People v. Weeks, 960 N.E.2d 570

Weeks was convicted of three counts of aggravated criminal sexual assault and one count of attempted murder, found guilty but mentally ill on all four counts, and sentenced to life in prison.
The defense raised insanity as an affirmative defense; two fitness hearings found Weeks fit for trial with medication, while one expert opined Weeks was insane at the time of the offense.
Just before trial, defense learned Dr. Stone had not issued an opinion on Weeks's sanity; the court denied a continuance to obtain that evaluation.
Weeks faced four new cases on arraignment four days before trial, including threats in the courtroom; the court noted absence of prejudice given Stone’s imminent report.
The morning of trial, Weeks moved to appoint a special State's Attorney due to the current prosecutor’s role as a witness in related cases; the court denied the motion.
The jury’s guilty-but-mentally-ill verdict turned on conflicting expert testimony about Weeks’s ability to appreciate the criminality of his conduct; the court affirmed the verdict and denied a new trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the guilty but mentally ill verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence	Weeks argues the State failed to prove he could appreciate criminality	Weeks asserts the evidence supports not guilty by reason of insanity	Not against the manifest weight; the jury chose between competing expert opinions.
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying a continuance	Weeks needed more time to review Stone's report	Defense could proceed with insanity defense without further delay	No abuse of discretion; factors supported denial given imminent availability of the report.
Whether defense counsel was ineffective for not obtaining an earlier insanity opinion	Weeks contends deficient performance prejudiced the trial	Counsel acted reasonably; cross-examination and preparation were adequate	No prejudice under Strickland; defense outcome not reasonably likely to differ.
Whether the court erred in denying appointment of a special State's Attorney	Weeks sought removal due to appearance of impropriety	Office-wide conflict not demonstrated; appointment would cause delay	No abuse of discretion; appearance of impropriety not established and factors weighed in favor of proceeding.

People v. Urdiales, 225 Ill.2d 354 (Ill. 2007) (sanity determinations and standard of review for manifest weight)
Maple v. Gustafson, 151 Ill.2d 445 (Ill. 1992) (deference to jury credibility and weight of testimony)
People v. Holmes, 141 Ill.2d 204 (Ill. 1990) (factors in weighing expert testimony and credibility of witnesses)
People v. Walker, 232 Ill.2d 113 (Ill. 2009) (continuance considerations and abuse-of-discretion standard)
People v. Lang, 346 Ill.App.3d 677 (Ill. App. 2004) (appearance of impropriety versus personal interest in appointing a special prosecutor)
Sommer v. Goetze, 102 Ill.App.3d 117 (Ill. App. 1981) (special prosecutor considerations in attorney conflicts)