People v. Vinci, 13511.

• Decision Date: 21 December 1920
• Docket Number: No. 13511.,13511.
• Citation: 129 N.E. 193,295 Ill. 419
• Parties: PEOPLE v. VINCI.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

295 Ill. 419

129 N.E. 193

PEOPLE

v.VINCI.

No. 13511.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Dec. 21, 1920.

Error to the Criminal Court, Cook County; Joseph Sabath, Judge.

James Vinci was convicted of murder, and brings error.

Reversed.

James J. Barbour, of Chicago, for plaintiff in error.

Edward J. Brundage, Atty. Gen., Maclay Hoyne, State's Atty., of Chicago, and Noah C. Bainum, of Springfield (Edward E. Wilson, John Prystalski, James C. O'Brien and John Owen, all of Chicago, of counsel), for the People.

THOMPSON, J.

Maurice Enright, a ‘labor leader,’ so called, was murdered about 6:10 o'clock P. M., February 3, 1920, in front of his residence, 1108 Garfield boulevard, Chicago. Death, which was almost instantaneous, was caused by gunshot wounds, two shots being fired from a sawed-off, double-barreled shotgun loaded with slugs. When he was shot he was sitting at the wheel of his automobile, which was just coming to a stop in front of his home. The shots were fired by some unknown person, who was in a curtained automobile being driven slowly past the Enright machine. After the shots were fired the speed of the machinewas increased and it sped away north on May street, immediately west of the Enright home. The Perlowski brothers, residing with their parents next door to the Enright home, heard the shots and from the front windows of their second floor apartment saw the fleeing car. They were not able to recognize the make of the car, but noticed that it was one of unusual design. The following Saturday they were taken by the police, operating out of the state's attorney's office, to a garage for the purpose of identifying the automobile. From 30 or more machines in that garage they picked out a Templar car owned by Ralph Buglio. It developed that Buglio had loaned this machine a few days before the tragedy to Mike Corrozzo, president of the street cleaners' union, who maintained an office opposite the city hall, at 138 North La Salle street. The only evidence in the record connecting plaintiff in error with this machine is the testimony of Melf, one of Buglio's drivers, who delivered the machine to Corrozzo a few nights before the tragedy. On this evening, when Melf stopped the Templar car in front of Corrozzo's office, plaintiff in error was standing on the sidewalk and inquired for whom the machine was being left, and Melf told him that it was for Corrozzo and that it was a standard shift. Deceased had had a turbulent career in the city of Chicago and in 1912 was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. People v. Enright, 256 Ill. 221, 99 N. E. 936, Ann. Cas. 1913E, 318. He was in prison but a short time when he was released by pardon.

Corrozzo was president of the street cleaners'union in Chicago and Tim Murphy was its business manager. These two men, together with Vincenzo Cosmano, were arrested for the murder of Enright by police officers of the city of Chicago operating out of the state's attorney's office. In Cosmano's room the police found a notebook, in which there was a memorandum which read, ‘Jimmy Wizzi, Dogles 115.’ Following this clue, officers went to the Emery Motor Livery Company, whose telephone was Douglas[295 Ill. 422]115, and looking over the list of chaffeurs found the name of James Vinci, plaintiff in error. He was thereupon arrested and brought to the state's attorney's office, where he was held as a ‘suspect under interrogation.’ The arrest occurred at his home about 6:30 o'clock Wednesday evening, February 11. He arrived at the state's attorney's office about 7 o'clock and was there questioned about the Enright case until after midnight. About 1 o'clock Thursday morning he was taken to the West Chicago police station and there locked up under the direction of the state's attorney as a ‘suspect under interrogation.’ Thursday he was brought back to the state's attorney's office and there questioned regarding the Enright murder during the day and until after midnight Thursday night. About 1 o'clock Friday morning he was taken to the Fiftieth street police station and turned over to the turnkey to be held as a ‘suspect under interrogation.’ Friday he was brought back to the state's attorney's office and there questioned during the day and until after midnight Friday night, when he was returned to the Fiftieth street police station. Saturday morning he was brought back to the state's attorney's office for further interrogation regarding the Enright murder. Up to this time he had persisted in his denial of any knowledge of the murder. No warrant had been issued for his arrest and he had not been taken before a magistrate for examination. No one was permitted to communicate with him except by permission of the state's attorney's office, and he was purposely confined in different outlying police stations so that he could not get in touch with people from the outside. The interrogation of plaintiff in error continued throughout the day Saturday until past midnight Saturday night. Shortly after midnight plaintiff in error, in answer to questions of the state's attorney, admitted that he drove the car from which Enright was shot and that Cosmano was the man who fired the shots. The questions and answers were taken down by a shorthand reporter and later transcribed. Immediately after the conclusion of the interview, which was about 1:30 o'clock Sunday morning, plaintiff in error asked the state's attorney what he was going to do for him, and the state's attorney replied that if he testified on behalf of the people at the prosecution of Murphy, Corrozzo, and Cosmano he would use his efforts to see that plaintiff in error was given his freedom. Plaintiff in error testified before the grand jury and the four suspects were indicted for the murder of Enright. Shortly before the trial of the codefendants of plaintiff in error was called, plaintiff in error repudiated his confession and refused to testify. Plaintiff in error was tried and convicted for the murder of Enright and was sentenced to serve 14 years' imprisonment in the penitentiary. This writ of error is prosecuted to reverse that judgment, the contention being that the confession on which plaintiff in error was convicted was involuntary and therefore inadmissible.

Plaintiff in error was not satisfied to give a truthful recital of his experiences in the state's attorney's office, which would probably have rendered this statement inadmissible, but he added to his story many false and exexaggerated charges. He claimed that he was knocked and kicked about the state's attorney's office and was so bruised and maimed from this violent treatment that he was compelled to treat his injuries with liniment for two weeks. His picture was taken by newspaper photographers Monday, February 16, but the picture showed no signs of physical violence about the head or face of plaintiff in error. Newspaper reporters and his relatives and friends visited him frequently on the 14th, 15th, and 16th. He made no complaints to them of ill-treatment and none of them testified to any physical injuries. He charges that Assistant State's Attorney Prystalski threatened to throw him from a third-story window of the criminal court building and that the police officers threatened to shoot him. He further charges that the officers gave him whisky and made him drunk before he made the admissions. Substantially all these statements were denied by the officers. It is apparent that neither the trial court nor the jury believed...