People v. Lang
| Decision Date | 29 March 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 40013,40013 |
| Citation | 37 Ill.2d 75,224 N.E.2d 838 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellee, v. Donald LANG, Appellant. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
Lowell J. Myers, Chicago, for appellant.
William G. Clark, Atty. Gen., Springfield, and Daniel P. Ward, State's Atty., Chicago (Fred G. Leach, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Elmer C. Kissane and James B. Zagel, Asst. State's Attys., of counsel), for appellee.
On November 12, 1965, the defendant, Donald Lang, was indicted by the grand jury of Cook County for the crime of murder. The defendant is a deaf-mute who cannot hear or speak, was never taught to read or write or to use sign-language, and is unable to communicate with anyone in any language system. On December 15, 1965, the public defender was appointed to represent him and an order was entered directing that he be examined by the Behavior Clinic of Cook County. On January 5, 1966, Lowell J. Myers moved that he be appointed by the court to represent the defendant. Myers has had thirty years of experience in dealing with deaf-mute people and ten years of experience in representing deaf-mute people in legal matters. (See, Myers v. County of Cook, 34 Ill.2d 541, 216 N.E.2d 803.) The trial judge appointed Myers to represent the defendant and granted leave to the public defender to withdraw as his attorney.
The Behavior Clinic was directed to make a further investigation and the case was continued to January 20, 1966. On that date the defendant's attorney filed a petition requesting a hearing before a jury on the question of the defendant's physical competence to stand trial. At that hearing the defendant's attorney testified as to his own experience in representing deaf-mutes, and his inability to communicate with the defendant, and stated that the defendant did not know the charges against him and was unable to co-operate with an attorney. Dr. William H. Haines, Director of the Behavior Clinic, testified that he was unable to communicate with the defendant, and he diagnosed the defendant's case as 'mutism.' He testified also that in his opinion the defendant did not know the nature of the charge against him, and was unable to co-operate with his counsel. The defendant's attorney then tendered a directed verdict finding that the defendant 'was at the time of impaneling this Jury and is now physically incompetent to stand trial.' The court directed the jury to return that verdict and the case was continued.
On February 21, 1966, the prosecution requested the entry of an order directing that the defendant be taken from the county jail at 9:00 A.M. on February 23, and brought to Dr. Helmar R. Mykelbust, Director of the Institute of Language Disorders of Northwestern University, for an examination and a report by Dr. Mykelbust to the court as to the ability of Donald Lang to communicate with others. The defendant's attorney objected, stating that 'this is a matter that has already been passed upon by the jury' and 'an attempt to make a collateral attack on the jury's verdict.' He continued, 'However, if you do grant the motion, I would like that the order be modified to provide that I can be present at the proceeding, that examination because I think I should be present at every proceeding which affects the defendant.'
The assistant State's Attorney then stated:
'Mr. Barish: Your Honor, in regard to the request of Mr. Myers, I have taken the initiative to ask Dr. Myklebust as to the possibility of having outsiders or observers present, and Dr. Myklebust tells me also, in view of the fact the defendant is in custody, the Sheriff's police and perhaps Mr. Myers, if he so wishes, could be present at the examination, but only by virtue of looking through a one-way glass into the room where Dr. Mykelbust will conduct the examination.
'I don't know exactly what procedure the doctor will take in the examination, but I don't believe he will be able to conduct it if Mr. Myers is present in the same room, but I believe he will be able to look into the same room, and perhaps, even hear. I am not certain of that. * * *' The court then asked the defendant's attorney whether he wanted to say anything further. The attorney answered 'No', and the court entered the order and continued the case to March 16.
On that date the defendant's attorney presented several motions. His motion that the indictment be dismissed because more than 120 days had elapsed since the defendant's arrest was denied. His motion that judgment be entered upon the verdict of the jury which was returned January 20, 1966, was not acted upon, but was 'held in abeyance.' His motion that the defendant be placed on trial for murder recited that 'the defendant offers to waive his constitutional rights, and his legal rights, and the verdict of the jury made on January...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Lang
...Lang (defendant), who until quite recently was never trained to communicate in any recognized language system. (See People v. Lang (1967), 37 Ill.2d 75, 224 N.E.2d 838; People ex rel. Myers v. Briggs (1970), 46 Ill.2d 281, 263 N.E.2d 109; People v. Lang (1st Dist. 1975), 26 Ill. App.3d 648,......
-
People v. Lang
...76 Ill.2d 311, 29 Ill.Dec. 87, 391 N.E.2d 350; People ex rel. Myers v. Briggs (1970), 46 Ill.2d 281, 263 N.E.2d 109; People v. Lang (1967), 37 Ill.2d 75, 224 N.E.2d 838) and will not be repeated here. We also note that no appeals were taken from the orders of involuntary admission entered f......
-
People v. Lang
...38, par. 9-1.) He was civilly committed to the Department of Mental Health after being found unfit to stand trial. (People v. Lang (1967), 37 Ill.2d 75, 80-81, 224 N.E.2d 838.) On appeal from the circuit court's denial of respondent's petition for a writ of habeas corpus, the supreme court ......
-
United States ex rel. Wax v. Pate
...in support of petitioner's contention that the psychiatric examination was a "critical" stage of this proceeding. Cf. People v. Lang, 37 Ill.2d 75, 224 N.E.2d 838 (1967). Defendant's argument that he could have consulted his lawyer and his lawyer an expert, does not amount to the kind of in......