People v. Barton

Decision Date01 March 1984
Docket NumberNo. 83-386,83-386
Citation462 N.E.2d 538,122 Ill.App.3d 1079,78 Ill.Dec. 419
Parties, 78 Ill.Dec. 419 PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James BARTON, Defendant-Appellee.
CourtUnited States Appellate Court of Illinois

Don W. Weber, State's Atty., Madison County, Edwardsville, Stephen E. Norris, Deputy Director, Karen L. Stallman, Staff Atty., State's Attys. Appellate Service Com'n, Mount Vernon, for plaintiff-appellant.

J. William Lucco, Mudge, Riley & Lucco Law Offices, Edwardsville, for defendant-appellee.

KASSERMAN, Justice:

An indictment charging defendant, James Barton, with two counts of bribery, one count of conspiracy to commit bribery, and one count of official misconduct was returned by the grand jury of Madison County. On motion of defendant, the trial court entered an order dismissing the indictment because of prosecutorial misconduct. The State appeals.

The charges against defendant were based on allegations that defendant, in his capacity as Madison County Supervisor of Assessments, had accepted $1,000 from William Nichols and gave $500 of the money to Walter Greathouse, a member of the Madison County Zoning Board of Appeals, in order to obtain Greathouse's approval of a special use permit requested by Mr. Nichols.

Defendant filed a pre-trial motion requesting suppression of statements made by him on November 5, 1982, to an assistant State's Attorney and an Illinois Division of Criminal Investigation agent. The motion alleged that defendant had been denied his constitutional right to counsel. The trial court granted defendant's motion and entered an order suppressing the statements made by defendant.

Subsequently, defendant filed an amended motion to dismiss the indictment alleging, inter alia, that misconduct on the part of the Madison County State's Attorney had deprived him of due process of law. At the hearing on the motion to dismiss, Marvin Darling, a former administrative assistant of the Madison County State's Attorney, Don W. Weber, testified that in May 1981, Mr. Weber stated that he would get defendant. The parties subsequently stipulated to the introduction of the following evidence and exhibits into evidence:

Mr. Weber was elected State's Attorney of Madison County on November 4, 1980, and, a few days later, declared that the public wanted a prosecutor like "Attilla the Hun." Mr. Weber also pledged to investigate defendant.

On March 30, 1981, after a grand jury had failed to return an indictment against defendant for making improper property assessments, Mr. Weber publicly commented that "[t]here may not be criminal activity * * *, but there might be grounds for dismissal or other disciplinary action." On May 15, 1981, Mr. Weber stated that he would comply with a recommendation made in the grand jury report that he release to the Madison County board a report made by the Illinois Division of Criminal Investigation concerning defendant's activities in office.

On November 12, 1982, the newspaper media became aware of the fact that a new grand jury investigation of defendant was being conducted. That same day, defendant gave an interview to a newspaper reporter who had learned of the grand jury investigation. On November 16, 1982, Mr. Weber publicly announced that he would ask the grand jury to indict defendant for conspiracy to commit bribery and stated that William Nichols had told investigators that he gave defendant money for the purpose of influencing a zoning board of appeals decision. The next day, further comments from the State's Attorney were published concerning defendant's case.

On November 18, 1982, Mr. Weber told reporters that the indictment he sought against defendant for conspiracy to commit bribery was "not an iffy case." The State's attorney commented to the press about the testimony of William Nichols and stated that defendant "never was cleared of impropriety despite the finding of insufficient evidence" by the 1981 grand jury. On November 19, 1982, the State's Attorney suggested publicly that defendant was a "corrupt official." A few days later, defendant proclaimed his innocence in a newspaper interview. On November 24, 1982, there were a number of newspaper articles concerning Illinois Division of Criminal Investigation inquiries regarding defendant's alleged involvement in the bribery scheme.

On December 1, 1982, Mr. Weber again publicly urged that defendant be fired as Madison County Supervisor of Assessments. The following day, Mr. Weber urged that the defendant be "canned" prior to trial. When a reporter asked whether defendant should be considered innocent prior to trial, Mr. Weber replied that "[p]eople just don't understand the law." On December 6, 1982, a newspaper acknowledged that defendant's statements which were later suppressed were included in the discovery materials made available to the press by the prosecution. On December 16, 1982, Mr. Weber announced to the press his frustration with the Madison County board's failure to fire defendant and said that he would seek an additional indictment against defendant for official misconduct. A day later, while commenting on the additional charge being sought against defendant, the State's Attorney said, "I want to make sure that I get him."

In early January 1983, Mr. Weber mailed a packet of material to the Madison County board. The material sent included Illinois Department of Criminal Investigation reports, a memorandum concerning dismissal procedures, and polygraph results suggesting deception on the part of Walter Greathouse. The incident and a description of the items mailed were reported in the newspaper.

On February 18, 1983, Mr. Weber was present at a public meeting attended by approximately 150 people. At this meeting Mr. Weber made the following remarks:

(1) "The more people we get involved in the Barton investigation, the more we can get them worked up."

(2) "Barton is presumed to be innocent and I do not want to prejudice his trial."

(3) "I told you a year and a half ago how I felt about this whole situation."

(4) "Barton is just like that school teacher, Van Hook [who had been recently convicted of taking indecent liberties with a child.]"

(5) "Barton's trial is my number one priority along with the Prante case, now that Van Hook's case is over with."

On March 8, 1983, the personnel committee of the Madison County board held a closed meeting concerning defendant. At this meeting, Assistant State's Attorney Keith Jensen addressed the committee. Mr. Jensen said that defendant was "telling the police one thing and turning around in front of the newspapers, he's a chameleon. He's innocent of anything. He wants his trial, he wants to hide behind the Fifth Amendment, he wants all the advantages he can, but he is conveying a different impression to those people than he is to you people." Following this meeting, Mr. Weber told reporters that the Madison County board should fire defendant.

On March 12, 1983, a benefit dance was sponsored by the Illinois Division of Criminal Investigation. About 300 persons attended. During the dance, the State's Attorney made unspecified comments concerning defendant over the public address system. The comments were made in the context of a contest conducted by the State's Attorney to determine by crowd applause which statements made by public officials and recently convicted defendants should receive an award for the "dumbest statement" of the year.

On March 17, 1983, the State's Attorney publicly criticized the members of the Madison County board for not firing defendant. Mr. Weber reiterated that defendant was his number one priority and again compared defendant to Van Hook, the man recently convicted of indecent liberties with a child.

On March 22, 1983, defendant's motion to suppress the statements he made on November 5, 1982, was heard. On March 25, 1983, Mr. Weber told the press that he had removed himself as prosecutor of defendant's case and suggested that defense counsel was attacking him as a "typical defense tactic." After the trial court entered an order on March 29, 1983, suppressing defendant's statements, the State's Attorney publicly derided the trial judge, stating that the judge was "not now, nor has he ever been a friend to the prosecution. Needless to say, he is not my favorite judge."

In an April 6, 1983, newspaper article, the State's Attorney was reported to have defended the tactics used to obtain defendant's statement and stated that "clever criminals require clever tactics to catch them." The next day, an amended motion to strike defendant's motion to dismiss was delivered to defense counsel by an assistant State's Attorney. Defense counsel was informed that the amended motion to strike, which alleged numerous violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility for lawyers (87 Ill.2d R. 1-101 et seq.) on the part of defendant's attorney, would be filed in the trial court if the defendant's attorney proceeded to a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • People v. Sims, 5-90-0287
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • 4 Mayo 1993
    ...due to Dr. Case's testimony. We also note that the defendant cites two prior opinions of this court, People v. Barton (1984), 122 Ill.App.3d 1079, 78 Ill.Dec. 419, 462 N.E.2d 538, and People v. Barton (1989), 190 Ill.App.3d 701, 138 Ill.Dec. 36, 546 N.E.2d 1091, that were critical of this p......
  • People v. Finley
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • 25 Febrero 1991
    ...is suppression of the evidence obtained in the violation of the right, not dismissal of the indictment. (People v. Barton (1984), 122 Ill.App.3d 1079, 78 Ill.Dec. 419, 462 N.E.2d 538; People v. Amft (1982), 109 Ill.App.3d 619, 65 Ill.Dec. 69, 440 N.E.2d 924; see People v. J.H. (1990), 136 I......
  • People v. Davidson, 5-85-0211
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • 9 Septiembre 1987
    ...action. (107 Ill.App.3d 487, 496, 63 Ill.Dec. 155, 162, 437 N.E.2d 804, 811.) Defendant cites to People v. Barton (1984), 122 Ill.App.3d 1079, 1084, 78 Ill.Dec. 419, 423, 462 N.E.2d 538, 542, cert. denied (1985), 469 U.S. 1213, 105 S.Ct. 1185, 84 L.Ed.2d 332, to argue that adverse publicity......
  • People v. J.H.
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • 18 Abril 1990
    ...S.Ct. 1416, 1419, 16 L.Ed.2d 510, 514-15; United States v. Tapp (5th Cir.1987), 812 F.2d 177, 178-79; People v. Barton (1984), 122 Ill.App.3d 1079, 1084, 78 Ill.Dec. 419, 462 N.E.2d 538.) There is no need to transform grand jury proceedings into a "kind of preliminary trial" (Costello v. Un......
  • 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