*1 requiring filing year, of such actions within one the amendment * has no effect pending on the action. * * * * * We likewise hold that an shortening amendment period limitation will applied retroactively not be in such a manner as to terminate a cause of action filed within period the limitation to the effective date amendment.” 83-84. case, precisely Since this is the situation the instant we hold section 14.1 of applied retroactively the Limitations Act should not be Mr. bar Martinez’ action.
Accordingly, reversed, dismissing plaintiffs’ the order actions is and the cause remanded proceedings for further not inconsistent with this opinion.
Reversed and remanded.
SULLIVAN, WILSON, P. J, J., concur. ILLINOIS, THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ROBERT (Impleaded), Defendant-Appellant. EUGENE KIRKPATRICK Fourth District No. 14986 Opinion filed March
CRAVEN, J., dissenting. *3 Crowley, Champaign, appellant. Patricia Difanis, Attorney, (John Thomas State’s of Urbana R. DeLaMar and J. James Souk, Attorneys, counsel), People. E. Assistant State’s for the Mr. opinioii GREEN delivered of the court: JUSTICE by After trial Champaign County, the circuit court Kirkpatrick defendant Robert Douglas was convicted of the murders of Simmons Mark and Harris and sentenced to concurrent terms imprisonment years of 200 to 500 for each.
On appeal (1) the trial asserts court erred permitting by conviction-prone, a in a it making selected manner (2) permitting, оbjection, pretrial over his a on certain hearing closed motions, (3) participation of his in another crime to permitting evidence erroneously presented jury, (4) instructing jury, (5) be to the permitting inflammatory jury, slides seen photographs and to be co-defendant, (6) (7) to admit made refusing evidence of a statement jury, (8) granting submitting evidence of convictions to (9) refusing to joinder, denying his motion for State’s motion to sever and cause, sentences. (10) imposing excessive juror remove we dispute, is not sufficiency As of the evidence to convict necessary explain to the issues. only to the extent summarize evidence Chаmpaign along were discovered The bodies of the victims 26,1977. County morning Monday, September Most of road on the by him law given statement proof of defendant’s came from a officers, On which is hereafter described. enforcement the substance of 24, 1977, up Saturday, September Jerry Gleckler and Ted Parsons drove him place guns and showed some to defendant’s of work Danville they going said were they they just “ripped They which said had off.” 20-guage shotgun couple guns. evening saw off a and seUa That shotgun three went to Gleckler’s trailer. The was sawed off with 7:30 hacksaw defendant. Parsons and defendant left about brought and, p.m. money, place tried find a to rob. because Parsons needed An parked Arco service station near DanviUe was selected. Their car was under shotgun put gun near the station and the was loaded. Defendant building, a coat and walked to the station. When he went into the station robbery he decided he could left. Parsons then not commit the so he it, agreed saying he hit the take do attendant over the head and car, money. up the station’s Defendant watched from the started to drive station, attendant, picked up, heard Parsons shoot the Parsons Champaign. drove to robbery
Defendant and split proceeds, stayed overnight Parsons Saturday in Champaign, Sunday, returned Danville and went to Gleckler’s it place thought trailer. The three decided to rob another but best that it near They liquor near Danville. decided on a store Mahomet, Champaign. They liquor northwest of store but drove to they Parsons decided robbery. should use another car for the Parsons suggested waiting liquor out of then someone to come store and abducting taking They Plymouth them and the car. soon decided that a leaving the in it persons appropriate store two was an car to obtain. car, road, They followed the and Parsons forced to the side of jumped shotgun. surprised out with the Defendant was at the manner in yell which stop. Parsons forced the other car to He heard Parsons something, then shotgun got heard two blasts. Gleckler out and defendant shells, back, heard two more blasts. came Gleckler asked for two more and said he wanted to make sure. Defendant handed him the box of shells *4 and turned He again. around. heard Gleckler shoot Gleckler returned to pants thought the car with blood on his and shirt. Defendant that the victims in rope were to be tied with a that was Parsons’ car and had not thought they that be Defendant told to drive the were to shot. was victim’s liquor car back to the got dоing store and did so but lost it. When store, eventually got three back liquor to the it was closed and no robbery attempted. was
A defendant, Gleckler, man having testified to seen in and Parsons restaurant Sunday night a person who had that man at the restaurant others, testified to heard one of the three tell the “Don’t anything anybody do will remember us by.” Other evidence of some corroborative presented by value was also the State. testified, behalf,
Defendant on his own drinking said that he had been on the day question, explained his participation as set in this forth paragraph. He was with the other two men a car outside the liquor store. рersuaded There he up person Parsons not to hold coming out of the store. Parsons had also talked of robbing the store but defendant said it stupid was and that he didn’t need money. Parsons drove after a car leaving the store but there was they no conversation as to what intended car, to do. Parsons drove front of the stopped, causing other the other stop, car to and ran back to the other got shotgun car. Gleckler out with a shells, and some shots were fired. Gleckler came back for some reached for got them but Gleckler something them himself and said about out, Parsons being crazy. got Defendant went to the back of the car and heard Parsons tell Gleckler to shoot them but Gleckler refused. Parsons told pick so, up spent shotgun shells. As he did he heard two Gleckler, defendant, more shots. rather than away drove the victim’s car from the scene. Defendant did not know that anyone was shot. The trio particular place had no go mind they to when had set forth on Sunday.
The State indicated penalty seek the death questioned prospective jurors accordingly. Defendant’s contention jury method of resulting conviction-prone jury selection upon based the trial excusing court’s for cause prospective regular seven jurors prospective and two jurors alternate who stated on voir dire that they would under no circumstances sentencing vote at in a manner to authorize penalty. a death theory outgrowth
Defendant’s
is an
in Witherspoon
of the decision
Illinois
391 U.S.
20 Ed. 2d
171 510, 517, 776, 782, theory. establish 391 U.S. L. S. that 20 Ed. 2d 88 Ct. 1770, 1774. Witherspoon
The only court stated that had the trial court dismissed prospective jurors who maintained that under no circumstances could sentence, they impose a death the prosecution argue could resulting jury was not death-penalty-prone logically but could not do so persons having scruples when all against capital punishment, opposing or in principle, were excluded. In a footnote to this discussion the court foresaw argument made here. The footnote stated: so,
“Even a jury defendant convicted such a in future some might attempt case still jury to establish that the than was less respect effort, neutral with guilt. If he were in to succeed that question would then arise whether the State’s in submitting interest penalty issue jury capable to a imposing capital punishment of may be vindicated at expense in defendant’s interest a completely fair guilt given determination of innocence — possibility of accommodating both interests means of a trial, using bifurcated jury one to decide fix guilt and another to punishment. here, however, problem presented That is not and we 510, intimate no view as to proper its resolution.” 391 U.S. 520 n. 20 L. Ed. 2d n. 88 S. Ct. 1776 n. 18. post -Witherspoon cases of 56 Ill. Wright (1974), 523, 309 374, 288 and People v. Clark supreme court rejected has practice contention that the of cause, excusing for jurors opposed capital punishment imposes upon the defendant an impermissibly conviction-prone jury. The Wright opinion described the open by issue as been left Witherspoon and a companion 543, 20 case Bumper of U.S. North Carolina Ed. 2d S. 88 Ct. Wright but both and Clark concluded that no new data had presented support theory jury that a selected a manner opposed so to exclude capital those punishment was conviction-prone.
Defendant asserts that additional studies are now available to jury demonstrate that a in capital a guidelines case chosen within the Witherspoon, permitting jurors exclusion of who impose would never death penalty, is impermissibly conviction-prone. Witherspoon The note referring to the possibility might some future defendant establish that such bias say existed did not that if happened, this the conviction should Rather, circumstances, set aside. the note indicated that under a those future court would have to balance the in having jury State’s interest a capable of imposing capital punishment against defendant’s interest a completely fair upon to decide question guilt. The note suggested possibility avoiding problems by having bifurcated separate issues of upon the separate juries passing hearings sentence. White, The are reviewed defendant relies upon
The studies which Death-Qualified Imposed by Invalidity Convictions Constitutional of these is one Juries, (1973). significant The most L. Rev. Cornell attempted to overcome G. which he conducted Professor Jurow nearly subjects more by using sample problems of earlier studies (Jurow, New jurors. prospective Data representing cross-section on the Guilt Determination “Death-Qualified” Jury Effect of if those Process, study indicates that (1971).) L. Rev. 567 Harv. jury, are eliminated from unwilling impose penalty a death persons slight bias toward conviction. very have a Jurow all in existence at in White article were study and others discussed presented any Whether of them were Wright time of the decision. *6 study rejected by the In Clark a by opinion. case is not shown presented. had been Witherspoon court indicating has, be valid data past, review in the found to
No court of conformity Witherspoon requirements jury selected in capital that a court, by a if a is made Even such determination conviction-prone. We consider of the conviction. Witherspoon does not mandate a reversal indicates, most, only at yet presented best but study to be the Jurow bias is It admits that such conviction. very slight a bias favor of spectrum opposite end of jurors the exclusion of at ameliorated Here, jurors were excluded penalty. two as to their views on death stated, dire, for the they be certain to vote they voir when convicted. penalty death if the defendant were cases, study, and Considering рrecedent Jurow excused jurors were also death-penalty-prone highly the fact that some shown here, used here was not selection method we conclude that conviction-prone jury. produce to be such as to a 30, 1977, trial was days On six before November hearings court, request begin, scheduled to over defendant’s particulars, to for a bill of open, pretrial be heard in camera motions of trial, discovery, appointment for change place of for additional counsel, statute penalty the death special to dismiss and declare examination, unconstitutional, individual voir dire lie-detector dire, viewing, jury, during sequester voir sequestration jurors No expert witnesses. investigator, and for funds for for funds to hire an entirely hearing and the consisted evidence was introduced counsel judge. Defense arguments of counsel and statements 45 minutes. 1 hour and proceedings lasted about estimated that the crime is with a charged a parties acknowledged person I, the Illinois 8 of article section public entitled to a virtue of
173 of 1970 and Sixth Amendment to Constitution Constitution under the 333, 16 U.S. L. (See (1966), v. 384 Sheppard the United States. Maxwell 600, 1507.) They acknowledge types Ed. 2d 86 S. Ct. that certain may objections. Obviously, matters be heard in camera over defendant’s 66, Ill. (1975), v. 25 3d People App. done ex rel. Woodward Oliver cert, 240, 927, 46 255, 322 U.S. L. 96 S. (1975), N.E.2d 423 Ed. 2d denied 275, 97, Ct. v. N.E.2d (1968), App. and in 98 Ill. 2d 240 Jackson 364, may objections proceed a court to chambers to hear to offered 812, argument. (1975), evidence or 3d App. v. Latimore 209, 342 upon permitted present during restriction those be There, rape persons having cross-examination upheld. victim was special interest news including case media were not excluded. Preliminary traditionally conferences be part have held not to of the trial and Am. required open (21 not to be in court. 2d Criminal Jur. (1965); 222; Laws (Me. 1970), State v. v. Hayes §260 Pullen 266 A.2d cert, 657, (8th United States Cir. U.S. 1961), 296 F.2d 369 denied 85, 1033; 8 Ed. S. 2d 82 Ct. Teitelbaum Cal. cert, App. 329 P.2d appeal denied and dismissed U.S. 3 L. Ed. 2d S. recently, 79 Ct. More cases where upon focus was First rights Amendment of the news media and public, courts have hearings ruled in suppress camera on motions to improper in ex Dayton Newspapers, State rel. Phillips (1976), Inc. Ohio State Allen 73 N.J. A.2d 377. A ruling similar was made with hearing reference to a determine probable cause in Publishing Corp. Keene v. Keene District (1977),_N. H__, Court A.2d evidence,
The instant hearing did not hearing involve the and did involve motions to suppress probable cause determinations. *7 However, merely it was not to rule the side-bar conference evidence, nor, admissibility of in Hayes, аs a conference to determine whether defendant should be represented by is counsel. It in noteworthy that the later cases disapproved where courts have the pretrial closed hearing, proceedings part were considered to be of the cases, trial in whereas the earlier held conferences were considered not to be part (See of the trial. is Hayes; Teitelbaum.) present trend to recognize more and desirability more the in proceedings of open protecting and prejudicial pretrial defendant from the effects of publicity in A ways. other prestigious subject studying committee has recommended ABA Standards, that Fair (1966), Trial and Free Press §3.1 be provide amended to pretrial that hearings criminal cases not be closed unless there is present danger a “clear arising to a fair trial” from the likelihood that prejudicial get prospective information will to jurors and the effect cannot procedures be avoided such changes
174 continuances, venue, Advisory Legal Commitee on and lesser measures. Press, (August 1977). Fair Trial and Free Draft at 6-7 conducting, precedent No direct holds that over defense hearings concerning type involved objections, in camera matter judge properly here to be reversible error. trial concerned jurors. keeping prejudicial Without prospective information from may that held in attempting types properly to define the of matter error objection, camera over defense we determine that no reversible or an trial right open violation of defendant’s occurred here. in permitting portion Defendant asserts that the court erred robbery gasoline station defendant’s statement which told of the previous night go permitting the State to cross- by a examine defendant about this. of other crimes committed Evidence is commit рropensity to show a defendant’s inadmissible reason, and, it juries may give weight crime tend for that because (People v. only highly prejudicial. inadmissible but Romero 288; Ill. 2d 2d N.E.2d McDonald However, proving probative if it has sufficient value towards motive, intent, limited design, or is admissible those the defendant’s McDonald; Ill. App. purposes. Tiffin 325; Ill. App. Woodruff defendant, against felony-murder As to all but counts accountability the acts only by his his indicated evidence accountability by that Parsons and Gleckler. The State could establish murder, with the proving during that before commission aided, it, to aid attempted he abetted or one promote intent to or fаcilitate 38, par. (Ill. Stat. ch. Rev. of them the commission of murder. murder, that the scene of 2(c).) indicated at Defendant’s statement 5— Parsons Defendant’s shotgun blasts. ran and fired two out of car the intent of his had would bear on knowledge of what Parsons done had shot a night that the before Parsons subsequent Knowledge acts. that had shot Parsons robbery victim would tend to indicate to defendant, When, knowledge, with this victims here. one or both of the car, statement, shells to got gave of the more according to later out his he that did Gleckler, shells, inference would arise up picked spent victims. Evidence in the murder of the the intent to aid so with experience with Parsons after to consort defendant continued claim, on cross- negate also tend night before would shells.The examination, up picking fear he was motivated probative concluding not abuse his discretion judge did outweighed prejudicial its purpose its limited of the evidence for value *8 146, 354 v. Olivas People Ill. App. 3d (1976), on defendant. effect N.E.2d accountability is the issue question defendant’s Without erroneously instructed. jury was assertion that
defendant’s Instruction, Jury Pattern the standard Illinois objection, jury given was Criminal, 5.03, No. which states: when, person
“A
of another
person
responsible
is
for the conduct
crime,
with the
during
either
of a
before or
commission
crime, he
intent
or
of a
promote
facilitate
the commission
aids,
solicits,
abets,
other
knowingly
attempts to aid the
agrees or
person
planning
in the
or
crime.”
commission of
addition,
objection,
given
was
a non-IPI
over defendant’s
v. Hill
People
instruction,
language
drawn
39 Ill.
from
2d
133,
“If you voluntarily find to a attached himself group knowledge design, bent on acts with of its is an illegal there inference that he shared a common and this will purpose allow responsible conviction as person for crime committed another furtherance the venture.” Defendant argues this instruction could сonfuse the into believing that there is lesser standard determining accountability specific than whether defendant acted with the concurrent However, promote reasons, intent of murder. such offense for two specific intent necessary. Supreme firmly not The Illinois Court has adhered to the common-design whereby common-law rule if two or more persons act, have a design any common to commit an unlawful act done (Hill; in furtherance of the design common is the act of all. Kessler Morgan 29; 57 Ill. 2d 56; Holmes Ill. Thus, if defendant had a design common with Parsons automobile,
Gleckler to rob liquor store or to rob the victims of their he be responsible murder committed thereof furtherance though even he had specific Every no intent to aid abet the murder. supported element this was Secondly, instruction some evidence. defendant was charged felony (Ill. Rev. murder Stat. ch. par. 9(a)(3)) as to each guilty victim could be found of that offense without specific long as ac aforementioned intent he had countability robbery giving instruc automobile. of the tion was not error.
Defendant objected pictures introduction into evidence of two torn-up of the close-up faces of victims and photographs additional their wounds. As jury, these items were not shоwn prejudiced by their admission. Several black and white photographs close-ups murder scene and of the victims’ bodies were also objection admitted over and these were shown the jury. In order murders, prove defendant’s guilt of the the State was required to show the *9 by commission of the murders principals. the though Even the identity of the victims and the cause of death by as testified to a pathologist was not disputed, the properly State could photographs use the to show the degree of force used and the deliberate manner in which the murder was (People Speck v. 177, rev’d committed. 41 (1968), 208, Ill. 2d 242 N.E.2d as to penalty (1971), death 946, 855, 403 U.S. 29 L. Ed. 2d 91 S. 2279.) Ct. Gаrlick 216, The case differs (1977), from 46 Ill. App. 360 1121, N.E.2d where an accused who had killed his wife doing admitted so but claimed insanity gruesome and the pictures admitted over his objection had probative Generally no value on that issue. the admission presentation and the jury photographic to evidence is a matter of the (People Myers (1966), 311,220 trial court’s discretion. 35 Ill. 2d cert, denied 1019,17 U.S. L. Ed. 2d 87 S. Ct. That discretion was not abused here.
Defendant asserts in the error court’s refusal to admit into evidence a given by statement police. Gleckler to the The offer was made after defendant had called Gleckler and he had exercised his Fifth Amendmеnt privilege testify. parties and refused to stipulated that Gleckler shooting they admitted the originally by victims after had been shot statement, portions In Parsons. of the Gleckler had stated that he and not defendant drove the victim’s car from scene and that no discussion of shooting shooting. the victims occurred to the entirety
Gleckler’s statement in its amounted to a confession. Under circumstances, person’s certain a third confession is admissible as an exception hearsay rule a statement against penal interest. The v. Lettrich supreme spoken question court has on this v. Craven and 54 Ill. 2d Lettrich 1. In prosecution’s cоnnecting case the accused to entirely repudiated the offense consisted confession allegedly sought The statement be admitted obtained duress. into evidence was the person confession of another committed supreme special crime. The court held that under circumstances of case, have justice required the interests of that that statement should Craven, admitted. In the court indicated that one of was requirements admissibility for of such an admission availability of the declarant cross-examination. Mississippi Chambers U.S. Ed. 2d witness
S. Ct. State that who calls a because of a rule of that one him, veracity may vouches for his and not later cross-examine cross-examining witness had prevented defendant who was at from charged then confessed the crime which the from repudiated prevented was also that confession. of the offense that putting on evidence of three other confessions same noted that alleged same witness was to have The court made. likely they made close statements were to be rehable because had been acquaintances and were self- shortly declarant after offense The court noted declarant was available incriminating. rule State. the vouсher cross-examination The unfairness of together with the denial was deemed to of the admission of statement deny guaranteed process defendant of the fair trial the due clause the Fourteenth Amendment. Chambers greatly
The circumstances this case differ from Lettrich. There, in question inculpated statements the declarant and Here, absolved the nothing defendant. Gleckler s that he heard statement shooting idea of him the victims was favorable rather than he, defendant, inculpating statement rather than drove victim’s car him inculpate did after he shooting further admitted victims. Neither statement would have absolved the defendant *10 accountability for the long murders. As he of the intent of as learned shells, Gleckler to shoot the victims before handed the he he Gleckler guilty theory any could have been found accountability an without previous shooting conversation about taken place. the victims He also could been guilty have design felony-murder theory on common regardless of the in way conversation the in car. Defendant’s no dependent upon the having driven the victim’s car. The exercise of Fifth by Amendment privilege made him Gleckler unavailable for cross- Gleckler, examination the State. charges against Becаuse of the serious it would be say unreasonable that he was cross- available for examination because the granted immunity. (See State could have him People v. Ireland Ill. App. 277.) 3d 348 N.E.2d The trial properly court refused full presentation of Gleckler’s statement. admitting, court was not in in impeachment purposes, error for evidence possession of defendant’s for Federal convictions unlawful making of a firearm and malicious mischief for each which of defendant year. People v. Montgomery had been in imprisoned excess of one Ill. 2d permits felony 268 N.E.2d the use of for a convictions or other involving dishоnesty occurring years crime if within and if judge trial determines the probative impeachment that value for outweighs prejudice defendant. Defendant cites Wright App. authority 3d 366 N.E.2d rule that offenses of impeaching the nature involved here are devoid Wright, value and In impeached by cannot admitted. was cited opinion The writer of the battery proof aggravated of an conviction. that such theory ground for reversal on the use of the evidence as a A concurrence impeach. special probative had no value to offenses because but voted to reverse disagreed ground with this for reversаl Montgomery, test, required judge performed trial had not against impeachment balancing probative value of that conviction that limited admitting the evidence for prejudice to the defendant of any felony conviction .purpose. theory was that concurrence veracity the defendant honesty could be considered to relate to The dissent balancing test. performing and could be considered v. Guthrie (1978), 60 Ill. (See agreed. subsequent opinion our Here, judge performed App. 376 N.E.2d admitting the evidence. his discretion balancing test and did not abuse severing the trials of its The court also acted within discretion jоinder. request in refusing three defendants by pretrial defense was shown theory Defendant concedes that his such was but states that statements to be inconsistent with that of Parsons attention case has been called to our consistent with that of Gleckler. No prejudiced indicating that a criminal case here. was made that such was true showing severance and no joinder are rulings upon severance and showing prejudice, absence of a Appold with the trial court. largely a matter of discretion (1976), 39 Ill. App. 3d excusing a in not its discretion
Finally, the court also did not abuse dire, who, grandfather on voir friend of a stated that hе was a venireman year, but grandfather about once of one of the victims and saw the The venireman relationship influence his verdict. would not repeat questions hearing stated that he was hard of and asked the court if not hear him his hand he could judge up twice. The told to hold further trouble. testimony indicate that he had and the record does not (People juror’s state of mind is not conclusive Although opinion of his Cole clearly shows 705), Ill. the record remote. and the victim was relationship juror between the in the indicated offenses as
Defendant had a record of Federal *11 convicted of He had also been impeaching discussion of evidence. indiсated twice. The evidence forgery misdemeanor theft once and had passive but he murder was the defendant’s role in the instant Parsons had activity with Parsons after engage in criminal continued to plus This night before. operator shot the station service case from distinguishes this past criminal record more serious v. Hill 179, 854, Moon and 350 N.E.2d App. 38 Ill. appeal where the court on App. had participation whose defendants reduced murder sentences for minimum Moreover, of the length passive. regardless time for sentence, years in 20 less eligible parole defendant will Any 3—3(a)(3).) (Ill. par. ch. good behavior. Rev. Stat. 1003— parole only an indication to beyond years minimum sentence serves as and judge views the offense severity authorities with which the to less than the offender. if the maximum sentence were reduced Even during present length, complete its could not one-fifth a reduction lifetime. We do not deem defendant to be entitled to accordingly him refuse to significance sentence that would be of to and any make reduction. reasons stated. and sentences are affirmed for the convictions
Affirmed.
TRAPP, J., concurs. CRAVEN,
Mr. dissenting: JUSTICE 510, 20 776, 88 In L. S. Witherspoon 391 U.S. Ed. 2d Illinois Ct. Supreme clearly Court invited reexamination of Stewart, speaking constitutional issue then left Mr. unresolved. Justice mаjority, said that the then available was “too tentative data fragmentary jurors opposed penalty to establish that the death tend prosecution simply to favor the We guilt. the determination of cannot conclude, either the basis record now before us or as a matter of notice, judicial jurors opposed capital punishment exclusion of substantially results in an unrepresentative jury on the issue of or light presently increases the risk available of conviction. information, rule prepared per we are not to announce a se constitutional requiring every by jury the reversal of returned selected conviction 510, 517-18, 776, 782, U.S. L. S. Ct. this one was.” 391 20 Ed. 2d 1774-75. made, opinion
Since Witherspoon, studies have been clearly results indicate that the exclusion are now available. Those studies jurors opposed capital punishment unrepresentative in an results analyzed depth are prone one to convict. Those studies White, Invalidity Imposed by The Constitutional Convictions Death- Juries, Qualified (1973). repeat I here Cornell Rev. need not analysis of the studies.
It inappropriate is that we entrust the of whether determination guilty (Fay man is innocent tribunal v. New organized to a convict. York 332 U.S. 91 L. 67 S. Ct. Ed. The studies now guidelines Witherspoon available tell us thаt a within the chosen representative community prone not a and is cross-section of *12 candor, convict. The majority opinion, with commendable concedes that study (84 (1971)) presented Harv. Rev. 567 is the best Jurow that it very slight most I “only indicates at bias toward conviction.” would think that it inappropriate to entrust the determination of a tribunal that is slightly biased conviction. favor of long system We have jurisprudence worked to establish a based upon fairness and an absence of bias. We available know data now this keeping selected as one was is not in with the constitutional requirement. heritage We offend our our if we tradition do not correct the error. LEVY, DICKSTEIN,
MORRIS Petitioner-Appellant, LEVY v. ESTHER
Respondent-Appellee. Division) (5th First District No. 78-165 Opinion filed March