0 STATE OF ILLINOIS ) ) SS: COUNTY OF C O O K ) IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS COUNTY DEPARTMENT - CRIMINAL DIVISION THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE ) OF ILLINOIS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) No. CR 0-0 vs. ) ) Charge: AGG DUI RYNE SANHAMEL, ) ) Defendant. ) REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS had at the hearing in the above-entitled cause before the HONORABLE WILLIAM H. HOOKS, Judge of said court, on the th day of SEPTEMBER, 0. PRESENT: HONORABLE ANITA M. ALVAREZ, State's Attorney of Cook County, by: MS. MARIA AUGUSTUS, Assistant State's Attorney, appeared on behalf of the People; MR. RON NEVILLE and MR. GEORGE PAPPAS, appeared on behalf of the Defendant. 0 DORLISA BRYANT OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY CRIMINAL DIVISION CSR #0-000
0 0 THE CLERK: Sanhamel. MR. NEVILLE: Ron Neville on behalf of defendant. He is on bond and before the Court. THE COURT: Okay. This matter is set for further discovery. State, do you have more discovery on this matter? MS. AUGUSTUS: Judge, I tendered discovery in the interim date to defense counsel. THE COURT: You mean between the last date and today's date? MS. AUGUSTUS: Yes. THE COURT: And you acknowledge receipt of that? MR. NEVILLE: We do, sir. MS. AUGUSTUS: And, Judge, I'd like for you to sign a Protective Order to get medical records from the defendant's intake from Cermak. THE COURT: Okay. Any objection from Defense? MR. NEVILLE: No, objection. THE COURT: The Court is signing those -- I'm sorry. I cut you off? MR. NEVILLE: I think she already has that. THE COURT: Sometimes these hospitals need more than we expect them to need, but I'm going to sign
0 0 that without objection from Defense. Those are signed. What else? MS. AUGUSTUS: And also, Judge, I was waiting on the defense attorneys to get back to me on whether or not they want to be present. The State's hired an expert. The expert has gone out to the car. The expert has done preliminary findings, but in order to complete his report he needs to press the brakes, determine the quality of the brake fluid, remove the tires, check the integrity of the brakes, and I wanted to know if the defense attorneys wanted to be present during that inspection and they have informed me today that they don't want to be present. THE COURT: Okay. MS. AUGUSTUS: So at this time I can tell my expert to go ahead and finish that inspection of the brakes. THE COURT: Defense, the proffer given by the State is accurate? MR. NEVILLE: Yes, sir. THE COURT: The attorneys have waived their expert witness presence at the said inspection, so that will be allowed.
0 0 MS. AUGUSTUS: And then also, Judge, there was ISP -- on the last court date or the one before -- ISP testing and I asked the defense attorney if they wanted to be present. They said let us know when you're going to do it and we'll let you know, but I talked to ISP and that's not good enough, it's either a yes or a no, so that they can either put it in progress to be tested -- THE COURT: Now, what is this testing? That's different than the other test? MS. AUGUSTUS: Yes. This testing was for, I believe, the air bags, Judge. THE COURT: Okay. MS. AUGUSTUS: So defense counsel has informed me that they don't want their own expert present while we're testing this stuff at ISP. THE COURT: Okay. Is that accurate also? MR. PAPPAS: Yes, sir. THE COURT: Defense has waived the presence on that one. MS. AUGUSTUS: So based on that, Judge, then we can -- I'm going to need time to do that testing now that I have the answer. And then in the interim the defense attorneys and I are going to
0 0 get together and see -- I believe they have more request on discovery, so we're going to try to work that out. THE COURT: So you all are trying to work out discovery without the defense necessarily filing a motion? MR. PAPPAS: Well, Judge, we met on July th. THE COURT: Okay. MR. PAPPAS: We met for several hours and tried to work it out. It's an ongoing process, but we need additional information, additional discovery, and I'm sure she's trying to get it for us. THE COURT: I understand. In light of that, do the parties want a late October, early November date? MR. PAPPAS: I think so, Judge. THE COURT: Let's go off the record to look for a convenient date for both sides. (Discussion off the record.) THE COURT: We're back on the record. It looks like the parties are actively engaged in discovery matters between court dates which a lot of times we don't see between defense and the State. Both
0 sides are using good faith with respect to getting what they respectively need in this matter, so that's why I'm willing to give it a long date for this process to continue. The by agreement date for further discovery is October 0, 0. We're calling it a status at that point. Defense, if you need anything else, file motions. Same to the State. Have a good day. It's going to be a bond to stand. MR. NEVILLE: Thank you, Judge. MR. PAPPAS: Thank you, Judge. (Which were all the proceedings had in the above-entitled cause.) 0
STATE OF ILLINOIS ) ) SS COUNTY OF C O O K ) 0 I, Dorlisa Bryant, an Official Court Reporter for the Circuit Court of Cook County, County Department-Criminal Division, do hereby certify that I reported in shorthand the evidence had at the above-entitled cause and that the foregoing is a true and accurate transcript of the evidence heard before the Honorable WILLIAM H. HOOKS, Judge of said court. DORLISA BRYANT Official Court Reporter #0-000 Dated this rd day of SEPTEMBER, 0. 0