Ciucci v. People
| Decision Date | 18 January 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 35833,35833 |
| Citation | 21 Ill.2d 81,171 N.E.2d 34 |
| Parties | Vincent CIUCCI, Sr., Plaintiff in Error, v. PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error. . Dec, 1, 1960. Rehearing Denied |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
George N. Leighton, Chicago, for plaintiff in error.
William L. Guild, Atty. Gen., and Benjamin S. Adamowski, State's Atty., Chicago (Fred G. Leach, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Francis X. Riley and James R. Thompson, Asst. State's Attys., Chicago, of counsel), for defendant in error.
Vincent Ciucci, Sr., herein referred to as the defendant, was convicted of murder in the criminal court of Cook County and sentenced to death. This conviction was reviewed by this court on writ of error on a full bill of exceptions and the judgment was affirmed. People v. Ciucci, 8 Ill.2d 619, 137 N.E.2d 40.
The Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari. In defendant's brief in that court he contended, among other things, that certain newspaper articles which had been published and widely circulated in Cook County before his trial deprived him of a fair and impartial trial and deprived him of due process of law. This contention had not been made by defendant in this court and the newspaper articles in question were not a part of the record in either the trial court or in this court. Since these articles had not been considered by this court, the United States Supreme Court did not consider them. That court affirmed the judgment, but granted leave to defendant to institute such further proceedings as might be available to him for the purpose of substantiating his claim that he had been deprived of due process. Ciucci v. State of Illinois, 356 U.S. 571, 78 S.Ct. 839, 2 L.Ed.2d 983. We then entered an order staving defendant's execution so as to afford him an opportunity to proceed under the Post-Conviction Hearing Act, or in such other manner as he might be advised. Thereafter, defendant filed a post-conviction petition in the trial court challenging the validity of his second and third convictions. A hearing was held on the petition and the trial court dismissed the petition at the close of petitioner's evidence. We allowed a writ of error to review the judgment dismissing the post-conviction petition.
Although the post-conviction petition which was filed in the trial court alleged that defendant's constitutional rights had been violated in several respects, the only point which is argued on the present writ of error is that the publication of said newspaper articles deprived him of due process of law and the equal protection of the laws. In order to evaluate this claim it is necessary to summarize the proceedings in these cases at the time of defendant's original trials. He was charged in four separate indictments with the murder of his wife and three children, who were found dead in a burning building with bullet wounds in their heads. Defendant was first tried for the murder of his wife and was found guilty by a jury, who fixed his punishment at 20 years imprisonment. He was next tried for the murder of one of his children and was again found guilty and sentenced to 45 years imprisonment. He was tried a third time for the murder of another child and on this trial he was again found guilty and his punishment was fixed at death. It was this third conviction which was reviewed by this court and the United States Supreme Court. Except for the present post- conviction proceeding, which challenges the validity of the convictions on both the second and third trials, no attempts have been made by defendant to seek review of the first and second convictions.
It was alleged in the post-conviction petition that immediately after the first trial, the State's Attorney and his assistants issued press releases criticizing the jury for failing to fix the death penalty and announcing that the State would continue to prosecute defendant on the remaining indictments until the death penalty was obtained. It was alleged that these statements by the prosecutors were published in various newspapers having a wide circulation in Chicago. It was alleged that after the second trial, which took place about four months later, the prosecutors released other statements which were published in said newspapers, criticizing the second jury which this time had fixed his punishment at imprisonment for 45 years, and again announcing an intent to keep prosecuting defendant until the death penalty was obtained. It was alleged that defendant was tried about 5 months later for the murder of the second child, resulting in the death penalty being fixed by the jury.
The State filed a motion to dismiss, in which it was urged as to the third conviction, that the judgments of this court and the United States Supreme Court were res judicata. The motion to dismiss was denied and the State filed an answer in which it was claimed, as to both the second and third convictions, that defendant had waived his claim of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Simmons v. State
...proceedings. See People v. Eastman, 33 Misc.2d 583, 228 N.Y.S.2d 156, affirmed, 18 A.D.2d 1102, 239 N.Y.S.2d 972; Ciucci v. People, 21 Ill.2d 81, 171 N.E.2d 34; cf. People v. Hamby, 32 Ill.2d 291, 205 N.E.2d 456; Collier v. Commonwealth, 387 S.W.2d 858 (Ky.Ct.App.).' State v. White, 274 N.C......
-
Amin v. State
...DeRobertis, 754 F.2d 764 (7th Cir.1985) 9; Gaines, 85 Ill.Dec. at 276, 473 N.E.2d at 875; Somerville, 245 N.E.2d 461; Ciucci v. People, 21 Ill.2d 81, 171 N.E.2d 34 (1960), cert. denied 366 U.S. 952, 81 S.Ct. 1908, 6 L.Ed.2d 1245 (1961). "It would be unreasonable to expect appellate counsel ......
-
People v. Stewart, 77-13
...a risk in order to safeguard one's Sixth Amendment right. Constitutional rights like other rights may be waived. (Ciucci v. People (1960), 21 Ill.2d 81, 84, 171 N.E.2d 34; People v. Pickett (1973), 54 Ill.2d 280, 282, 296 N.E.2d 856.) The Illinois Supreme Court has consistently held that wh......
-
People v. Evans
...Silagy, 116 Ill.2d at 365, 107 Ill.Dec. 677, 507 N.E.2d 830; accord Derengowski, 44 Ill.2d at 479, 256 N.E.2d 455; Ciucci v. People, 21 Ill.2d 81, 85, 171 N.E.2d 34 (1960). We note that these procedural bars occasionally may be relaxed when fundamental fairness requires. Coleman, 168 Ill.2d......