People v. Goldblatt
Decision Date | 20 May 1943 |
Docket Number | No. 27132.,27132. |
Citation | 383 Ill. 176,49 N.E.2d 36 |
Parties | PEOPLE v. GOLDBLATT. |
Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Criminal Court, Cook County; U. S. Schwartz, Judge.
Dave Goldblatt was convicted of murder, and he brings error.
Reversed and remanded.Wm. Scott Stewart, of Chicago, for plaintiff in error.
George F. Barrett, Atty. Gen., and Thomas J. Courtney, State's Atty., of Chicago (Edward E. Wilson, John T. Gallagher, and Melvin S. Rembe, all of Chicago, of counsel), for the People.
The plaintiff in error, Dave Goldblatt, was convicted of murder before a jury in the criminal court of Cook county and sentenced to the penitentiary for life.
On the morning of April 23, 1941, Anton Gorczak, a truck driver of the Republic Cleaners and Dyers of Cicero, Illinois, was beaten in a small establishment called the Englewood Cleaners, located at 1745 West 63d street in Chicago, operated by Abraham Rubin. This beating was administered by an unknown person who was allegedly accompanied by Goldblatt. Gorczak died from his wounds later the same day.
Coldblatt had been employed by the Individual Towel Company as a solicitor and adjuster prior to April 23, 1941. The evidence shows that shortly after this murder Captain Daniel Gilbert, of the State's Attorney's police, interviewed various witnesses and persons thought to have some connection with the crime, but that Goldblatt was not interviewed until September 8, 1941. However, prior to September 8, 1941, Daniel Gilbert had had Goldblatt followed by detectives from shortly after the date of the crime.
On September 8, 1941, at about 5 o'clock p. m., two police officers jumped on the side of Goldblatt's car as he was pulling into the garage at his home. He was told by them that they desired to have some one look at him regarding a hit-and-run accident. He was asked to go to the town hall police station and went with the officers in his own automobile. When they approached the town hall police station, he was told to go down town. He proceeded down town and asked the officers where they were going and received the reply that they were going to the State's Attorney's office. Upon arriving at the criminal court building, Goldblatt was taken to the witness room in the administration building of the county jail. He remained in the witness room until approximately 10:30 that night.
What happened after this is a matter of serious dispute, but the evidence is uncontradicted that Goldblatt remained in the custody of the State's Attorney's police the night of September 8, all of September 9, all of September 10 without any charge being placed against him, and on September 11 was taken into felony court and charged with murder. The evidence is also uncontradicted that during this time he was interrogated by Daniel Gilbert and various other officers, that he was taken to the scene of the beating with Gilbert and the officers and that during this time he made three statements: (1) an oral statement to Gilbert; (2) a court reporter's transcript of what was said by Goldblatt at the scene of the crime; (3) a court reporter's transcript of questions and answers is an interview between Gilbert, representatives of the State's Attorney's office and Goldblatt. It is admitted that the three statements were made at different times on three different days and contain many conflicting admissions.
A writ of habeas corpus was sued out on September 9, 1941. The writ was made returnable on September 10 at 11 a.m. and on that day the State's Attorney's office requested a continuance because they desired more time to continue their investigation. The attorney who had been employed by Mrs. Goldblatt testified that he had requested a representative of the State's Attorney's office to permit him to see his client in the State's Attorney's office on the morning of September 11, but that his request was refused. On neither the 9th, 10th, nor 11th was Goldblatt produced in court on the habeas corpus matter.
On a hearing before the court and out of the presence of the jury on the question of whether or not the admissions or confessions of Goldblatt were voluntary, Daniel Gilbert testified that on September 9 he informed Goldblatt of the fact that a writ of habeas corpus had been sued out for him and Goldblatt advised him that he did not want the services of a lawyer and wanted to remain in custody of the State's Attorney's police. However, Gilbert asserts that he never informed the lawyer who had obtained the writ of habeas corpus of this fact, nor did he take him into court to verify this fact. Goldblatt denied emphatically that he ever made such a statement.
Gilbert testified that he had been investigating the defendant Goldblatt's connection with this murder for many months and that he had men constantly following him, but that the men were not instructed to pick up Goldblatt until September 8. Gilbert testified that on the evening of September 8, at about 9:30 or shortly thereafter, he saw Goldblatt in Gilbert's office on the second floor of the criminal court building, he being brought into the office by Sergeant Sloey and Sergeant Healy. At this time, he states that Goldblatt said he was working at the Capitol Linen Supply, but that he had previously worked for the Individual Towel at a salary of $50 per week and a $25 expense allowance. At this time, Gilbert states, he told Goldblatt that he had been watching him all summer and that he could tell him every game of golf he played at the Lincoln Park golf grounds. He also stated to him that the only reason he was locked up after Labor Day was that the courts start their fiscal year after Labor Day and that he was in hopes of having some of the men that were with Goldblatt at the time of the commission of the crime so that they could all be apprehended at the same time.
Goldblatt then stated to Gilbert that he was working at the Individual Towel Company and was called by Gaines from the Champay Cleaners, that he went to see Gaines and Gaines told him that he had a job for him. Goldblatt said that Gaines stated there was a new company out in Cicero in the cleaning and dyeing business that was taking a number of customers away from him, the Englewood Cleaning and Dyeing Establishment being one of them. Goldblatt told Gaines that it would cost more than $25 to get back the customers and that he would need two or three men. At that time Johnny Russo was standing near the office and Gaines said to Russo and Goldblatt that they should go along and take care of that fellow. Gaines said, Goldblatt also stated that Gaines gave him $100 and Russo $200, because Russo said he would have to have another man.
This statement, as related by Gilbert, continued describing the manner in which they obtained Gorczak's name and telephone number, the call to Gorczak's home, threatening him, and obtaining the necessary automobiles. In this statement Goldblatt said that Gaines got an Oldsmobile car for Russo and that Goldblatt and Russo followed the driver around on his stops to various tailor shops and that they then went back to Gaines and told him it was necessary to have three men and that Gaines supplied them with another car for the following day. On that day Goldblatt drove his car and Russo and the other man Goldblatt did not know drove the car which Gaines had obtained for them. According to Goldblatt's statement, both cars went over and parked near the Englewood Cleaning Establishment and waited there for Gorczak to arrive with the cleaning truck. Goldblatt said that when it did arrive, Russo and the other man got out of the car and followed the driver in. Goldblatt stated that he remained outside and heard screaming and hollering and ran up to the door, but when he got to the door Russo and the other man were about ready to come out. He says he told them to come on. They got in their cars and drove away to the restaurant on Forty-seventh street and told Gaines what had happened. This statement was made orally to Gilbert and according to Gilbert was completed by 1 o'clock in the morning of September 9.
The second statement was made in the evening of September 9 and early morning of September 10. Gilbert had made arrangements with the owner of the Englewood Cleaners for them to visit the place of the crime. On that occasion a court reporter was present in addition to Gilbert, Lt. Kelly, Rubin, the owner of the place, and Cloutier, a colored pressman who had been present at the time of the crime. According to this statement, Goldblatt places himself inside the establishment. He states that there were two men with him, but that he had a pistol and that he ordered everybody to go in the back room. He identifies Rubin as the man that was handling the clothes with the driver and identifies the colored man as standing near the pressing machine.
When asked, ‘What did you do when they got back there?’ he answered, ‘I don't remember.’ He was next asked, ‘Did you make them lie down on the floor?’ to which he answered, ‘Everybody down.’ According to this statement, he was on the inside with one other man and another man was on the outside. Cloutier said that there was no screaming, and neither Rubin nor Cloutier was positive in his identification of Goldblatt, Cloutier saying, ‘That is the first time I ever saw him, to-night, since that time, and I would not be able to say it was him until he acknowledged it.’
In this second statement Gilbert testified that when they first arrived in the store he told Goldblatt to show what he had done, but that Gilbert took him outside for a few minutes and talked with him during the taking of the statement. Gilbert's testimony of what occurred at this time is as follows: ‘He said, . I said, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Upshaw v. United States
...Harris, 107 Utah 99, 152 P.2d 91, 97. To the same effect are Cavazos v. State, 146 Tex.Cr.R. 144, 172 S.W.2d 348, 351; People v. Goldblatt, 383 Ill. 176, 49 N.E.2d 36, 41; Royse, J., dissenting, in Scoopmire v. Taflinger, 114 Ind.App. 419, 52 N.E.2d 728, 8 See also the statement of Hon. Fra......
-
People v. Miller
...in Fikes v. Alabama, 352 U.S. 191, 77 S.Ct. 281, 285, 1 L.Ed.2d 246; People v. Thomlison, 400 Ill. 555, 81 N.E.2d 434; People v. Goldblatt, 383 Ill. 176, 49 N.E.2d 36; People v. Vinci, 295 Ill. 419, 129 N.E. 193, or other decisions cited to us by the defendant. On the contrary, when the con......
-
People v. Sims
...by the present record fall far short of the situation presented in People v. Vinci, 295 Ill. 419, 129 N.E. 193, and People v. Goldblatt, 383 Ill. 176, 49 N.E.2d 36. The specific coercive acts alleged by defendant are limited to a relatively short span of time. Defendant testified that, at o......
-
People v. Townsend
...obtained are not, in this instance, valid objections to its competency. Cf. People v. Fox, 319 Ill. 606, 150 N.E. 347; People v. Goldblatt, 383 Ill. 176, 49 N.E.2d 36; People v. Vinci, 295 Ill. 419, 129 N.E. 193. Counsel for defendant also suggests at this time that the confession was inadm......