Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

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.


September 25, 1996


Appeal from Circuit Court of Sangamon County. No. 96NC434. Honorable Leo J. Zappa, Jr., Judge Presiding.

As Corrected October 18, 1996. Petition for Rehearing Denied November 4, 1996. Released for Publication November 4, 1996.

Honorable Robert J. Steigmann, J., Honorable Robert W. Cook, P.j. - Concur, Honorable Frederick S. Green, J. - Concur. Justice Steigmann delivered the opinion of the court.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Steigmann

JUSTICE STEIGMANN delivered the opinion of the court:

This case arises from an effort to quash a grand jury subpoena duces tecum requiring Mamie G. Williams (defendant) to submit handwriting exemplars, fingerprints, and photographs of herself. The trial court denied defendant's motion to quash. Defendant appeals, and we affirm.


On January 25, 1996, the Sangamon County grand jury issued a subpoena duces tecum commanding defendant to appear before the Sangamon County grand jury on February 29, 1996, at 9 a.m. The subpoena also commanded her to "provide handwriting exemplars, fingerprints and photographs of yourself in your possession or control."

On January 31, 1996, defendant filed a motion to quash the grand jury subpoena, in which she alleged that she had been the subject of an investigation conducted primarily by special agent Ned Bandy of the Illinois State Police. Bandy had asked defendant to provide him the same items that were the subject of the grand jury subpoena duces tecum, and she had refused. Defendant further claimed that "it appears from the circumstances that a Grand Jury subpoena has here been deployed merely to assist or further an independent police investigation." Last, defendant complained that the grand jury subpoena improperly infringed upon her constitutional right of privacy, in violation of article I, section 6, of the 1970 Illinois Constitution, because it was issued "without any apparent showing of relevance and individualized suspicion."

On February 20, 1996, the trial court conducted a hearing on defendant's motion at which a Sangamon County assistant State's Attorney told the court that investigators, including Bandy, believed that the case they were pursuing was appropriate for the grand jury's investigation, and the grand jury needed to obtain additional information to further that investigation. The assistant State's Attorney also represented that it was only after evidence had been presented to the grand jury that the grand jury issued the subpoena in question. She further represented that, to the best of her knowledge, the State's Attorney's office had not yet received a transcript of the testimony presented to the grand jury. The assistant State's Attorney claimed that a "particularized and individualized showing *** was made at the time [the case] was presented *** to the Grand Jury to satisfy them [sic] to issue the subpoena." She then invited the court to review the transcript of the grand jury proceedings for itself.

In response, defendant argued that the State had failed to produce anything at the hearing, and in fact "the State has produced absolutely nothing to show there was even a grand jury convened." The following discussion then took place:

"THE COURT: I will find out who is preparing the transcript and review it to see if any of these issues regarding reasonable suspicion are allowed, so I'll take it under advisement and I'll let you know as quickly as possible.

[Defense counsel]: Judge, the deadline to comply with the grand jury's subpoena is coming up. I take it that the --

THE COURT: You'll have a decision by the 29th [of February] unless the court reporter tells me that the transcript can't be done by then, but if I find that out, I'll call your office and let you know.

[Defense counsel]: Or could, Judge, as an alternative could the Court rule that the grand jury subpoena is held in abeyance until the time -- until five days after the Court's ruling?

THE COURT: That's fine."

Two days later, on February 22, 1996, the trial court entered the following written order: "Cause called for hearing on Defendant's Motion to Quash Grand Jury Subpoena. Arguments made and considered. Motion denied." Defendant filed nothing further in the trial court and sought no clarification of the court's order.

On February 28, 1996, defendant filed a notice of appeal. The next day, she filed an emergency motion to stay the effect of the grand jury subpoena. ...

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.