People v. DeStefano

Decision Date08 November 1965
Docket NumberGen. Nos. 50163-50165
Citation212 N.E.2d 368,64 Ill.App.2d 368
PartiesPEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellee, v. Sam DeSTEFANO, Appellant.
CourtUnited States Appellate Court of Illinois

Julius Lucius Echeles, Chicago, for appellant.

Daniel P. Ward, State's Atty., Cook County, Chicago, Elmer C. Kissane, Patrick A. Tuite, Asst. State's Attys., of counsel, for appellee.

MURPHY, Justice.

In three separate orders, defendant, Sam DeStefano, was found guilty of contempt of court for his conduct during a trial, wherein he was charged with and found guilty by verdict and judgment of 'illegally offering to vote,' the subject of a separate appeal in this court, No. 50162, 212 N.E.2d 357.

Although defendant had counsel of his own choice, he also acted pro se during the 11-day trial, from November 16, 1964, to November 27, 1964. After the conclusion of the trial, three separate orders were entered on December 9, 1964, finding him guilty of direct contempt on November 20, 24, and 27, 1964. For each contempt, defendant was sentenced to the County Jail for a term of one year, and the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The third order also imposed a fine of $2,000.

On defendant's motion, the three separate appeals from the contempt orders, Nos. 50163, 50164, and 50165, were consolidated and are considered as one appeal. Also, on defendant's motion, the Record and Abstract filed in appeal No. 50162 were allowed to stand as the Additional Record and Additional Abstract in the instant three appeals.

The three contempt orders are as follows:

Appeal No. 50163--contempt of November 20, 1964:

'Now, in the name and by the authority of the People of the State of Illinois, the defendant, Sam DeStefano, being present in his own proper person, the matter against said defendant of alleged direct contempt is considered by this court.

And, thereupon, the Court finds as follows:

1. That on November 20, 1964, being one of the days of the November term A.D.1964 of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Criminal Division, the case of People of the State of Illinois vs. Sam DeStefano, Indictment No. 64-1435, Illegal Voting, come on to be heard in the regular course before the court.

2. That a petit jury had been duly impaneled and sworn to try the issues before them in said case.

3. That during the course of said case the defendant, Sam DeStefano, acted as his own counsel.

4. That throughout said trial which commenced on November 16, 1964, the court repeatedly asked said defendant, Sam DeStefano, to obey the court's rulings and instructions.

5. That on November 20, 1964, during the direct examination of witness, Mary Austin, the following took place:

Mr. Tuite, Assistant State's Attorney: * * * Q. Mrs. Austin what if anything, happened after that, after the defendant, DeStefano, signed his name on that document?

A. Then he goes to the two girls that have the----

Mr. McDonald: Objection. Objection. It's obvious what this witness is doing. The witness is saying what----

The Court: Keep your voice down.

Mr. McDonald: I beg your pardon.

The Court: You don't have to holler at me.

Mr. McDonald: I am not hollering at your Honor.

Mr. DeStefano: Excuse me.

Mr. McDonald: This witness is reciting what is ordinarily done.

The Court: Sit down and be quiet.

Mr. DeStefano: May I address the Court?

The Court: No.

Mr. DeStefano: Exception. The Court, won't let me address the Court.

The Court: Sit down and be quiet.

Mr. DeStefano: You were hollering at my co-counsel.

The Court: Step in the chambers.

(Whereupon, the following proceedings were had in chambers, outside the presence and hearing of the jury.)

The Court: I am citing Mr. DeStefano for contempt. On the record. Your remarks have been contemptuous. You totally disregard the Court's order and instructions. You have been warned many times. At the end of this trial, we will take action on it.

Mr. DeStefano: May I address the Court?

The Court: You may.

Mr. DeStefano: May I make a statement for the record? I didn't mean to, Your Honor. I didn't want to. But you were shouting at Mr. McDonald much more than he was raising his voice.

The Court: That's contempt, also.

6. That the conduct of the defendant, Sam DeStefano, which conduct of said defendant took place while this court was in open session, tended to impede and interrupt the proceedings and lessen the dignity of this Court.

The Court further finds that the defendant, who is now and here present in open Court, is by reason of said conduct of said defendant, guilty of direct contempt of this court in open court.

It is, therefore, Ordered, Considered And Adjudged, that the said defendant Sam DeStefano, because of said contempt as aforesaid be and he is hereby sentenced to confinement in the County Jail of Cook County, Illinois, for a term of one year from December 9, 1964, and after delivery of the body, of said defendant to Warden of the County Jail of Cook County, or until he is otherwise discharged by due process of law and the Sheriff of Cook County is hereby committed to take the body of said defendant from the bar of this Court and confine the same in the Cook County Jail in safe and secure custody for and during said term as aforesaid.'

Appeal No. 50164--contempt of November 24, 1964:

'Now, in the name and by the authority of the People of the State of Illinois, the defendant Sam DeStefano being present in his own proper person, the matter against said defendant of alleged direct contempt of this court is considered by the Court.

And thereupon the Court finds as follows:

1. That on November 24, 1964, being one of the days of the November A.D.1964 Term of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Criminal Division, the case of People of the State of Illinois versus Sam DeStefano, Indictment No. 64-1435, Illegal Voting, came on to be heard in the regular course before the Court.

2. That during the course of said case, the defendant, Sam DeStefano, acted as his own counsel.

3. That on November 24, 1964 said defendant Sam DeStefano presented a motion for a mistrial.

4. That during the hearing on the motion the following took place between the Court and defendant, Sam DeStefano.

The Court: Proceed, proceed.

Mr. DeStefano: Mr. Martin is also suborning perjury----

The Court: Stop screaming at the Court. There is no need to yell at the top of your voice in this courtroom.

Mr. DeStefano: Are you speaking only to the defendant, pro se, sir?

The Court: Yes, I am speaking to you because you are shouting and they are not shouting.

Mr. DeStefano: They were not shouting, sir? Let the record show that both--not both, Mr. Tuite was shouting when he interrupted me and continued shouting afterwards. That the defendant, pro se, does not shout. He does have strong lungs even though the rest of his body isn't as well as his lungs.

The Court: I cite you for contempt on that because Mr. Tuite did not shout at you.

Mr. DeStefano: He was shouting.

The Court: You are stating a falsehood when you say that he did shout because he did not raise his voice and shout.

5. That the conduct of the defendant, Sam DeStefano, which conduct of said defendant took place while this Court was in open session, tended to impede and interrupt the proceedings and lessen the dignity of this Court.

The Court further finds that the defendant, who is now and here present in open Court, is by reason of said conduct of said defendant, guilty of direct contempt of this court in open Court.

It is, therefore, Ordered, Considered And Adjudged, that the defendant, Sam DeStefano, because of said contempt as aforesaid be and he is hereby sentenced to confinement in the County Jail of Cook County, Illinois for a term of one year from after December 9, 1964, delivery of the body of said defendant to Warden of the County Jail of Cook County, or until he is otherwise discharged by due process of law and the Sheriff of Cook County is hereby committed to take the body of said defendant from the bar of this Court and confine the same in the Cook County Jail in safe and secure custody for and during said term as aforesaid.'

Appeal No. 50165--contempt of November 27, 1964:

'Now, in the name and by the authority of the People of the State of Illinois, the defendant Sam DeStefano being present in his own proper person, the matter against said defendant of alleged direct contempt of this court is considered by the Court.

And thereupon the Court finds as follows:

1. That on November 27, 1964, being one of the days of the November A.D. 1964 Term of the Circuit Court of Cook County, the case of People of the State of Illinois vs. Sam DeStefano, Indictment No. 64-1435, Illegal Voting, came to be heard in the regular course before the Court.

2. That a jury was duly impaneled and sworn to try the issues before them.

3. That the defendant Sam DeStefano during the course of the trial acted as his own counsel.

4. That on November 27, 1964, the defendant delivered a closing argument to the jury selected in the above mentioned case.

5. That the defendant, Sam DeStefano made, among other things in this closing argument to the jury the following statements:

I want to also thank his honor for showing me and you people that I, the defendant Sam DeStefano, cannot get a fair trial. I think the Cardinal Mindzenty of Hungary received a fairer trial from the Russian communists than we received from this court and the State.

6. That in the same closing argument to the jury the defendant Sam DeStefano also made the following statements:

What I can't understand, here is a man on our bench, approximately 56 years old, who has always been known as a mild mannered man, a soft-spoken man. This man, Judge Herbert R. Friedlund, until this trial has been known as a fair, impartial, merciful judge. He was known as a good lawyer before he came upon the bench. He has a reputation throughout our county and state as a mild, fair gentleman at all times with an unblemished record.

What...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • People v. Gilyard
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • April 27, 1970
    ... ...         Defendant argues that it was improper for the jury to discuss the evidence before the case was submitted to them. Authorities include Winebrenner v. United States, 147 F.2d 322 (8 Cir., 1945); People v. Rohwedder, 78 Ill.App.2d 211, 223 N.E.2d 1 (1967); and People v. DeStefano, 64 Ill.App.2d 368, 212 N.E.2d 368 (1965) ...         The motion for a mistrial was addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court. In People v. Malmenato, 14 Ill.2d 52, p. 63, 150 N.E.2d 806, p. 812 (1958), it is said: ... 'The exercise of that discretion is always subject to ... ...
  • Alexander v. Sharpe
    • United States
    • Maine Supreme Court
    • August 15, 1968
    ... ... People v. De Stefano, 64 Ill.App.2d 368, 212 N.E.2d 368 (1965); Hallinan v. United States, C.A. 9, 182 F.2d 880 (1950); United States v. Galante, 298 F.2d ... ...
  • Sokol v. Mortimer
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • March 14, 1967
    ... ... Reed v. Sands, 11 Ill.App.2d 355, 137 N.E.2d 553 (1956), Schaffner v. C. F. Massey Co., 270 Ill. 207, 110 N.E. 381 (1915). Cf. People v. DeStefano, 64 Ill.App.2d 368, 212 N.E.2d 368 (1965) ...         A review of the record of the proceedings below clearly indicates that ... ...
  • People v. Baxter
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • January 28, 1972
    ... ... In People v. Loughran, 2 Ill.2d 258, 118 N.E.2d 310, a contempt case, we considered the record to determine the correctness of the contempt order, and we now recognize the propriety of such procedure. Also see: People v. DeStefano, 64 Ill.App.2d 368, 212 N.E.2d 368 ...         However, we believe it is better practice to use a written order in direct contempt proceedings which sets forth fully, clearly and specifically the facts out of which the contempt arose. As we stated in Tomashevsky, 48 Ill.2d at page 565, ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT