Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

02/01/94 GENERAL ORDER MARCH 15 v. JULIE HULL

February 1, 1994

IN RE GENERAL ORDER OF MARCH 15, 1993, THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, PETITIONER-APPELLEE,
v.
JULIE HULL, RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.



APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY. THE HONORABLE ARTHUR ROSENBLUM, JUDGE PRESIDING.

Released for Publication March 18, 1994.

Scariano, DiVITO, Hartman

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Scariano

JUSTICE SCARIANO delivered the opinion of the court:

On March 15, 1993, respondent Julie Hull, an assistant Cook County Public Defender, was representing a juvenile at a probable cause hearing which was being held before Judge Arthur Rosenblum in Cook County circuit court. The juvenile, alleged to be delinquent, was charged with possession of a controlled substance, heroin, with intent to deliver. At the hearing, the State established through the arresting officer that while the juvenile was being pursued by the police, the officer saw him drop a cellophane bag. The officer later retrieved the bag and learned that it contained 120 foil-wrapped packets which, combined, proved to hold 36.5 grams of heroin.

During Hull's cross-examination of the arresting officer she attempted to show that he was mistaken in his belief that it was her client who had dropped the heroin. For example, she sought to have him admit that he was well behind the juvenile while chasing him. She emphasized that it was dark when the officer pursued the youth and that the street where he allegedly dropped the bag was litter-strewn, thus intimating that the heroin was discarded by someone other than her client. The court sustained some of the State's objections to this line of questioning and overruled others.

The State next objected when Hull asked the officer to describe the size of the cellophane bag, and after the court sustained the objection, the following exchange took place:

"Ms. Hull: May I have the basis your Honor? I am really -- this is not a game. We don't know if, in fact -- he says he was behind him. He didn't capture my client. It's dark out and the --.

Court: Please. We don't have a jury here.

Ms. Hull: It's not for the jury.

The Court: I think it is.

Ms. Hull: It's called the right to confront, you know, the sixth amendment right.

The Court: Oh, the sixth amendment of the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.