Disorderly Conduct trial - Day 3

Today was Day 3 of a set of Disorderly Conduct charges filed against a Crystal Lake woman.

Four charges, all of which occurred on different days, were combined into one trial. Judge Weech didn't like that on Monday morning and said so. The Assistant State's Attorney liked the combining of them, and the defense attorney didn't object; in fact, he seemed to agree.

So the jury heard the prosecuting witnesses, after which Judge Weech gave a directed verdict of not guilty on one of the charges, and the jury was instructed to forget about that case. Yeah, sure...

This morning was the opportunity for the defense to present a strong case to the jury. The defense called two witnesses, a mother and a daughter from Woodstock. The mother was the defendant's alibi for the time of the first offense. She and the defendant were working in Woodstock on April 15, 2008. Whether the jury really took it that way, will be learned when the verdict is announced.

The witness said the defendant wasn't even in Crystal Lake the time of the alleged incident. Not even in town. Will that be enough "doubt" for the jury?

During closing arguments the State pointed at "that woman" (the defendant), as it had during the opening statements. The State repeated to the jury, reminded the jury, asserted to the jury that the jury had heard three prosecution witnesses tell the truth when they said the police were called on April 15, 2008, and that the police came.

The truth? The police did not learn of the April 15 incident until April 18. The police were not called on April 15, 2008. The police did not come on April 15, 2008. And the jury doesn't know that. The perfect time to expose the lies was when one of the two police officers was testifying. He could have been handed the police report and asked to verify the date and time when the April 15 alleged disorderly conduct occurred. That was the time to establish the lie. And it never got established later.

Regarding a grown man walking on the sidewalk with two of his children and pushing the third in a stroller, if he was so alarmed or disturbed and felt that his peace was breached, why did he testify that he stood right on the sidewalk near the defendant's car and called the police? Why didn't he remove his children and himself to a place of safety some distance away? Was he telling the truth?

The jury never heard that some of the complainants had called the police before and had filed charged. And then they had not shown up in court, causing the cases to be nolle prossed. Was that a pattern that the defense should have gotten to the jury? There were opportunities to introduce those old cases, because one of the complainants had mentioned "other times."

The defendant chose not to testify. That amazed and befuddled me. She would have been a good witness. The jury was instructed several times during the 2 1/2 days that the defendant did not have to testify, and the jury should not infer any guilt by a decision not to testify.

The jury is having lunch and then will deliberate. More later, after the three verdicts have been rendered.