People v. Wright

Decision Date23 January 1962
Docket NumberNo. 35526,35526
Citation180 N.E.2d 689,24 Ill.2d 88
PartiesPEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Defendant in Error, v. Louis WRIGHT, Plaintiff in Error.
CourtIllinois Supreme Court

George W. McBurney and Frederic F. Brace, Jr., Chicago, for plaintiff in error.

William G. Clark, Atty. Gen., and Daniel P. Ward, State's Atty., Chicago (Fred G. Leach, Asst. Atty. Gen. and John T. Gallagher and Dean H. Bilton, Asst. State's Attys., Chicago, of counsel), for defendant in error.

SCHAEFER, Justice.

Four indictments were returned against Louis Wright in the criminal court of Cook County. The first charged rape and the second charged burglary in connection with that rape; the third charged rape of another woman and burglary in connection with that rape. He was convicted on each of the four indictments after bench trials and was sentenced to ten to twenty years on each burglary indictment and to life imprisonment on each rape indictment. All four sentences run concurrently, and all four judgments have been brought to this court upon a single writ of error. The grounds urged for reversal are common to all of the cases, the People have not objected, and we see nothing to be gained by requiring a separate writ of error to review each judgment.

The defendant orally confessed the crimes, and testimony as to his confessions was introduced in each case. All of his contentions in this court center upon the circumstances under which his confessions were obtained. He was arrested between 4:30 and 5:00 A.M. on March 22, 1957, by members of a Chicago Police Department 'Task Force' which had been sent into a neighborhood where there had been a series of rapes of white women by a negro man or men. When arrested the defendant was crouched on a second floor porch in the rear of an apartment building where he had fled from police who sought to question him. After his arrest he was first taken to the Englewood Police Station, where a showup was held and the two victims of the burglary-rapes identified the defendant as the man who had broken into their homes and raped them. The evidence is in conflict as to whether the defendant was taken directly to Central Police Headquarters from the Englewood Police Station or whether there was an intervening stop at another police station. He arrived at the Central Police Station at approximately 11:00 A.M. on March 22, 1957.

The State's evidence indicates that the defendant was questioned at Central Police Headquarters briefly at 11:00 A.M., and also from 2:00 P.M. to 4:45 P.M. on Friday. The testimony of police officers, the assistant State's Attorney who took the defendant's unsigned confession in the Criminal Courts Building, and the court reporter who recorded it, is that the confession was made on Friday evening, March 22, at approximately 6:45 P.M.

The defendant, on the other hand, testified that he was not taken to the State's Attorney's office in the Criminal Courts Building until the afternoon of Saturday, March 23. At that time he refused to make a statement and was returned to Central Police Headquarters. He testified that he was again taken to the State's Attorney's office on Sunday, March 24, where his unsigned confession was taken in the presence of assistant State's Attorney Egan, Officer Cassidy, Paul Esling, a court reporter, and another unidentified officer. The defendant's account of what took place on Saturday and Sunday is contradicted by the State's witnesses who testified that, aside from a showup on Friday night, when the defendant was identified for a second time by the two women who had been raped, the defendant was not disturbed. Both the defendant and the State agree that Louis Wright was never booked following his arrest and that he was not taken before a magistrate until Monday morning, March 25, some 76 hours after his arrest.

The defendant testified that during the more than three days which he was held by the police, he was beaten, threatened with bodily harm and death unless he confessed. The first of the alleged beatings took place during the ride to the Englewood Station following the defendant's arrest. He testified that the beatings continued both before and after the showup at the Englewood Police Station, but that he was not beaten while he was at the unnamed police station where he was fingerprinted. When he arrived at Central Police Headquarters, he was again questioned and beaten throughout Friday afternoon. The defendant testified that the beatings continued intermittently throughout Saturday, except for the trip to the State's Attorney's office. After a sleepless Saturday night punctuated by further beatings, the defendant testified that he was ready to confess to anything to save his life which was constantly threatened. The defendant further testified that one of the rape victims was at Central Police Headquarters on Saturday night and that a showup was held at that time. On Sunday, according to the defendant, he was again taken to the Criminal Courts Building. Before being taken to the assistant State's Attorney's office he was held in the bull pen where he was beaten and told that if he did not take advantage of this last opportunity to confess he would be killed. Because of these threats and the beatings to which he had been subjected, the defendant testified, he made a statement to the assistant State's Attorney but refused to sign it.

The defendant was unable to name the officers who beat him although he...

To continue reading

Request your trial
31 cases
  • People v. Patterson
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • 4 Diciembre 1992
    ...that the officer threatened him with a gun and greater abuse unless he cooperated and gave a statement. (See People v. Wright (1962), 24 Ill.2d 88, 93, 180 N.E.2d 689 (holding that materiality of witnesses in coerced-confession cases is not limited to those physically present when a confess......
  • People v. Brooks
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • 20 Febrero 1987
    ...the rule requires the State to present the testimony of those who were present during the misconduct alleged. (People v. Wright (1962), 24 Ill.2d 88, 93, 180 N.E.2d 689.) As we have said, two witnesses did not testify at the suppression hearing in this case: a youth officer, Abran, and an a......
  • People v. Cook, Gen. No. 50446
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • 2 Diciembre 1966
    ...it is questioned on the ground of coercion. And to meet this burden it must produce all witnesses material to the issue. People v. Wright, 24 Ill.2d 88, 180 N.E.2d 689. It is also true that if a first, oral confession is coerced, then a later otherwise voluntary written confession would be ......
  • People v. Bell
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • 24 Junio 1977
    ... ... The purpose of the requirement, simply [50 Ill.App.3d 87] stated, is to safeguard against improperly induced confessions. (People v. Smith, 56 Ill.2d 328, 333, 307 N.E.2d 353, 355 (1974).) ... "* * * As was stated in People v. Wright (1962), 24 Ill.2d 88, 92, 180 N.E.2d 689, 691, 'The burden of proving that a confession is voluntary is one which the State must assume when the admissibility of a confession is questioned on the grounds that it was coerced. Only by producing all material witnesses connected with the controverted ... ...
  • 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