As the People point out, with or without the convictions, the jury still would have been exposed to defendant's confession which detailed the assault on Piest. While defendant has attempted to distinguish Kubat by arguing that the *100 defendant in that case had waived his right to complain about the conflicting instructions because no objection was made to them, we find the circumstances here more compelling to hold that the error was harmless since the instruction was incorrect in only one of the readings and in none of the written forms. Dr. Brocher replied: "Well, that's maybe a legal viewpoint; it's not a psychiatric viewpoint, because in psychiatry you have to understand the motivation why somebody is doing something. He stated that he did not have anal sex with Piest, but that "Jack might have." Defendant was read his rights and had read and signed a waiver form given him by the Des Plaines police department. "`The record presents a question of fact to be determined by * * * [the fact finder]. Moreover, since Dr. Reifman testified that he testified on behalf of defendants about 60% of the time, even if the estimate is inaccurate, it was not totally unwarranted. Thus, on these facts we cannot say that the court abused its discretion by choosing to personally interrogate the jurors. Dr. Cavanaugh testified that he could not if the law were followed. Defendant contends next that the court should have determined that defendant knowingly and intelligently agreed to a stipulated sentencing hearing. Danner told Oxygen.com that Rignall's life" was very difficult for him after the incident, after the assault." The cost of the venue evaluation was estimated at approximately $38,000, although confining the survey to a limited number of counties and applying other cost-cutting measures could have reduced the budget. Charles Hill, another friend from Waterloo, Iowa, testified that while defendant was in prison he vigorously professed innocence to the crimes with which he was charged, and when he was released stated, "I'll never go back to jail.". 38, par. Investigator Bedoe testified on cross-examination that defendant openly admitted that he was bisexual, but expressed a tremendous fear of being a homosexual. On redirect examination, Dr. Freedman stated that he gave an opinion in that case because he was with Mr. Nelson and saw "a total reenactment under my eyes of a dissociated state by psychotic episode in which this man killed his *79 beloved six children * * *." * * * Hit me. Danner told Oxygen.com that Rignalls life was very difficult for him after the incident, after the assault., However, she noted that Wilder was his rock who "just showered him with love throughout.. While there may be instances where such evidence is relevant, we fail to see its relevance here. We find it unnecessary to address this question, because even if this alleged impeachment were improper, it was not damaging to defendant's case. Our review of *33 the instances cited by defendant shows that with every prospective juror defendant had the opportunity to tender specific questions and failed to do so. On this record the instruction was sufficient to render harmless any effect which the testimony may have caused, and we find no error which warrants reversal. The sentences were stayed (87 Ill.2d R. 609(a)) pending appeal to this court (Ill. Const. Since the difference between fitness for trial and sanity was clearly and repeatedly explained to the jury, we do not believe that the jury was confused by the introduction of this testimony and the error was harmless. The People argue that defendant has offered no evidence which raises a reasonable doubt as to his sanity at the time of the alleged crimes; "that even assuming that the issue was adequately raised, the proof of Gacy's sanity *69 during the murders was overwhelming; and that as a matter of law, the jury's determination should not be disturbed.". Dr. Richard Rogers, a clinical psychologist, administered the Schedule of Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia test (SADS) on defendant. No objection was made to this argument, and the issue is therefore waived. THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Appellee, See also People v. Brownell (1980), 79 Ill. 2d 508, 541-44. When defendant *36 did ask that the remainder of the voir dire be closed to the public, he did so only on the bare assertion that prospective jurors were not being fully candid. Later, a body was found buried underneath the driveway. Number 1, he goes to his lawyer, it doesn't necessarily follow that the lawyer is suggesting he's going to a lawyer and he's coming up with this." (See Ill. Rev. We note first that defendant did not exhaust the peremptory challenges that he was given. I will be good." When asked whether he agreed with the statement to the effect that psychiatrists do not belong in the courtroom because they could not function effectively in a courtroom, Dr. Brocher replied, "* * * my experience * * * convinced me the opposite is true, that most people in the legal profession don't understand psychiatry." Dr. Cavanaugh stated that it was impossible to guarantee confinement in a mental institution because the legal standards for confinement to an insane asylum were constantly changing. Defendant's last contention is that his rights were violated when he was not permitted to be present when his attorneys made the motion for a new trial. We find no error. Defendant's objection to the characterization of mitigating factors as statutory guidelines was also not error here, as it fairly described the function of the statutory mitigating factors. The evidence established that defendant offered his wife to adolescent boys in exchange for oral sex. Oxygen correspondent Stephanie Gomulka contributed to this report. We hold that the evidence of the smell of decaying flesh in defendant's home, discovery of a film receipt purportedly on the victim's person at the time he disappeared, and the reiterated facts contained in the first warrant, taken together, provide a sufficient basis for the circuit court to refuse to suppress the evidence seized as a result of the execution *28 of that warrant. Defendant, in his reply brief, asserts that he never abandoned his claim of innocence because "at jury selection and at the time of jury instructions the jury was informed that there were two issues to be resolved: guilt and sanity." Then let Mr. Kunkle pull the switch." At the beginning of the cross-examination of Dr. Rappaport, the following colloquy occurred: The circuit court immediately instructed the jury that it was not to imply that this in fact occurred. He testified that defendant once asked him if he would engage in homosexual activity if it "meant his job." The only case cited by defendant in his brief in support of his contention is People v. Speck (1968), 41 Ill. 2d 177. It was very cold outside. 38, par. Thus, memories concerning bizarre behavior, violent crime, or sex are retained longer than information concerning nonviolent crime or other less emotional events. First, articles which made reference to "homosexuality" elicited emotional responses. First, defense counsel asked Dr. Rappaport a series of questions concerning how "substance use disorders" fit into Dr. Rappaport's diagnosis. "Justice on Trial" will examine controversial topics often subject to . (See 2 Wharton, Criminal Evidence sec. Defendant next asserts that the complaint was fatally defective in that it failed to state the time when the informants made their observations. Defendant's assertion that this murder was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt rests upon a distortion of the record. People v. Haywood (1980), 82 Ill. 2d 540, 543-44. He was half-dressed, his face completely. In view of the fact that defendant stated he threw five bodies from the I-55 bridge and all five bodies were found in the same general vicinity, a reasonable inference to be drawn was that O'Rourke was one of defendant's victims. Defendant argues that Lieutenant Kozenczak's statements were conclusional and did not identify the sources of his information or answer basic questions such as "Who stated John W. Gacy was in the store two times? Our statute provides that a defendant may be sentenced to death if he "has been convicted of murdering two or more individuals * * * regardless of whether the deaths occurred as the result of the same act or of several related or unrelated acts so long as the deaths were the result of either an intent to kill more than one person or of separate premeditated acts * * *." Thus, none of the written instructions were incorrect, but a discrepancy existed in the oral instructions. waseca county accident reports; list of tory mps by age; has fox news ever won a peabody award. (People v. Jones (1982), 94 Ill. 2d 275, 282-86.) 2d 1407, 103 S. Ct. 3566, in support of his argument. (People v. Ephraim (1952), 411 Ill. 118, 122-23.) While many labels were placed on defendant's mental condition, all of the People's experts characterized defendant's defect as a personality or character disorder. The People argue further, citing People v. Williams (1967), 38 Ill. 2d 115, and People v. Miller (1965), 33 Ill. 2d 439, that the instruction was properly refused because it did not contain a correct statement of law, as Illinois does not recognize a "mere personality disorder" as meeting the test for insanity. The proposal was submitted by the National Jury Project and explained in detail the purpose of the survey and the manner in which it was to be conducted. 2d 723, 84 S. Ct. 1509. By JUAN A. LOZANO April 21, 2023. The People did not argue that Mr. Amirante concocted the multiple-personality defect and told defendant to use it. She stated that defendant never hid the fact that he was bisexual. There is no merit to the assertion that their representation was ineffective. That the mother of a missing 15-year-old boy would not be likely to supply misinformation to the police searching for her son was a factor appropriately considered by the judge who ordered the warrant to issue. A search warrant issued on December 21, 1978, authorized the police to search defendant's home for the remains of the body of Robert Piest. After meeting Gacy at a bar, Jeffrey Rignall was chloroformed, bound, orally and anally sodomized, and the n left, uncons cious, next to a statue in a Chicago park. Dr. Robert Traisman, a clinical psychologist, spent 3 1/2 hours examining defendant and several more hours reviewing the results of the tests he administered to defendant. When Donnelly regained consciousness, defendant removed the gag from Donnelly's mouth and Donnelly told him that if he was going to kill him, to just do it and get it over with. Defendant next complains that his trial counsel was incompetent for failing to present any evidence on the statutory mitigating factor of extreme mental or emotional disturbance. In Yeager, the prosecutor argued to the jury that they could infer defendant was guilty because he consulted his attorney after the alleged criminal act had occurred. He stated that Greg Godzik had dug his own grave, and that he had killed John Szyc because he had asked for more money. SHARE. Defendant's third argument concerning this contention is that even assuming the validity of the December 13 search, the underlying complaint for the December 21 search warrant failed to satisfy the two-prong test of Aguilar v. Texas (1964), 378 U.S. 108, 12 L. Ed. 2d 1326, 102 S. Ct. 2922, aff'd on remand (5th Cir.1982), 686 F.2d 311, vacated and remanded (1983), 463 U.S. 1223, 77 L. Ed. We note that it was defense counsel who injected the issue of bias of the expert witnesses into this trial with the remarks in opening argument that the People's experts were "mechanics for the State" or had "inflexible biases." Contrary to defendant's assertion, the People did not argue that in order to be a mental disease, the disease must be listed in DSM III. The police learned that he had a record of sexually assaulting young men and had been convicted in Iowa for an assault on a teenage boy. Because we have already determined that the prior searches were not illegal, this argument must fail. We find no error. David C. Sobelsohn and Linda E. Fisher, of Chicago, for amici curiae American Civil Liberties Union et al. Criteria for determining whether the doctrine of plain error should be invoked have been enunciated by this court, i.e., whether the evidence is closely balanced, or if the error is of such a magnitude that the accused is denied a fair and impartial trial. In certain of the instances cited by defendant, further questioning was unnecessary because those jurors were excused for cause. The rationale as stated in State v. Whitlow (1965), 45 N. J. To close the proceedings to the public requires a more compelling reason than was shown to exist here. Defendant argues that the extensive publicity caused many prospective jurors to be hesitant to answer questions completely and truthfully.