreciate your comments, counsel, and I don't consider
20 your integrity to be impugned because of this issue.
21 The Court will obviously bar Ms. Chavez from

22 remaining in the courtroom during the rest of the
23 proceedings as she is now listed as a witness. The -—
24 and she was not listed as a witness prior to Thursday, is

42
that correct, by the defense?
MR. ZIMMERMAN: No, that's not correct.
THE COURT: You had ——
MR. ZIMMERMAN: When we do discovery answers we say
we'll call anyone and everyone listed in the State's
disclosures and that's what we've done in this case just
like every other case. Nobody had a witness list
submitted prior to Thursday.
THE COURT: Okay. Diane Chavez is no longer able to
10 come in to the courtroom during our motions in limine.
ll These motions in limine arguments have been very
12 elaborate, very detailed. We have gone through a
13 significant amount of testimony in there including time
14 lines and other issues.
15 The Court will allow the State to cross—examine
l6 Ms. Chavez about her being in court during motions in
17 limine where these things were discussed and so ——
18 because she was. She's been in court. She was in court
19 today until she got up and left when the Court said that
2O she would not be able to stay.
21 So she did get up and leave at that time, but if
22 she does testify, the State will be able to cross—examine
23 her about her sitting in court and listening to these
24 motions in limine. They will also —— let me think this

43
through before I say it. Okay. I'm not saying anything
else about that.
Of course all attorneys are aware of their
obligation not to put on any witness that they know will
not be testifying truthfully about any issue, even an
issue that may come up on cross—examination.
So that's true of all witnesses and I'm not
saying that specifically in relationship to Diane Chavez,
but to remind all the attorneys that if you know that
10 you're going to put up a witness that is going to lie
ll about something that you know is a lie, then you cannot
12 put that witness on.
13 Okay. So now we will move on. Let me put these
14 in the right file.
l5 I think that defendant's motion, or State,
16 excuse me, State's motion in limine 32 is the only one
17 left that we can actually argue today as defense counsel
18 and the Court need some time to read and review 33 and
19 34.
20 MR. SIMMONS: Your Honor, it was my understanding
21 that we argued and the Court actually gave a ruling on
22 People's 32 last week.
23 MS. WELLS: You did, Judge.
24 THE COURT: All right. Well, then see, I don't

44
write down notes and I don't have it in front of me. So
32 was done. So now it's just that we have 33 and 34
left.
MS. WELLS: And, Judge, maybe it was two weeks ago I
had proposed an order related to the motions in limine
you had already ruled on and I gave that to the Court.
It had been approved by counsel for Mr. Wanke. I had
reviewed it, actually all the state's attorneys had
reviewed it. 'I don't know if you wanted to sign it or
10 wait until the end of motions in limine, but that is out
ll there.
l2 THE COURT: If it's all approved we can sign it and
l3 then we can add to it as it goes on.
14 So am I correct that defense is not ready to
15 argue 30— ~- let me say the right numbers, 33 and 34.
16 MR. ZIMMERMAN: That's correct, Judge.
17 THE COURT: All right. So we'll set that over. I
18 think I have you all —— I haven't read them either so I'm
19 not prepared on them either. So we will be back in court
2O I believe this, is it Thursday?
21 MS. WELLS: We were set for this afternoon as well.
22 THE COURT: Well, this afternoon is fine if you can
23 be ready by then.
24 MR. ZIMMERMAN: Judge, I think we want to do a

45
response possibly in writing to 33, 34. And they all
relate to the attorney—client privilege issue. I think
we want to do a response that maybe encapsulates all of
it.
THE COURT: All right. Can you get that response to
the State by Wednesday afternoon? Because then that
gives them a day to respond to that if they choose and
then we'll argue them Friday afternoon. Or I could set
it Thursday afternoon if that works better for you.
10 MR. ZIMMERMAN: I can get it to them Thursday, I
ll think.
12 THE COURT: If you can get it to them Thursday
l3 morning and then ——
14 MR. ZIMMERMAN: Judge -— okay. That's fine.
15 THE COURT: Okay. And then do you want to move
16 Mr. Wanke to Thursday afternoon or do you want to keep it
17 on Friday afternoon? I can do either one. I can't do
18 Thursday afternoon until 3:00, but that's the same time
19 we have Mr. Wanke set on Friday. I can do either one.
20 MR. ZIMMERMAN: Thursday afternoon would be fine,
21 Judge.
22 THE COURT: I have it set at 2:00 on Thursday?
23 THE BAILIFF: I'm looking at the wrong Thursday.
24 THE COURT: Okay. Yeah. There's so many. I think

46
it was next Thursday that I set it for 2:00.
MS. HITE ROSS: The 13th. Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: The 13th. And I don't actually have it
set for the 6th. So was there some reason that the State
wasn't available on the 6th or not?
So it doesn't matter to me. If we do it —— why
don't we set it on the 6th if you're all available and
then we still have the 7th that we'll keep on just in
case. But I'm hoping that we'll be done with the
10 arguments on the 6th and then maybe on the 7th, maybe I
11 can give decisions.
12 MR. BRUN: Thursday afternoon the 6th is fine, your
13 Honor.
l4 THE COURT: All right. Okay. So defense, if they
l5 wish to file anything in writing, should do that by
l6 Thursday, October 6th, and then -— in the morning. And
17 then Thursday afternoon at 3:00 we'll see where we are
18 and maybe argue. And then Friday October 7th we'll keep
19 at 3:00, but we may not really do anything then. And if
20 I know we're not actually going to do anything on the
21 7th, I may take it off for you on the 6th, but I'll wait
22 until then.
23 MS. WELLS: Judge, one other housekeeping matter
24 that you haven‘t ruled on. There were the four

47
individual objections to extended media coverage by
individual witnesses. I printed those out because I
didn't know how easy they would be for the Court to find.
THE COURT: Actually I do have that in the folder,
so let me just get that real quick.
MS. WELLS: I figured that would be something that
we could still get done.
THE COURT: Excellent idea.
Okay. So, yes, I have the objection to media
10 coverage here that —_ I don't know what you mean by "the
ll four."
12 MS. WELLS: There are four that individual witnesses
l3 filed. Mr. —— you've already ruled on the defense
14 portion.
15 THE COURT: Yeah. I already ruled —— oh, I thought
16 I already ruled on theirs.
17 MS. WELLS: I don't recall us ever addressing these.
l8 THE COURT: Okay. Well, those were the ones, as I
19 recall and I could be wrong, that the defense actually
20 said they weren't sure why they would file such an
21 objection because they were all State's witnesses and
22 they all were witnesses who testified in the past; is
23 that correct?
24 MS. WELLS: These are all crime lab personnel who

48
filed these motions on their own, yes.
THE COURT: Right. Was that correct? Is that a
correct -—
MR. ZIMMERMAN: Yes, Judge.
THE COURT: I believe I denied their request. But
if that's not clear the Court is denying the request to
deny extended media coverage on behalf of those four
witnesses.
MS. WELLS: Yes, ma'am.
10 THE COURT: And I believe I also ruled on the
ll defense objection to extended media coverage and denied
12 that also.
13 MS. WELLS: Correct.
14 THE COURT: Okay. So I think I've covered all the
15 objections to extended media coverage and, in fact, at
16 that time we entered another order which indicated I
17 wasn't going to allow blogging, that I wasn't —— and that
l8 has actually I think been signed by the Court and given
19 to the media outlets.
20 MS. WELLS: And just so I —-
21 THE COURT: And recording or showing any statements
22 made by the defendant unless he was actually testifying.
23 MS. WELLS: We did receive that order.
24 THE COURT: Okay.

49
MS. WELLS: And they're not allowed in general under
the Supreme Court rule to film witnesses under the age of
18.
THE COURT: Right.
MS. WELLS: Okay.
THE COURT: Or jurors.
MS. WELLS: Yes.
THE COURT: They don't film them, either. So okay.
All right. Anything else then for today?
10 MS. WELLS: I'm just printing that motion in limine
11 order that you had previously been given to review and I
12 believe that's it.
13 Are you maintaining the two transcripts I gave
14 you, Judge? I gave you my only, the original. If I
15 could get a copy of that or give you a copy, one of the
l6 two.
17 THE COURT: Let me give that back to you.
18 MS. WELLS: Okay. And that was the August llth
19 transcript that you had taken to review. I think it was
20 page 56 to determine if there was anything more you
21 wanted to address on that. We're not saying you should
22 address anything further if you believe it's been
23 covered.
24 THE COURT: I still have that one, so *~

50
MS. WELLS: Yes.
THE COURT: —— I'm still going to keep that one.
MS. WELLS: Yes, ma'am. That's it then. Thank you,
your Honor.
THE COURT: Anything else for the defense?
MR. ZIMMERMAN: No, your Honor.
THE COURT: Anything else for Mr. Wanke?
THE DEFENDANT: NO.
THE COURT: All right. Thank you.
10 MS. HITE ROSS: Thank you.
ll MR. BRUN: Thank you.
12 (Discussion held off the record.)
13 THE COURT: The clerk says they don't actually have
14 the filed copy of 33 and 34.
15 MS. HITE ROSS: We were told that they were brought
l6 down this morning.
17 THE COURT: Okay.

18 MS. HITE ROSS: We had sent -—
19 THE COURT: It may not have just gotten in then yet,
20 so
21 MS. HITE ROSS: Yes. I think they were closed when
22 we were looking to file it, so we had sent defense their
23 copy and the Court's courtesy copy down yesterday. But
24 I'm told by my staff that they did file it this morning,

51
SO
THE COURT: Okay. That's fine.
(End of proceedings.)
10
11
12
l3
l4
15
16
17
l8
19
20
21
22
23
24

52
STATE OF ILLINOIS
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 17TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
COUNTY OF WINNEBAGO
C E R T I F I C A T E
I, Brittyn G. Higdon, CSR #084-004810,
an Official Court Reporter for the Circuit Court of
Winnebago County, 17th Judicial Circuit of Illinois,
10 reported in machine shorthand the proceedings had on the
ll hearing in the above—entitled cause and transcribed the
12 same by Computer Aided Transcription, which I hereby
l3 certify to be a true and accurate transcript of the
14 proceedings.
15
16 IN WITNESS HEREOF I have hereunto set
17 my hand seal this l3th day of June, 2017.
18
19
2O
21 17th Judicial Circuit
State of Illinois
22
23
24

CSR License WRIT—004810

10-04-16 Transcript Case 922

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

10-04-16 Transcript Case 922

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

10-04-16 Transcript Case 922

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

STATE OF ILLINOIS

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE 17TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE

VS. NO. 2014-CF-922

RICHARD WANKE, HEARING

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS at the hearing in the

10 above-entitled matter before the Honorable Rosemary

11 Collins, Judge of said Court, heard on Tuesday, the 4th

14 MS. MARILYN HITE ROSS,

19 MS. PAMELA WELLS,

21 MR. NICK ZIMMERMAN,

23 MR. ROBERT SIMMONS,

Brirtyn Higdon, CSR, RPR

Mr. Wanke, do you need to talk to your attorneys

before we get started?

THE DEFENDANT: I'm not certain what has been filed

prior to me being here. So the State had talked about

filing several updates.

THE COURT: So are you saying you do wish to talk to

your attorney to find out what's going on or not?

10 MR. ZIMMERMAN: Judge, if I may, the State did file

11 some motions, various motions. We just received those so

12 I wouldn‘t anticipate getting to them today. So I think

13 we can proceed with what we're ready to proceed on today

15 future court appearances.

16 THE COURT: Before we go any further though, I'm

17 just asking a simple question to Mr. Wanke.

18 Do you wish to speak to your attorneys before we

19 proceed here this morning or have you had ample time to

20 speak to them before this and you're ready to proceed?

21 THE DEFENDANT: If I can have just a moment?

22 THE COURT: Mm-hmm.

23 (Discussion held off the record.)

24 THE COURT: Okay. So I think the answer to this is

Brittyn Higdon, CSR, RPR

THE DEFENDANT: I've read the one motion that —— I

don't think so, your Honor. Thank you.

THE COURT: Okay. So you're comfortable proceeding,

get started this morning?

THE DEFENDANT: Correct, your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. So where we are, where we

ended up before we got to the motion to continue was the

10 defense motions. And so we had spent a lot of time

11 Friday on the motion to exclude evidence number 1. The

12 Court denied that motion.

13 The allegations —— or the request in 6 and 7

14 were withdrawn. The Court denied the request to exclude

15 the evidence from Officer Juanez, however, the Court did

l6 grant the continuance to give the defense some additional

17 time to proceed on that, or to prepare for that.

18 So we're on the defense motions in limine. We

19 have defense motions 5, 6, 7 and 8 that we're going to

20 begin with and we'll start with defense 5th motion in

22 MR. SIMMONS: Your Honor, I apologize. It was my

23 understanding we had already argued defense motion in

Brittyn Higdon, CSR, RPR

MR. SIMMONS: We had submitted an addendum outlining

I do have the addendum. All right. So