Matthew Broderick Illness, Beaker Street Playlist From The 60s And 70s, Articles J

38, par. Since we have held to the contrary, we need not address these issues. When asked on cross-examination whether defendant was indistinct or contradictory, Dr. Reifman replied: "He tries to obfuscate, or tries to present a picture that is not clear." It was assumed that Rignall would have testified for the prosecution, but instead he testified for Gacy saying that Gacy had no control over himself and that the savagery of his attack could not have been from a sane person. We need not address all these assertions, as we find that Dr. Garron had a sufficient factual basis for his opinion. In fact, one of the attorneys for the defendant stated on the record, outside the defendant's presence, that it was the defendant's request that he be sentenced immediately, without the benefit of a presentence investigation report. That was part of the projective identification that I was explaining before." The cases cited by defendant in this regard are distinguishable. Defendant's father tripped on a chair and fell, accused defendant of tripping him, and threatened to kill defendant. (People v. Moretti (1955), 6 Ill. 2d 494, 532.) That the complaint does not set forth in detail how one of these individuals was able to identify John Gacy as the contractor with whom Piest went to speak is not a fatal defect. On cross-examination, Dr. Freedman stated that defendant could not control when the outcroppings would occur. He testified that defendant openly admitted that he was bisexual. Dr. Rappaport testified that defendant would have brief psychotic episodes which would occur as a result of rage where "he thought these boys were him and he was the father" and the unmanageable rage he felt was actually against himself. Defendant points out that the complaint stated only that Lieutenant Kozenczak had received this information on December 11, 1978, but does not indicate on what date Piest was last seen at the drugstore. Because no offers of proof were made concerning the testimony which would have been elicited from defendant's experts, it is impossible to determine the adverse effect, if any, of the alleged error. Not only did defendant fail to object to the use of these statements, he stipulated to their use and, at least in part, relied on them in arguing that his mental defect constituted a factor in mitigation which should preclude the death penalty. Once inside the car, defendant placed a cloth soaked in chloroform over Rignall's face, causing him to lose consciousness. Defendant argues that the assistant State's Attorney's statement "that the psychiatric institute testified on behalf of defendants 75% of the time" was not based on facts in evidence. Other witnesses testified that defendant was boastful but not antisocial, that he was not a heavy drinker, and that he often had complained of physical ailments which did not appear to exist. They began with the frequently emotional accounts of relatives and friends of some of the victims. The two Chicago newspapers carried many of these first two types of articles when the story first broke, but discontinued them a week to a month later. In many instances, defendant had no other questions to ask of the jurors. Before trial, defendant sought a change of venue and then moved for the appointment of a market research firm "to conduct a valid statistical survey both within and outside of Cook County to determine the effect of pretrial publicity on the temperament of those members of the community or communities who are potential veniremen for this cause." Defendant told his counselor, and other inmates, that he was in prison for showing porno films to adolescents, and showed disdain for homosexuals. In John Wayne Gacy: Devil in Disguise, Rignalls partner of 22 years, Ron Wilder, details how Rignall dipped in and out of consciousness on the drive to Gacys suburban home. The Rorschach test was used by almost every expert testifying in this trial, and each expert testified that it was useful to some degree in formulating a diagnosis. The assistant State's Attorney urged the jurors to utilize their "common sense" while listening to the testimony of the expert witnesses who would testify in this case. Mr. Amirante stated: "That's a direct attack on defense counsel's integrity. Nowout of print, used copies can go forhundreds of dollars online. He ended up [] working to find out Gacys identity himself and then pushing the case as far as he could through the court system, Danner told Oxygen.com. Donnelly passed out. Defendant stated that the killings became less frequent later on because he was working so hard, and he was too tired to "go cruising." We note first that defendant did not request the public be excluded from voir dire proceedings until after a number of jurors had already been questioned. Its decision will not be reversed unless the determination is so improbable or unsatisfactory as to raise a reasonable doubt as to defendant's sanity.'" Additionally, he explained, the psychodynamic theory tends to be used as if it is actual fact when it is really inference and theory, and inferences or assumptions upon which psychodynamic theory is based do not in themselves explain an individual's behavior in the sense of causation. Defendant has cited no instance of failure to excuse for cause a prospective juror with a preconceived opinion but contends that the circuit court did not question the prospective jurors sufficiently to discover such opinions. In that instance, defendant requested that the court ask a prospective juror "what he remembers out of the newspapers *31 * * * what he remembers specifically out of the newspapers and radio." Trial counsel could have made the decision that it would be better to argue against the death penalty itself than to try to explain that there were mitigating factors sufficient to avoid the death penalty in light of the 12 murders of which defendant had been convicted and for which defendant was eligible for the death penalty. The jury was informed that Dr. Cavanaugh's and Dr. Fawcett's reports referred to alcohol and drug abuse. Defendant next complains that the jury was improperly instructed before its deliberations in the death penalty hearing when the court misstated one of the instructions *99 as follows: The instruction as tendered to the jury in written form, read: Not only was the jury given the correct version in the written instruction, but the verdict form also gave the correct version of the law, as did oral instructions before argument on the death sentence, and in another portion of the oral instructions to the jury before their deliberations. Carol Loftren, defendant's second wife, testified that she found silk bikini underwear, which were stained in front, lying around the house. Defendant contends that such evidence could have included his childhood experiences, his family relationships, his business career, and his charitable and civic work. Thomas Eliseo, a clinical psychologist, testified that defendant scored in the top 10% of the population on the Wechsler scale and had no major brain damage. Defendant has also contended that the sentence discretion vested in the prosecution by the death penalty statute is an unconstitutional delegation of legislative and judicial authority. (People v. Jackson (1981), 84 Ill. 2d 350, 358-59.) He stated that he did not have anal sex with Piest, but that "Jack might have." Even assuming that Dr. Freedman's clinical *64 findings were correct, Dr. Heston explained, Dr. Heston still would not be able to conclude that defendant could not conform his conduct to the requirements of law, because he was unable to find a causal link. From the fact that the jury in that case had found Nelson guilty but advised against capital punishment because of defendant's emotional state, the jury in this case would no doubt infer that the jury in that case believed that Dr. Freedman's observation of the psychotic episode was indeed correct. The first witness was Jeff Rignall, a surviving victim of Gacy's attack. * * * Hit me. We find no error. The transsexual lover testified that O'Rourke had gone out to get cigarettes one night and never returned. The doctor performing the autopsy listed the cause of death as "apparent drowning." He stated that Greg Godzik had dug his own grave, and that he had killed John Szyc because he had asked for more money. He stated that defendant's antisocial personality helped him forget his criminal acts. Defendant also complains that Officer Schultz did not promptly notify Lieutenant Kozenczak about the smell of decaying flesh and this casts doubt on the veracity of Officer Schultz' conclusion. Nothing in the record supports defendant's contention that trial counsel encouraged him to confess, but even if defendant's attorneys had done so the night before he was arrested, such a decision on their part could easily be viewed as a legitimate defense tactic. People v. Sailor (1969), 43 Ill. 2d 256, 260; People v. Novotny (1968), 41 Ill. 2d 401, 410. As in the prior argument where defendant contends that psychiatric testimony could have been repeated at the sentencing hearing, trial counsel may also have made the tactical choice not to repeat the suggested mitigating evidence of such matters as his family relationships and civic work which were already presented at trial. The circuit court also permitted the attorneys to suggest additional questions when they felt the court's questioning was inadequate. He explained that the description of narcissistic personality contains many of the elements of the antisocial personality, and that the antisocial personality is a subtype of narcissistic personality. 38, par. More posts from r/serialkillers 603K subscribers Golfer345 3 days ago She testified that the basement was locked and the children were never permitted to go down there unless accompanied by a parent. But just as the People may not select a jury which is predisposed on a pertinent issue which will arise at trial, the defendant may not seek out a county in which prospective jurors will most likely be predisposed on the defenses which the defendant will raise. He pulled the trigger between 10 and 15 times, spinning the chamber between pulls of the trigger, until the gun finally went off. Defendant next argues that the People improperly impeached Dr. Freedman. These witnesses also recounted that defendant experienced episodes of what appeared to be heart attacks. When Donnelly again regained consciousness, defendant urinated all over Donnelly. Defense counsel insisted that the insinuation was "obvious," and the court reiterated that it did not necessarily interpret the question in that manner and that "it better not be argued that way" and that the assistant State's Attorney "better tell whoever is going to argue not to argue that." After the attack, Gacy dumped Rignall off in a spot not far from where hed first picked him up. The court stated that neither side could raise an irrelevant issue and instructed the jury to disregard the colloquy because it was irrelevant to the issues of the case. Otherwise, he can't understand any kind of illness." The assertion that the complaint contained insufficient facts to establish probable cause is without merit. In December of 1978, following the disappearance of 15-year-old Robert Piest, Gacy was questioned and arrested by police, who obtained a search warrant for the crawl space beneath Gacys home. The court granted defense counsel's motion for change of venue, specifically finding that there was "a substantial decrease of publicity outside of Cook County, perhaps strikingly so," and that even though publicity would be generated in whatever county the jury selection was conducted, this was the best method of insuring a fair trial for defendant. After the movie, defendant stuck his foot in Donnelly's stomach, put a gun to Donnelly's head, and played "Russian roulette." Amici's central argument is premised on the accuracy of the statistical data which they cite in support of their contentions. In view of the fact that the jury was instructed correctly as to the law on this point four separate times, all of the written instructions being correct, we fail to see how the jury was left with a mistaken interpretation of the law, or that it was confused on this point.