People v. Wilson

Decision Date24 November 1993
Docket NumberNo. 1-89-1555,1-89-1555
Citation628 N.E.2d 472,257 Ill.App.3d 670
Parties, 195 Ill.Dec. 8 The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jackie WILSON, Defendant-Appellant.
CourtUnited States Appellate Court of Illinois

Presiding Justice GORDON delivered the opinion of the court:

BACKGROUND

On February 9, 1982, defendant and his brother, Andrew Wilson, were involved in the fatal shootings of Chicago Police Officers William Fahey and Richard O'Brien and the taking of their service revolvers. In 1983, defendant and his brother were each convicted of two counts of murder for the deaths of the two officers and two counts of armed robbery for the taking of their service revolvers. In 1985, the appellate court, relying on People v. Zehr (1984), 103 Ill.2d 472, 83 Ill.Dec. 128, 469 N.E.2d 1062, reversed defendant's conviction, holding that the trial court had erred in refusing to instruct prospective jurors on the effect of defendant's failure to testify. (People v. Wilson (1985), 139 Ill.App.3d 726, 94 Ill.Dec. 138, 487 N.E.2d 1015.) The State petitioned for leave to appeal and the supreme court reversed the appellate court stating that the rule established in Zehr was to be given only prospective application. (People v. Wilson (1986), 112 Ill.2d 567, 112 Ill.Dec. 235, 513 N.E.2d 844.) On remand from the supreme court for consideration of other issues raised in defendant's initial appeal, the appellate court held that the trial court had committed reversible error, in denying defendant's motion for a severance and in admitting evidence that there was an outstanding arrest warrant for defendant on the day of the killings, and accordingly remanded the case for a new trial. (People v. Wilson (1987), 161 Ill.App.3d 995, 113 Ill.Dec. 827, 515 N.E.2d 812.) Defendant was retried separately from his brother and convicted by a jury for two counts of armed robbery and one count of murder. At defendant's second trial, the following relevant events and testimony occurred.

FACTS

During the proceedings prior to defendant's second trial, the trial judge offered defendant the choice of conducting individual voir dire examination of prospective jurors in chambers, outside the presence of the defendant, or of selecting the "jury the same way we do every other jury." After defense counsel stated that he wanted individual examination of the jury with defendant present, the trial judge ruled that the jury would be selected pursuant to the usual method, in open court with the defendant present. Prior to the arrival of the prospective jurors in the court room, defense counsel, in the presence of defendant, informed the court, "I believe you will want on record that we will waive [defendant's] presence for individual sequestered jurors." Defense counsel then continued:

"I have discussed with my client, Jackie Wilson, that in chambers I will be authorized pursuant to the Court's instruction to conduct some personal voir dire examination, up to two minutes with respect to each of the jurors, assuming it is along the line of appropriate questions. I have already advised Mr. Jackie Wilson that because of potential security problems that you would prefer that he not be in your chambers. We have discussed the alternative, which would be jury selection in open court, without the ability of counsel to individually talk to the jurors. It is my understanding that and my belief that Jackie Wilson concurs in my belief that we will prefer to have the individual sequestered voir dire examination to occur in your chambers, for which Jackie Wilson's presence will be waived."

The trial court then stated that defense counsel would nevertheless have full opportunity to consult with his client by excusing himself from chambers whenever necessary. During the selection process, defense counsel took advantage of the court's offer, leaving to consult with defendant as each juror was selected.

At trial, the State introduced the eyewitness testimony of Tyrone Sims. Sims testified that at the time of the killings he was at home in his living room when he noticed a police car pulling over a brown Chevrolet. He identified defendant as the driver of the Chevrolet and Andrew Wilson as its passenger. He said that defendant and the officer driving the police car, later identified as Officer O'Brien, got out of their cars and spoke.

[195 Ill.Dec. 14] Officer O'Brien proceeded to walk to the Chevrolet and peer inside. Andrew exited the Chevrolet and walked down the passenger side of that car. The other officer [Fahey] saw Andrew throw a jacket into the car and apparently ordered Andrew to give him the jacket. Andrew returned to the car and handed the jacket to Fahey. After searching the pockets of the jacket, Fahey grabbed Andrew and they struggled. Andrew grabbed Officer Fahey's service revolver from his holster and shot Fahey in the back of the head as Fahey was trying to handcuff him. Andrew then turned and fired a shot across the car at Officer O'Brien. Sims then saw Andrew get up on the car and fire two more shots at Officer O'Brien. Andrew shouted "Let's get out of here" to defendant and they took off. Sims subsequently gave a statement to the police while under hypnosis.

Thomas Musillami testified that he saw defendant crouching over the body of Officer O'Brien after O'Brien was shot.

Defendant's flight from the scene was observed by Dwayne Hardin. Hardin noticed that both defendant, who was driving the car, and Andrew, were smiling as they drove away.

The State also introduced a confession given by defendant. The admission of this confession at defendant's first trial was upheld by this court in defendant's initial appeal following his first conviction. People v. Wilson (1985), 139 Ill.App.3d 726, 94 Ill.Dec. 138, 487 N.E.2d 1015.

In that statement, defendant said that on the morning of the shootings he and his brother, Andrew, were at the home of a friend and discussed breaking Edgar Hope out of Cook County Hospital where he was being held in police custody for shooting a policeman. At this time, Andrew wanted to get extra guns. They left the home of their friend, with Andrew carrying a .38 caliber revolver, and burglarized the house next door. They then got into a brown Chevrolet. Defendant was driving the car with Andrew in the passenger seat when they were pulled over by Officers Fahey and O'Brien. Defendant stated that Andrew still had the gun with him. A uniformed Chicago police officer, whom he identified as Richard O'Brien, approached the driver's side window of the car and asked for his driver's license. Defendant responded that he had one, but did not have it with him. Defendant then stepped out of the car and O'Brien leaned in to search it. At that point, Andrew left the vehicle as well. Officer Fahey was at the rear of the car on the passenger side at this time. O'Brien came up with Andrew's gun, drew his own revolver and shouted freeze. Defendant then heard a shot from the passenger side and Officer O'Brien went for cover. Defendant then saw Andrew with a gun, heard a shot and saw O'Brien fall. According to defendant's statement, Andrew told the defendant to get O'Brien's gun and he replied that O'Brien was "still there" and that he was "up and about." Defendant said that Andrew fired more shots into O'Brien and then picked up the guns, and said, "Let's go." Defendant then drove himself and his brother away from the scene with the officers' service revolvers in the car. This concluded defendant's statement.

Detective Joseph Gorman testified that the officers' service revolvers were recovered in February 1982 in the back of a beauty shop in which Andrew Wilson had been staying. Chicago Police Officer Joseph McCarthy testified that on February 14, 1982, Andrew Wilson was arrested and that in his possession was a bag containing surgical gloves, a handgun and a hospital smock. Officer Chester Batey testified that Jackie Wilson was also arrested on February 14, 1982, in a vacant apartment.

The State, proceeding through stipulation, offered ballistics evidence which showed that the bullet that killed Officer Fahey and three of the four bullets which struck Officer O'Brien came from Officer Fahey's gun. The fourth bullet which struck Officer O'Brien was too mutilated to identify the gun from which it was fired.

The State also introduced several statements made by defendant during the period he was incarcerated at the Cook County Jail while awaiting his second trial. George Crosby, a correctional officer at the jail, testified that after defendant had an altercation with another correctional officer, defendant The State also offered the testimony of William Coleman, a.k.a. William Clarkson (Coleman), a fellow inmate of defendant's at Cook County Jail. Coleman, a citizen of Great Britain, was being held there for possession of cocaine with intent to deliver and for an earlier escape from the jail. Coleman testified when he first met defendant he asked whether he was Andrew Wilson's brother and whether he had killed the cops. Defendant responded that he was Andrew's brother and confirmed that he and his brother had killed the officers. During a subsequent conversation, defendant explained to Coleman that the killings took place as they were pulled over by Officers Fahey and O'Brien while on their way to break Edgar Hope out of Cook County Jail Hospital. Defendant told Coleman that when they were pulled over, he told his brother, "let's take him" and that they then "blew [the officers] away."

                [195 Ill.Dec. 15] said that "you should have killed us when you had the chance, killed me when you had the chance, because I
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
46 cases
  • State v. Owens
    • United States
    • South Dakota Supreme Court
    • 10 d3 Abril d3 2002
    ...1996), review denied, 680 So.2d 423 (1996); Clay v. State, 318 Ark. 122, 883 S.W.2d 822, 829 (1994); People v. Wilson, 257 Ill.App.3d 670, 195 Ill.Dec. 8, 628 N.E.2d 472, 483 (1993), appeal denied, 155 Ill.2d 575, 198 Ill.Dec. 552, 633 N.E.2d 14 (1994); Williams v. State, 832 S.W.2d 152, 15......
  • People v. Phillips
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • 18 d3 Junho d3 2008
    ...can be waived. People v. Justice, 349 Ill.App.3d 981, 987, 285 Ill.Dec. 394, 811 N.E.2d 1273 (2004); People v. Wilson, 257 Ill.App.3d 670, 678, 195 Ill. Dec. 8, 628 N.E.2d 472 (1993). However, "`"[w]aivers of constitutional rights not only must be voluntary but must be knowing, intelligent ......
  • People v. Jones
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • 21 d4 Novembro d4 2019
    ...776, 497 N.E.2d 1138 (1986) ; Perruquet , 68 Ill. 2d at 154, 11 Ill.Dec. 274, 368 N.E.2d 882 ; People v. Wilson , 257 Ill. App. 3d 670, 704-05, 195 Ill.Dec. 8, 628 N.E.2d 472 (1993). ¶ 50 The trial court has broad discretion to impose a sentence; a sentence that is within statutory limits i......
  • People v. Cumbee
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • 30 d5 Junho d5 2006
    ...now binding on this court. See Bilut, 296 Ill.App.3d at 47, 230 Ill.Dec. 161, 692 N.E.2d 1327; see also People v. Wilson, 257 Ill.App.3d 670, 700, 195 Ill.Dec. 8, 628 N.E.2d 472 (1993) (when the evidence offered at the two trials is the same, or substantially the same, the law of the case d......
  • 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