Quantcast

IL High Court tosses Cook Co. verdict because judge failed to swear in jury, says error 'threatens' judicial integrity

COOK COUNTY RECORD

Saturday, November 23, 2024

IL High Court tosses Cook Co. verdict because judge failed to swear in jury, says error 'threatens' judicial integrity

State Court
Illinois supreme court sign 2

Jonathan Bilyk

The Illinois Supreme Court has ruled that a woman convicted of battering a child in Cook County, gets a new trial because the judge never swore in the jury, despite the fact the woman never objected until the appellate stage, saying the swearing of the jury, is a "defining moment that substantially impacts many crucial facets of the criminal jury trial process."

The April 7 decision was authored by Justice David Overstreet, with concurrence from Chief Justice Anne Burke and Justices Robert Carter, Rita Garman, Mary Jane Theis, Michael Burke and P. Scott Neville Jr. The ruling favored Omega Moon over the Cook County State's Attorney's Office.

A jury found Moon guilty in 2016 of domestic battery. Moon had allegedly struck an eight-year-old boy, over whom she was a guardian, several times on his back and left arm with an object, according to court documents. She was sentenced to one year of probation and to pay a fine and fees. Moon was represented by a public defender.


Cook County Judge Caroline Moreland | Leyhane.blogspot.com

Both sides agreed Cook County Circuit Judge Caroline Moreland, who presided over the trial, never administered an oath to the jurors, which would have sworn them to render a verdict according to the law and evidence. Moon never objected to the lack of jury oath during the trial, but raised the issue in a posttrial motion. Moreland rejected the motion, saying the failure to swear in the jury was not that grave an error and did not affect the trial's outcome.

The Illinois First District Appellate Court, by a 2-1 margin, agreed with Moreland.

However, Supreme Court Justice Overstreet found the omission of the oath to be a critical blunder.

"This error affects the framework within which the trial proceeds, rather than being merely an error in the trial process itself. The jury oath is more than a mere formality. The purpose of an oath is to impress upon the swearing juror an appropriate sense of obligation in carrying out his or her duties as a juror. By solemnly swearing to deliver a true verdict according to the law and evidence, the juror takes an oath of office that 'implicitly invites punishment' should the promise be broken," Overstreet said, quoting from Black’s Law Dictionary.

Overstreet continued, "The complete failure to swear the jury with a trial oath is an error of such gravity that it threatens the integrity of the judicial process. Depriving a defendant of a sworn jury deprives that defendant of a basic protection afforded at common law that is specifically designed to ensure that the jury is impartial. The jury oath, therefore, preserves the integrity of the jury trial process by impressing upon the jurors their sacred duty."

Overstreet pointed out it is perhaps impossible to measure the effect of this failure, because it enters into the "subjective frame of mind" of jurors.

Overstreet also noted the protection against double jeopardy is imperiled when juries are not sworn.

"It seems self-evident that a procedural step that is the crucial moment in every criminal proceeding that places a criminal defendant in jeopardy is, by necessity, an essential element of all criminal jury trial proceedings. An error that prevents jeopardy from attaching affects the very framework within which the trial proceeds and cannot be logically categorized as a mere trial error," Overstreet wrote.

Without the oath, if a defendant is acquitted, prosecutors could retry the defendant because the jury was never properly in place and so the defendant was never in jeopardy, Overstreet observed.

The state argued the alleged gamesmanship of Moon's attorney, who let the omission of the oath pass by without objection, should not be rewarded. However, Overstreet did not accept the attorney engaged in such a tactic.

"No competent defense attorney would consider knowingly trying a case before an unsworn jury to be a viable strategy option," Overstreet determined.

The case was sent back to circuit court for further proceedings, which includes another trial, if prosecutors wish.

Moon was represented before the Illinois Supreme Court by Assistant Illinois Appellate Defender Eric Castaneda.

The state was represented by Illinois Assistant Attorney General Garson Fischer.

More News