jeffrey rignall testimony transcript
The fact that this was the only test given which related to nonorganic brain damage and that Dr. Garron did not examine defendant for the purpose of diagnosing nonorganic brain disorders affects the weight, not the admissibility, of his testimony. Rignall wrote the book '29 Below' about the experience in 1979. We agree with the People that the defendant's request was, in effect, an attempt to substitute public opinion polls for *44 the process of voir dire. In view of the sustained objection, we hold that defendant was not prejudiced. While many labels were placed on defendant's mental condition, all of the People's experts characterized defendant's defect as a personality or character disorder. Defendant complains that the questions concerning the death penalty, as they were reframed after the interrogation of the first 15 jurors, made it much less likely that a prospective juror would reveal that he strongly favored the imposition of the death penalty. We must judge the remarks in their setting and against the background of the jury's verdicts. Poor man went through too much 32 fairyflaggirl 1 yr. ago yep. ", The circuit court's first application of its ruling that defendant's experts could not testify to "self-serving" statements made by defendant occurred during the testimony of Dr. Eliseo. *105 Defendant also argues that the death penalty statute is unconstitutional for failing to require that the jury specify whether it has found mitigating factors to be present. Legally, Dr. Cavanaugh explained, a person could escape responsibility only when "an extreme situation arises" where the person's ability to form an intent is questioned. Rignall's testimony during Gacy's trial helped to secure the latter's conviction and death sentence. In Hester, a defense psychiatrist was precluded from giving his opinion "of the defendant's susceptibility to a dictated confession which would have been based on a complete case history given by [defendant] to the psychiatrist during their second interview." JOHN WAYNE GACY, Appellant. The People correctly point out that defendant neither moved to sequester the jury over this time, nor later asked for a mistrial, nor was it shown that any prejudicial media coverage occurred during the time in question. While Dr. Freedman was not permitted to testify as to defendant's exact statements without quoting defendant directly, he explained the contents of those statements. Dr. Helen Morrison, a psychiatrist, diagnosed defendant as having a mixed psychosis or an atypical psychosis. We note further that defendant made no objection to this portion of the argument, which waives the issue on appeal. (Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court (1982), 457 U.S. 596, 603, 73 L. Ed. On further redirect examination, Dr. Eliseo was allowed to answer, in narrative form, the question: "Would you explain exactly how you came to the decision or opinion that the condition of paranoid schizophrenia existed for the last six, eight years?". Defendant's sister testified that their father was never pleased with defendant and told him that he would turn out to be a fairy, just like his friend, Barry. Almost immediately, they discovered human remains. Defendant explained that Robert Piest did not fit the pattern. During the People's case in rebuttal, the following colloquy occurred: Defendant concedes that an objection was sustained, but that the damage to the defendant is so great that the error cannot be considered harmless. Not only was the emphasis of this mitigating factor an acceptable choice of trial strategy, it appears to have been the only strategy available to trial counsel. Defendant told him that he had some doctors that "were on his side," and that he thought he would go free. Defendant's father tripped on a chair and fell, accused defendant of tripping him, and threatened to kill defendant. Rignall testified about his rape and torture, at one point becoming overwhelmed and sick while recounting the details. The cases cited by defendant in this regard are distinguishable. Often he would come back up and eat dinner with the family, but if anyone said anything that displeased him, he would *52 lunge across the table at them. Two psychologists and two psychiatrists testified on behalf of defendant. Defense counsel stated: "We have four psychiatrists who will testify in court * * *," and then listed them. (People v. Brownell (1980), 79 Ill. 2d 508.) When Donnelly screamed, defendant pushed his face into the couch. Defendant also argues, however, that his natural life sentences for the 21 counts of murder which occurred prior to the effective date of the death penalty statute required a presentence investigation report. The board had holes in it where his arms went through and where his head was placed. He said, "You're just in time for the late show" and turned on a projector and showed a "gay" pornographic film on the wall of the room. Ill. Rev. Defendant, who was naked, was standing directly in front of Rignall masturbating. Stat. 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. Rignall and Wilder published 29 Below a book about the attack and the couples subsequent investigation into Gacys identity in 1979. Neil F. Hartigan, Attorney General, of Springfield, and Richard M. Daley, State's Attorney, of Chicago (William J. Kunkle, Jr., Chief Deputy State's Attorney, and Michael E. Shabat, Joan S. Cherry, James S. Veldman and Kevin Sweeney, Assistant State's Attorneys, of counsel), for the *18 People. Defendant points out that the clothing worn by the 140-pound Piest would be different in size than that worn by a 195-pound man. The circuit court ruled that nothing further should be said on the matter. The circuit court allowed defendant's motion that one trial be held on all pending indictments. 9-1(d); see Liptak v. Security Benefit Association (1932), 350 Ill. 674, 678-79, 54 S. Ct. 330, 332-33.) We agree with the circuit court that what other juries decide in other cases is not relevant and that the percentage of diagnoses accepted by the finder of fact is not necessarily indicative of the reliability of that expert's techniques. Dr. Heston opined that the diagnosis "pseudo-neurotic paranoid schizophrenic" was not a recognized diagnosis and "is not taken very seriously right now." Far from it. Defendant then "patched up" Ried's head. (People v. Bernette (1964), 30 Ill. 2d 359, 372.) Defendant contends too that his counsel and the counsel for the prosecution should have been permitted to directly interrogate the prospective jurors instead of being required to rely upon the court's questioning; that he should have been permitted peremptory challenges in addition to the 20 permitted by statute; and that the court's questioning of the prospective jurors concerning their attitudes toward the death penalty produced a biased jury. Edward Lynch, a classmate of Donald Vorhees, testified that while he was at defendant's house in Iowa defendant threatened him with a carving knife and forced him into his bedroom. She described an incident when defendant was approximately two years old where the father, for no apparent reason, punched her in the face, knocking out her bridge and causing her to bleed profusely. Dr. Traisman noted that the defendant saw flowers in many of the ink blots and birds or insects which were entering in to siphon the pollen, a response which was inappropriate to the card. Defendant then chloroformed him again. John Lucas, a gas station owner, testified that he serviced defendant's vehicles. 2d 723, 84 S. Ct. 1509. The record does not support defendant's assertions. In March of 1978, Jeffrey Rignall woke up at 5 a.m. by the steps of Lincoln Park. Also, the type of material contained in the headline would have a significant impact on the reader. Defendant next complains that the circuit court failed to inquire further of prospective jurors who mentioned *34 that other jurors had been discussing the case. Defendant told her: "Mom, don't send me to the psychiatric ward. On cross-examination, it was brought out that after these intense expressions of hostility, defendant could justify his behavior as conforming to his private code of morality, even though he recognized that his behavior would not be considered socially acceptable. Dr. Morrison believed that defendant suffers from psychological hallucinations where he would see parts of him which were split off in his victims. 9-1(c)(2).) While we agree that the questions asked of the later jurors allowed for shorter responses, we do not find in the record any questions tendered by defense counsel that might have elicited a more thorough response. 38, par. Rossi testified that defendant was not a heavy drinker, that he complained of his health often, told Rossi that he had leukemia and once experienced something that appeared to be a heart attack, but that his health never prevented his getting his work finished. The first factor was sheer volume. Defendant called two witnesses who described defendant's assaults upon them. Here, however, the inference which the assistant State's Attorney was asking the jury to draw was that defendant's consultation with his attorneys prior to making statements to police concerning multiple personalities supported the experts' conclusions that defendant was attempting to fake an insanity defense. 1979, ch. We disagree. Because defendant repeatedly passed out at school, he was told by Dr. John Cavanaugh that he should be sent to Cook County Hospital for psychiatric evaluation. Michel Ried testified that he was a homosexual and met defendant in "New Town." Defendant also complains that he should have been permitted more than the 20 peremptory challenges allowed by statute. Defendant cites a number of instances which he asserts show that questioning on this topic was insufficient. At voir dire, defense counsel requested that prospective jurors be instructed *75 concerning civil commitment. He testified that the problem with psychoanalytic theory is that it requires an inference about mental processes which is not susceptible to proof. 1979, ch. For the reasons stated, the judgment of the circuit court of Cook County is affirmed. The assistant State's Attorney stated that he had the name of an "interviewer" who was told by Dr. Rappaport that he was available for an interview, but would not disclose the name unless instructed by the court to do so. Defendant contends that assuming, arguendo, that the search warrant was valid the scope of the search *25 was so broad as to constitute an impermissible general search. The question raised could serve only to divert the jury's attention from the issues in the case (People v. Yates (1983), 98 Ill. 2d 502, 539), and the court correctly instructed the jury to disregard the testimony and the comments. Defendant then told Donnelly to dress, put Donnelly in his car, and told him it would be his last ride. jeffrey rignall testimony transcript. As Rignall would later testify at Gacys murder trial, he took a few puffs before Gacy hit [him] in the face [with] a dish cloth or rag soaked in chloroform. The defense theory was that defendant was able to function well in society except when stress levels rose so high that he experienced something akin to a psychotic episode and that defendant was fit to stand trial was consistent with his defense. Defendant contends that he had insufficient information to determine whether Winnebago County had been unduly influenced by prejudicial publicity and that this constitutes reversible error. Defendant has listed only one instance where his request for additional specific questions on exposure to news accounts was denied. Defendant's sister stated that their father had a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde type personality. Defendant argues that the murder of Timothy O'Rourke was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt and that this erroneous conviction necessitates a remand for a new sentencing hearing. Dr. Traisman administered the Wechsler adult intelligence scale, the Bender-Gestalt visual motor test, the Rorschach ink blot test, the Draw-a-Person test, and the Thematic Apperception test on request by Dr. Richard Rappaport. The clerk is directed to enter an order setting Wednesday, the 14th day of November, 1984, as the date on which the sentence of death entered by the circuit court of Cook County shall be executed. Any implication that a death sentence was mandatory was negated by the jury instructions. 95126 Phone No. (People v. Speck (1968), 41 Ill. 2d 177, 183.) Ried stated that at the time of this incident he did not think defendant knew what he was doing. In the context in which it was made, and on this record, we hold that the error in failing to sustain the objection to the remarks of the assistant State's Attorney was harmless. The court may have decided that an objection made in that form should pass without further comment. Defendant complains that this procedure allowed the jurors to be exposed to media coverage of the case, and to discuss the case with their family members and friends. Evidence In The Case Of John Wayne Gacy, Explored. Was this information acquired through firsthand or personal knowledge of the informant?" There was no error in limiting defendant to 20 peremptory challenges. He stated that Greg Godzik had dug his own grave, and that he had killed John Szyc because he had asked for more money. This physical evidence indicated that the body had been in the river a long time and that the victim may have been involved in a sexual murder. 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. She was of the opinion that defendant was not legally responsible for his actions under the Illinois standard, and that defendant would have killed his victims even if a police officer had been present at the time of the murder. 1979, ch. While the sixth amendment guarantees the accused a right to a public trial, it does not give a right to a private trial. Defendant makes two contentions concerning the showing of probable cause in the complaint for the search warrant. He stated that, shortly before he was arrested, defendant came into the gas station and passed a bag with three rolled cigarettes to one of his employees. Defendant told Janus that he then drove Donnelly to Marshall Field's, his place of employment, but did not pay Donnelly the money. Acknowledging that the People would have to call these newsmen on rebuttal, and that there might be some problem with "the newsmen privilege," the court ruled: "I feel that it is on such an insignificant point that it would not be worth the legal ramifications of attempting to put in that rebuttal, so I would instruct the State not to put in that rebuttal, and I will instruct the jury to disregard anything regarding that." Defense counsel stated: "The defense of insanity is valid and it is the only defense that we could use here, because that is where the truth lies." Letting a victim or two go free wasn't out of the ordinary for Gacy, who seemed to enjoy torture far more than murder. Defendant contends that the jury was confused as to the requirements of the mitigating factor as differentiated from the defense of insanity and that this was evidenced by the confusion shown by the attorneys in their arguments in the death penalty hearing. In the first example of the revised questioning used by the circuit court of which defendant now complains, when the voir dire of this juror was completed, defense counsel was asked if he had any further questions and responded that he did not. 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. 38, par. He told Detective Michael Albrecht: "Mike, I won't be in jail very long for this, I won't spend a day in jail for this." She testified that her husband was very critical of defendant and never showed any affection towards him. farmers arms for sale; symptoms of flea collar poisoning in humans. He described the murder of Robert Piest in some detail, and stated that after he had put the rope around Piest's neck he twisted it twice, but then the phone rang, so he went to answer the phone, and left Piest to die of suffocation. 38, par. Rignall lost consciousness several more times, and when he regained consciousness defendant shoved an unidentified object into Rignall's rectum. Jeff thought that man could kill somebody so he figured whatever he did to him, he was going to do it to other people, Wilder says in the docuseries. He remembers John being naked and masturbating in front of him. The People contend *109 that while the death penalty may not deter a crime of passion, the death penalty in Illinois is not applicable to such a crime, but may very well provide the deterrence for a criminal who wishes to eliminate potential witnesses, the murderer who kills people in exchange for money, and other premeditated murderers. Moreover, the People assert, the studies cited by amici do not cite the statistical significance of particular death statutes and particular types of homicide, but rather categorize all homicides and all death penalty statutes in one category. In rebuttal, Dr. Jan Fawcett, a psychiatrist, also opined that the problem with psychodynamic or psychoanalytic *68 theory in determining criminal responsibility is that it was used to explain behavior retrospectively as if no other outcome could occur. Stat. She stated that defendant planned to one day completely cement over the crawl space. nick schultz rate my professor jeffrey rignall testimony transcriptmax heard cause of deathmax heard cause of death *39 A publicity survey was performed by Editec, Inc. At the time of his confession, the driveway was still intact. Nothing in the record supports defendant's contention that his confessions were not the product of a free and rational mind, and, moreover, failure to assert his objection at trial precluded the circuit court from making a record on this point so that this court could properly review such a contention. Defendant told Donnelly that he had killed girls before, but that he had stopped doing this, because he found killing "guys" to be more interesting. Defendant next contends that the failure of the death penalty statute to require that the People prove beyond a reasonable doubt the absence of mitigating factors sufficient to preclude the death penalty makes that statute unconstitutional. Also, because of the prejudicial nature of the articles printed in Cook County, such as the articles associating defendant's trial counsel as one who sets killers free, prospective Cook County jurors were more likely to have *42 prejudicial preconceived ideas about defendant's cause. As noted by the People, placing a greater burden on the jurors may have angered them, and the defendant might well have been the most likely target for their anger. Trial counsel stipulated to the admission at the sentencing hearing of all the evidence presented at trial. 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. After stating his diagnosis, Dr. Freedman explained how he reached his conclusions. We have already considered the reasoning behind immediately proceeding to a sentencing hearing, and we decline to further discuss it here. According to People Pill, his reported cause of death was . At the beginning of the cross-examination of Dr. Rappaport, the following colloquy occurred: The circuit court immediately instructed the jury that it was not to imply that this in fact occurred. Within less than a month, they spotted Gacys car, andtrailed him. 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. There are authorities which hold that the statements made by the accused to the examining psychiatrist should be admitted. She stated that, one night when she could not sleep, defendant came home and was startled to find her up watching television. Defendant next argues that the introduction of certain improper evidence and argument based on that evidence denied him a fair trial. When asked whether defendant's explanations of why he murdered the victims, e.g., because they asked for more money or threatened to reveal his homosexuality, were inconsistent with the theory of projection espoused by Dr. Freedman and Dr. Rappaport, Dr. Rappaport stated defendant may have "imposed those ideas on the individuals" or "tried to elicit behavior on their part to conform to his idea that they were bad people. Lynch overpowered defendant, and defendant became very apologetic, bandaged Lynch's cut, and talked Lynch into watching a "stag film" downstairs. Defendant was a building contractor and had spent much of the evening in the Nisson Pharmacy. On cross-examination, Dr. Cavanaugh explained that he had used psychoanalytic theory to explain the causes for defendant's behavior, and that defendant was suffering from a major psychiatric disorder. Defendant asserts that, because this information was not contained in the complaint, this court may not make reference to this information in determining whether the complaint established probable cause. Second, defendant argues that the assistant State's Attorney improperly discredited Dr. Freedman's testimony by exaggerating the significance of DSM III and intentionally misrepresenting "the doctor's testimony regarding his diagnosis in relation to the manual." Dr. A. Arthur Hartman, a clinical psychologist, was called to examine defendant by Dr. Robert Reifman, a psychiatrist, at the inception of the case due to the seriousness of the charges. Mic hel Ri ed had mov ed in w ith and was work ing for G ac y when G ac y ine xplic abl y hit him with a hammer, stating "he did not know what had come over him, but that he . You're all set! We see no additional purpose to be served by a formal presentence investigation report under the facts of this case. The more articles and news reports disseminated in a particular location, the more likely that area's inhabitants would recall the event. During his testimony, Rignall said there was a third person in the house during his torture. 9-1(c); People v. Lewis (1981), 88 Ill. 2d 129, 146-47; People v. Carlson (1980), 79 Ill. 2d 564, 589-90. Contents 1 Attack by John Wayne Gacy 2 29 Below 3 Death 4 In literature 5 References Attack by John Wayne Gacy However, he had confused thinking which "resembles to a large extent people who would be classified as schizophrenic * * *." Several *91 pages later in the transcript, defense counsel stated, in the middle of a paragraph explaining the relation between the defendant's alleged mental disease and the question of whether he lacked substantial capacity to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law: From these statements, defendant concludes that the jury was expecting to hear four psychiatrists render an opinion that defendant was insane and that "the jury could not help but be skeptical of the defense" when they discovered that two psychiatrists would not state an opinion whether, under Illinois law, defendant was legally insane. Defendant had confessed *93 that he had picked up one of the young men whose body was found in the river at Clark and Lawrence in Chicago, one block from where O'Rourke and his transsexual lover were living. In certain of the instances cited by defendant, further questioning was unnecessary because those jurors were excused for cause. The first witness was Jeff Rignall, a surviving victim of Gacy's attack. The People argue that there was a factual basis for his opinion since Dr. Garron administered a Rorschach test, that Dr. Garron had used this test to evaluate defendant's "mood, emotional state, and emotional organization," and that in any event Dr. Garron's testimony was admissible to rebut Dr. Traisman's statement that any experienced clinical psychologist would interpret the results of a Rorschach test in the same manner.
