1 2 3

4
5

STATE OF ILLINOIS SS : COUNTY OF COOK IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY COUNTY DEPARTMENT - CRIMINAL DIVISION THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS Plaintiff ,
-vs -

6 7

) ) ) ) )

) Case No . 08 CR 10502-01
) )
)

8
9

ANNABEL MELONGO , Defendant.

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19

COURT'S RULING REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS had before the Honorabl e STEVEN J. GOEBEL , heard on the 25th day of October , A. D. , 2012.

APPEARANCES: HON. ANITA M. ALVAREZ , State's Attorney of Cook County , by MR. ROBERT PODLASEK and MR. MATTHEW ZARKOS Assistant State's Attorneys , appeared on behalf of the People; DEFENDANT ANNABEL MELONGO , appeared pro se.

20 21 22 23 24 Nancy Muscol i no, RPR/CSR No. 084-001532 Offi ci al Court Reporter 2650 S. California Chicago , Illinois 60608 773-674-6065

THE CLERK:

Annabel Melongo. (Defendant present. )

2
3 4
5

THE COURT: MR. ZARKOS:

Good morning, Ms. Melongo. Assistant State's Attorney Matthew

Zarkos for the state. MR. PODLASEK: Robert Podlasek. THE COURT: The case is here for my ruling on Assi stant State s Attorney
I

7
8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16

Ms. Melongo's motion to dismiss the indictment for perjury and discovery violation. Does either side have any other case law? I know the state cited numerous cases and Is

Ms. Melongo ci ted two or three cases as well. there anything additional?

Any additional cases that

you wish to cite before I rule? THE DEFENDANT: U.S. versus -THE COURT: All the ones in your motion, right. In the memorandum. Let the record reflect the Actually, I cited four cases.

17
18 19

THE DEFENDANT: THE COURT:

20

Okay.

21 22 23 24

court has revi ewed the court's notes, the testi mony, the arguments of counsel, all the exhibits that were admitted into evidence on the motion. First of all, I just want to say this,

Ms . Mel ongo .

It was a difficult motion , partially

I 'm

2 3 4 5
6

because you haven't been trained as an attorney. not trying to slight your intelligence in any way ,

shape or form , but you did have difficulty asking the proper questions and getting the evidence that you needed in. time. I'm just letting you know that ahead of

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Obviously the state has an advantage on you

because they are licensed and practiced attorneys , you are not , and it's difficult when you represent yourself pro se. However , hav i ng sai d that , after 1 ooki ng at the case law tendered by both sides , also re-enforcing the case law that's been p r esented is People of the State of Illinois versus Donald Sampson cited at 406 Ill . App.3d 1054 , 943 Northeast 2d 783 , a 2011 case from the Third Appellate Court District , reversing the judge for granting a dismissal of an indictment . The grounds are a little bit different as

it dealt mostly with hearsay in the Grand Jury. However , it does cite and go into perjury , which are the grounds all eged here by Ms . Mel ongo . The Sampson case generally stands for the position that a defendant may not attack an indictment returned by a legally constituted Grand

Jury .

In fact , courts have consistently rejected

2
3

rules that would effectively turn Grand Jury proceedings into preliminary trials . However , an

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

indictment can be dismissed based on either the grounds listed in 725 ILCS 5/114-1 (a) or prosecutorial misconduct . Obviously none of the grounds in The defendant is going to

5/114-1 (a) are alleged. prosecutorial misconduct.

In the latter instance, prosecutorial misconduct must rise to the level of a deprivation of due process or a miscarriage of justice. The due

process rights of a defendant may be violated if the prosecutor deliberately or intentionally misleads the Grand Jury, uses his known perjured or false testimony or presents other deceptive or inaccurate evidence. An indictment may also be dismissed where the prosecutor has applied undo pressure or coercion so that the indictment is, in effect , that of the prosecutor rather than the Grand Jury. To warrant

dismissal of the indictment the defendant must , therefore , show that the prosecutors prevented the Grand Jury from returning a meaningful indictment by misleading or coercing it. The court goes on to explain how the

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Grand Jury was started from an English institution and how important and vital it is to the American system of j usti ce , and how it has grown over the years into what it is now. at 350 U.S. 359. The case further holds that generally a defendant may not attack an indictment returned by a legally constituted Grand Jury. Citing the Illinois Ci ting Costello versus United States

Supreme Court in Divincenzo , D-i-v-i-n-c-e-n-z-o , 183 Ill . 2d 255; also Costello , that I just cited . In fact , courts have consistently rejected rules that would effectively turn Grand Jury proceedings into preliminary trials , which is what we essentially had here. Citing People versus Creque ,

C-r-e-q-u-e, 72 Ill.2d 515 at pages 527 to 28. Inasmuch as the Grand Jury does not finally adjudicate guilt or innocence , it has traditionally been allowed to pursue its investigation unrestrained by the technical evidentiary and procedural restrictions applicable to a criminal trial . 297. Citing People versus Torres , 245 Ill . App.3d Also , that case rejecting a rule that would have

required the state to present all exculpatory evide nce it may have to the Grand Jury . Citing United States

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

versus Dionisio, D-i-o-n-i-s-i-o.

410 U.S. at page 1.

Any holding that would saddle a Grand Jury with mini trials and preliminary showings would assuredly impede its investigation and frustrate the public's interest in the fair and expeditious administration of the criminal laws. The court goes on to hold. Also relevant is the Illinois Supreme Court case of People versus Fassler, F-a-s-s-l-e-r , 153 Ill. 2d 49. That says prosecutori al mi sconduct

must rise to the level of a deprivation of due process or a miscarriage of justice. The due process rights

of a defendant may be violated if the prosecutor deliberately or intentionally misleads the Grand Jury , uses known perjured or false testimony or presents other deceptive or inaccurate evidence. An indictment

may also be dismissed where the prosecutor has applied undo pressure or coercion so that the indictment is , in effect, that of the prosecutor rather than the Grand Jury. To warrant dismissal of the indictment

defendant must therefore show that the prosecutors prevented the Grand Jury from returning a meaningful indictment by misleading or coercing it. Here it's kind of a high-bred because Ms. Melongo is obviously saying the detective

testified falsely in the Grand Jury.

However, that

2 3
4
5
6 7
8

also , by argument , implicates the prosecutors, as well , for presenting the detective and thereby implying that the prosecutors also knew the testimony to be false. After reviewing all the exhibits in this case , which were numerous and quite lengthy , this court does not find that the state or the officer committed perjury. What the court does find is that

9
10 11 12

there are some inconsistencies , such that a trier of fact needs to sift through, either a judge or a jury , and make a finding of either guilt or innocence on this case. Ms. Melongo makes some good points. However, looking at all the documents, the court cannot say by any means that the detective in this case , or the state, committed perjury.

13
14 15

16
17

It is a

18 19 20 21 22 23 24

question of fact because different facts go different ways. The court explicitly finds that there was no

perjury committed by either the detective in this case or by the prosecution. Additionally, the alleged discovery violation for failing to preserve the computer, I don't find that rises to the level of a due process or

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

violation that would warrant dismissal of the charges in this case as well . So , therefore , Ms. Mel on go , in total , your motion to dismiss the indictment is hereby denied. THE DEFENDANT : Judge , can you gi ve me 10 days .

I'm going to make a substitution of judge and I'm going to put everything that's wrong with this case . 10 days. THE COURT : You need 10 days to make a

substitution of judge? THE DEFENDANT: THE COURT: Yes. To file a motion.

Okay. Thank you.

THE DEFENDANT : THE COURT: yet.

Well , I haven't given you 10 days

Can you file it by November 14th? THE DEFENDANT: Today is the 25th , 10 days will

be November 4th. THE COURT : longer. THE DEFENDANT: No. 10 days. They say within I'm going to give you a little bit

10 days I have to file a motion . THE COURT: Do you want November 5th? Today is the 25th.

THE DEFENDANT :

1 2 3
4
5

THE COURT:

Monday is November 5th. November 5th, yes.

THE DEFENDANT:
November 5th is fine .

THE COURT:
MR. ZARKOS:

By

agreement or motion defendant?

Motion defendant. Motion defendant.

MR. PODLASEK:

7
8

THE COURT:

Motion defendant. Substitution of judge.

THE DEFENDANT: THE COURT:

9
10

File it in writing.

11

(Which were all the proceedings had at the hearing of the above-entitled cause. continued to 11-5-12.) Case

12
13

14

15
16

17 18
19
20

21 22
23

24

STATE OF ILLINOIS COUNTY OF COOK

)
)

SS:

) I , NANCY MUSCOLINO , CSR/RPR, an

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16
17

Official Court Reporter of the Circuit Court of Cook County, County Department - Cri mi nal Di vi si on, do hereby certify that I reported in shorthand the proceedings had in the above-entitled cause, that I thereafter caused the foregoing to be transcribed into typewriting, which I hereby certify to be a true and accurate transcript of the proceedings had before the Honorabl e STEVEN J. GOEBEL, Judge of sai d Court .

Official ( t ourt Reporter of the Circuit E~ urt of Cook County CSR #084-001532

18
19

20 21
22

23 24

10