STATE OF ILLINOIS

A.
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 17TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
COUNTY OF WINNEBAGO
OLDOO‘JGO'l-hOJN

THE PEOPLE OF THE

STATE OF ILLINOIS,
PTaintiff,

vs 2014-CF—922

RICHARD E. NANKE,
Defendant. CQP ii

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS at the hearing of the

above-entitTed cause before the HonorabTe ROSEMARY
COLLINS, Judge of said Court, heard on the 12th

day of September, A.D., 2014.

PRESENT:
MR. F. JAMES BRUN and MS. PAMELA WELLS,
Assistant State's Attorneys,
Appeared on behan of the PeopTe;
MR. DAVID DOLL,
Assistant Pubec Defender,
Appeared on behan of the Defendant.

Joyce M. 0730n
Offfcfai Court Reporter
_\
P R O C E E D I N G 8
OCDODNOU‘l-BOJN

THE COURT: A11 right. We're here on

Peop1e versus Richard Wanke.

Mr. Wanke, Tet me know when you‘re ready

to proceed. Can you hear me?

THE DEFENDANT WANKE: Yes, Judge.

THE COURT: A11 right. I have a
Superseding Bi11 of Indictment that's in the court
fiTe that I didn't know that had been returned, so
I'm gonna give a copy of it to your counsei,

a1though actuaTTy what I'11 do first is start with

there's a motion to withdraw on behan of the
pubTic defender's office that the court did

appoint your office, and then I -- and then I had

a motion to withdraw.
It came up when you were out of the

office, and I was ton you wanted to be present to

argue that motion.

MR. DOLL: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: And so we wi11 argue the

motion to withdraw at this time.

MR. DOLL: Thank you, Judge.

THE COURT: We're aTSo —— I'm sorry.

 Just for the record, we're aTSo going to be
_L
hearing at the same time Mr. Wanke's motion for
OLOCD‘NIOUU‘l-b-OON

appointment of an independent and conf1ict-free

counse1.
Okay. Go ahead.
MR. DOLL: Thank you, Judge.
Before we -- or Dave D011 on beha1f of
Richard Wanke.
Initia11y I'm asking on beha1f of

Mr. Wanke who I met with today that we not proceed

with either of those motions or any other critica1

stage, that he be appointed independent,

conf1ict-free counseT for the Timited purpose of

advising him regarding what position he shou1d

take regarding my office's motion to withdraw.
THE COURT: We11, I'm not gonna do that.

I'm going to go ahead and hear these motions. I'm

not going to appoint someone to advise him whether

or not he shou1d proceed with his motion, and

that's -- that's not gonna happen. We're gonna go

ahead with these now.

MR. DOLL: CertainTy, Judge.

As far as the next matter, I wou1d --

THE DEFENDANT NANKE: Excuse me. I just
 wanted to object for the record.
OCOCDNODO‘I-bCJOMA
THE COURT: Okay.
THE DEFENDANT WANKE: Thank you.

MR. DOLL: Regarding that, Judge, since

we've got the unusua1 situation of two motions

that are being considered contemporaneousTy,

Mr. Wanke wou1d 1ike to argue his portion first.

I be1ieve it's probabTy more economicaT to argue
my portion first, but whatever way the court --
THE COURT: I'm gonna 1et you argue your
NMNNNA—LA—L—LA—X—LA—X

motion first.
#wN-‘OLDOONODG-hQDNA

MR. DOLL: Thank you, Judge.

x‘“
Your Honor, the motion speaks -- or our
position pretty we11 is set forth in our motion.

Karen Sorensen is the pub1ic defender.

She has in this case a number of personaT contacts
and connections with the decedent, Greg CTark, and
his fami1y, going 311 the way back -- as regarding
to Mr. CTark's wife, a11 the way back to grade
schoo1. As the court is aware, Ms. Sorensen grew
up in Rockford as did Mr. CTark and his wife.
And over those times she's gone through

grade schoo1, through high schooT as a direct

cTassmate and associate engaged in normaT

 cTassmate activities with Mrs. C1ark. She was
OO‘JQCJ‘I-D-OONA
aTSo in high schooT with Mr. C1ark, a1though I
be1ieve he was a year or two ahead of her. They

had contacts there.

THE COURT: Were these Rockford pubTic

schoo1s?
MR. DOLL: Yes, ma'am.
THE COURT: So they are a11 fair1y 1arge

schoo1s, is that correct?

MR. DOLL: Your Honor, regarding the

11 CTass size back when Ms. Sorensen was in grade

12 schooT, they were -- the individuaT cTass sizes

13 were 1arger than they were now per cTass room, but
14 I don't be1ieve that the overa11 enr011ment was

15 quite as 1arge as it was now.

16 However, regarding Mrs. C1ark, she was

17 not just a same time cTassmate. She was in the

18 same track or in the same cTasses with Ms.

19 Sorensen was my direction.

20 In addition to that, you've got a number

21 of other things that p1ay into it.

22 Mr. C1ark was, obviousTy, a Tong-time

23 TocaT attorney. He was a conf1ict Tawyer through

24 the courts here and got a number of cases from us.

 6

He —- we extended him the professionaT courtesies

_\
I“

OLOOD‘JODO‘E-P-CDN
that we a1ways extend to any other TocaT Tawyer,
but beyond that Mr. C1ark a1ways took us up on our

opportunities to come to the Christmas party and

to some of the other socia1 activities that our

office sponsored. His son-in-Taw, Bart Henbest,
was aTSo a Tong-time reguTar at that party.

The additionaT factors that I think are

pertinent are Ms. O'Connor, Margie O'Connor, who

is now an assistant pub1ic defender, was an

important part of the state's attorney's office at

that time in terms of -- I don't remember what her

specific titTe was, whether it was serious crimes

or Tead crimes, but I know she was one of their

serious -— one of their senior attorneys who made
charging decisions and was invoTved in
terminations and investigations regarding
Mr. Wanke.

There are additiona1 connections. The --

one portion of the transcript in Mr. Wanke's
motion does, in fact, go to the 1ast time our
office fiTed a motion, and that was in front of

Judge McGraw regarding 06-CF-405 when Judge McGraw

granted our office's request to be removed from a

 7

case, which I understand is sti11 pending on post

CJLDCIZJ\ICDU‘I-I>CJ~JI\Z>--L
conviction, and so we do not represent him, that
the substance of that conf1ict is Taid out pretty
much in the transcript.

Ms. Sorensen was present in court with

someone who was the victim of a crime that
Mr. Wanke was convicted of. She was --
(Nhereupon a discussion was had off the

record.)
MR. DOLL: Oh, I apo1ogize. That's
NNMNNAAAAAAAAAA

correct, Judge. I misspoke.

#OJN—‘OLDCDNOUCfi-DWNA

It was an uncharged crime. He was —— it

was at a sentencing hearing. The state chose to

prove up other crimes. It was a11eged that -- and

accepted by the court at that point that Ms.

Sorensen's dear friend, who she was there in

support of, was, in fact, the victim of uncharged

criminaT activity by Mr. Wanke.

The other factors that kind of me1d into

this are not onTy -- you've got the notion of an

actuaT per se conf1ict and as far as most of the

case 1aw I've seen, the personaT, socia1 contacts

don't necessariTy —— or they don't in my opinion

create a per se conf1ict. They certainTy create

 8

the possibiTity of a conf1ict, but they a1so do in

OLOOD‘JOJO'I-bODMA
this case create the appearance of a conf1ict, and

given the Tong history of conf1icts found between

our office and Mr. Wanke in the past, it is

important to note that Karen Sorensen is the
supervisor.

I'm on1y the other supervisor, and it's

not a situation where it‘s avai1ab1e to us to say,

okay, we11, then Karen shou1d stay out of it,

Dave, you handTe that end of it. The reason for

NMNNNA—X—X—X—AA-A—L—LA

that is is this is a matter of some significance,

#QJNAOCOOONO'JU‘l-POJNA

and it was a matter of discussion ever since the

death of Mr. CTark. I have had Tong and invoTved

conversations with Karen Sorensen regarding the

case, regarding Mr. Hanks, and regarding the other
factors that were invoTved.
I know the court has a1ready been

apprised of the situation regarding Ms. Carpenter,

Chris Carpenter. The state at this point has said

that they're not going -- it's my understanding

from everyone that the court raised that issue,
and the state said we‘re not gonna c311 Chris

Carpenter.

I don't know as we stand here right now

 without having done any work, without having
OLOm'\|(3')(J'l-l>-~2'JL>I’\DA
received discovery, I don't know that there's a

way that she and her a11eged portion of this may

or may not be invoTved in the defense.

However, Ms. Carpenter again in terms of

fu11 disc103ure is a friend of our office, was

working for us at the time, and is a dear friend

of mine. There is no supervisor who coqu manage

this case, and it's the kind of case that's gonna

require, obvious1y, significant approvaT for

NMNNMA-XAAA—LAAAA

expenditures, which can on1y be done by Ms.

-b(»)T\3—"(3‘.CDCD'\ICDUI-hCJDIKJ—x

Sorensen and if she's absent by myseTf. We don't

rea11y have another mechanism for anyone eise to

make those kind of decisions.
Given Mr. Wanke's situation, given the
fact that he is at 1east by his motion concerned
about our representation, I think that it is

appropriate and prudent for the court to say —- to

grant our motion because the 1ast thing you want
to do in a case of this magnitude is bui1d in
something that Tater on is going to cause a11 this
to be brought back.
C1ear1y there's sti11 pending Titigation

from the 2006 case where Judge McGraw 1et us off,

 10

and that case is sti11 going. We -- nobody wants

A
OCOOO‘JOUU‘l-bQJN
this situation to draw into another situation 1ike
that.
And I think it's important for the rights
of Mr. Wanke that he be given counse1, that he
is -- I don't want to say comfortabie with because

you're not entit1ed to somebody you're comfortabTe

with, but I be1ieve it's important that he be

entit1ed to a representation that is apparent not

on1y to him but to the community is conf1ict free,

and for that reason I ask that we be a110wed to
withdraw, and the court take whatever further
actions the court feeTs is appropriate.
THE COURT: Thank you, CounseT.

A11 right. Mr. Wanke, you wish to argue

your motion at this time?

THE DEFENDANT WANKE: Sure. Give me one

second.
THE COURT: Uh—huh. Take your time.

THE DEFENDANT WANKE: I think I've been

appointed conf1ict counse1 because of what
Mr. D011 has stated from Winnebago County since

somewhere in 2000.
I've inc1uded, 1ike Mr. D011 said, the
 11

transcript from 06—CF—405 where Ms. Sorensen wou1d

_\
OJN—‘OLOCDNCDUT-wa—‘OCOWNCDm-DWM say it better than I of what she stated her
conf1ict was, and Judge McGraw at that time back
in February 21, 2008 accepted that as meritorious
that I needed confTict counse1.
We went through a series of appointments

of attorneys that have been hired by Winnebago

County court. I inc1uded in my pieces of

documentation here the docket sheet from that case

where subsequent attorneys were appointed and
MNNNA—LA—t—LAAAAA

withdrew, appointed and withdrew back in 2008 and

recent1y just this year when I came back on my
post conviction.
I've maintained, un1ike Ms. Sorensen,
that a different conf1ict of interest is invoTved.
I sued federa11y two poTice officers for a 1992
case -- or a 1991 case —- I'm sorry -- and the
federaT 1awsuit was in 1992, who investigated a
burgTary at that time.
And not to go into those -- those federa1
comp1aints but comp1aints but Greg -- Detective
Greg Lindmark and Detective Dave Hopkins were

those officers, and I made certain a11egations in

that federa1 c0mp1aint of how the pub1ic
N
.b
 12

defender's office cooperated with those officers

_X
to -- and my pub1ic defender and the head pub1ic
ocooowcnm-bcom

defender at that time, Gary PumiTia, to not

necessariTy give me the best defense.
Those officers have subsequent1y moved up
in rank. They were both for a time back in 2008
deputy chiefs of poTice, and I be1ieve

Mr. Lindmark retired from that post and went on to

work as an investigator for the prosecution —— or
the state, and I be1ieve currentTy Dave Hopkins,
David Hopkins is sti11 a deputy chief under Mr. --
Chief Epperson.
In response to me bringing that up in
various courts of conf1ict, that brought about Ms.
Sorensen coming forward and saying, no, no, to the
conf1ict or what she saw as the conf1ict of
interest was what she testified in front of Judge
McGraw, something I had never heard of.

I did not know she had prepped a

prosecutoria1 witness. I don't know if she had

prepped prosecutoria1 witness again for my

sentencing hearing for this 2006 case. It just

never was asked.

Judge McGraw quick1y reassigned the case,
 13

1ike I said, to a number of conf1ict counse1 and

.A
eventua11y ran out of them, and aTTowed myseTf to
CLOCO‘JGU‘l-wa

make severaT suggestions.

And Tom Jakeway, is that the

administrative —— I can't remember what his tit1e

is.

THE COURT: I know who you're ta1king

about.
THE DEFENDANT WANKE: Mr. Jakeway
tendered some names of attorneys that have

approached us with wishes to represent me in that

other matter, having not been ab1e to find any

1oca1 attorneys because I ca11ed around and have
asked, my friends have ca11ed around and asked, my
fami1y has ca11ed around to be ab1e to hire for

that burgTary conviction or the post-conviction

petition.

Fina11y, Judge McGraw accepted that this

seemed to be the on1y way to find a conf1ict-free
counseT, and Nate Nieman of MoTine, ITTinois was
hired. I have not met him yet, but he's to be at
the first court date I think in October sometime

on that other case.

Knowing that —— I think I brought this to
 14

the court‘s attention before. Knowing that that

OCOOJNOUU‘l-bOJN
was a five month process of appointments and

withdraws of appointments and withdraws, I'm

presenting this motion with the accompanying

attachments in hopes that -- to avoid at Teast
some of that to save you time, to save the
prosecution time, to save me time, to save -- to

avoid some of that repetition.

I don't know of any TocaT attorney that I

haven't contacted that -- or have heard from any

11 attorney that my friends and fami1y have contacted

12 that has come forward to wish to represent me

13 here, and that's an additiona1 reason that if we

14 can f0110w the procedure set out by the Chief

15 Judge McGraw, basica11y, f0110w through on that

16 same track and put feeTers out to try to find

17 somebody that's wi11ing to take the case, that is

18 a130 acceptabTe to the court and the county and

19 meets a11 the same criteria as Mr. Nieman did for

20 my petition.

21 Like Mr. D011 said, given that an

22 empToyee of the pub1ic defender's office,

23 basicaTiy, was a contact person very ear1y on in

24 the po1ice investigation after my attorney's

 15

death, I think somewhat that aione, and not being

CDLCZI(3CJ\ICIDQ'I-I>C;.>T\J—t
privy, 1ike Mr. D011 said, of the many discussions

and I mean just have to have happened, many

discussions and back and forth of ta1king about

the case, it wou1d be my guesstimation that it
wou1d be kind of hard for the pub1ic defender's

office to by appearance and possibiTity be

conf1ict free.
I hope that you wiTT accept my motion.
THE COURT: A11 right. Thank you, sir.
NMNNNA—AA-LAAAA—‘A

THE DEFENDANT WANKE: Thank you.

J}.CJOlU-F‘CDCOCDNCDQ'l-PCJOl'\J—x

THE COURT: A11 right. State.

MR. BRUN: Good afternoon, your Honor.

James Brun on beha1f of the PeopTe, PameTa WeTTs.

Your Honor, there's one additiona1 fact
that Mr. D011 wou1d be unaware of due to the fact
that it isn't in the discovery.
Margie O'Connor, who was, in fact, the
deputy of the major crimes at that time aTSo
Tocked in and presented various testimony to the
grand jury at the time, so it was more than just a

consuTting basis with the Rockford City PoTice

Department.

However, your Honor, in addition to that,

 16

it's the state's position that every pub1ic

._\
OLOODNUJU‘I-D-ODM
defender is considered an independent contractor,

and by its nature as counse1 indicated is not a

per se conf1ict.
However, the state is somewhat concerned
about the supervisory abiiity with Ms. Sorensen

and Mr. D011. From that perspective, we are

concerned from any case, the impact from the

appe11ate court perspective and certainTy Teave to
the court's discretion, if that and the contacts
with the pub1ic defender are sufficient for, in

fact, a conf1ict for the pub1ic defender to

withdraw.
THE COURT: Thank you.

We11, certainTy the court wou1d not a110w

Margie O'Connor to be invo1ved in this case.
There's a c1ear conf1ict there.
I think the conf1ict with Ms. Sorensen is
weaker in that she went to pub1ic sch001 with the
a11eged victim's wife. You know, I don't -~ I

don‘t see that that reaTTy comes to the point of

conf1ict, but -— but fine, I won't make Ms.

Sorensen try this case either.

These persona1 contacts do not create a

 17

conf1ict. It's been represented that there's a

OGCDNOW-bCDM-A
Tong history of conf1icts and withdrawa1s, but no,

there's just one other case that the pub1ic

defender withdrew from as far as I know.

It's a stretch to say because Greg C1ark
and his son-in-Taw attended one party a year, a
pub1ic defender Christmas party, which I have

attended myseTf in the past, a1though not within

any recent past, which I know is very Targe and
very crowded, that that is somehow part of a
NMNNN—X—A—A—LA—l—é—X—X-L

confTict.
—PCJOI\)—‘OCDC20~~I0301-130le—x

Each attorney in the pub1ic defender's

office is their own attorney. Mr. D011 has no

conf1ict that I can te11 of except for his contact

with other peopTe in the office.
But there are attorneys I know that have

been in your office that were not here when this

aTTeged offense took pTace. You have many good

attorneys tota11y capabTe of handTing a first

degree murder charge who I know did not 1ive here
at the time that this offense is a11eged to have
occurred, so I think there are attorneys in your

office that have no persona1 contact at a11 with

Mr. C1ark and cou1d be handiing this case, so
 18

based upon what I've received at this time, I

—L
OCDOONCDU‘I-hmw
don't think there is a conf1ict that wou1d a110w

the whoTesaTe e1imination of the pub1ic defender's

office on this case.

Mr. Wanke's motion, I think it's the same
situation, that there is no conf1ict a11eged on
this case that wou1d require the court to

eTiminate the pub1ic defender's case, pub1ic

defender's office from this case.

There was a previous contact with Ms.

Sorensen with an a11eged victim on a case, but

that doesn't mean there's a conf1ict with every

other attorney in the office on this case, so the

court is gonna deny the request of the pub1ic

defender's office to withdraw, and I'm gonna deny

Mr. Wanke's motion for appointment of independent

and conf1ict—free counse1.

THE DEFENDANT WANKE: I'm gonna object,

of course, for the record.

THE COURT: Fine.
Now, I have received a Superseding Bi11
of Indictment from the grand jury, a copy of which

has just been handed to Mr. D011.

Do you acknow1edge receipt?

 19

MR. DOLL: Yes, your Honor.

AOCDCOKJODU'I-POONA
THE COURT: Do you waive a forma1 reading
of the charges, expTanation of rights and possibTe
penaTties?

MR. DOLL: No, ma'am.

THE COURT: A11 right.
MR. DOLL: I do not.
I wou1d ask since this matter has not

been assigned to an attorney within our office,

that arraignment is a significant step, and we

NMN—LA—XAA—L—xé—LA

don't have to do it today. We are asking that

this matter be her over for the next court date

N—‘OCDCDNCJO‘I-bOJN

so that whoever is assigned can review a11 30

counts of this very serious set of charges with
Mr. Wanke, so that we can discuss it and discuss
the impiications of it before we enter a pTea.
I mean right we're maintaining a pTea of

not gui1ty, but it is -- I'm not in a position

where I can just waive it and ~—
THE COURT: I'm fine with you not waiving
it. I‘m not saying you have to.
MR. DOLL: I understand, Judge. I

understand, Judge, but I'm a1so not in a position

MN
#00

to say that we need to stand here and read a11 30

 20

counts into the record.

_L
OQOODNODU‘ILOON
I'm saying that if we can get a brief
period of time so that we can review it with
Mr. Wanke, perhaps we can waive a forma1 reading

and admonition of rights and penaTties, but it's a

situation where I --
THE COURT: Where are the changes, State?

MS. WELLS: There are no substantive

changes to the charges, your Honor.

THE COURT: Why did you go to a

Superseding Bi11 of Indictment?

MS. WELLS: We did a Superseding Bi11 of

Indictment to address any 1ega1 issues that have

been raised, to just cTean that up so that there

were no issues to address.

THE DEFENDANT WANKE: Excuse me.
THE COURT: What 1ega1 issues?

THE DEFENDANT WANKE: I can't hear her.

THE COURT: Okay. I asked her what —— I

asked them what the change was in the Superseding

Bi11 of Indictment. They said there were no
substantive issues.

So what were the changes?

MS. WELLS: There was a motion to dismiss

 21
pending before your Honor, a11eging some
_\

information regarding a GSR test that had been

OGDOO‘JGDU'l-bODN

presented to the grand jury and maybe some

1anguage that had been used inadvertent1y and in

answer to the grand jury, so we represented it

without presenting any information about GSR.
That transcript wi11 be made avai1ab1e as soon as

we get it back.
But to address that concern that had been

raised, a1though we doesn't fee1 it rose to a

1eve1 to dismiss, we thought we cou1d in order to

save time take care of it proactiveTy.

THE COURT: A11 right. Did you hear what

she said?
THE DEFENDANT WANKE: Yes.
THE COURT: Okay. So that's why they
took it back to the grand jury. There's no change

in any of these charges from the originai Bi11 of

Indictment. They just presented testimony to the

grand jury without that testimony of the GSR test.

Okay?
But I wi11 grant your request to continue

this so that you can see who's going to be

appointed to represent Mr. Wanke, and they can
 22

meet with him and go over and see, because I'm

A
OCOWNCDU‘l-P-CON
happy to read it --
MR. DOLL: No, I understand, Judge.
THE COURT: -- to you.

So do you have a copy of the Bi11 of

Indictment?
MR. DOLL: Yes, ma'am. Actua11y, I've

got two. I'm taking the stap1e out of one of the

copies so I can give it to Mr. Wanke so that he

can review it before we -- so when we come over to

see him.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. DOLL: And if it works for everyone's

caTendar, we can do it Monday, we can do it

Tuesday, whatever. We just need an opportunity to

go over it so that --
THE COURT: That's fine.
MR. DOLL: -- we have a chance to ta1k to

him.
THE COURT: A11 righty. Monday is a jury

week for me. I'm not sure if I'm going to be in

triaT or not. So I was wondering how about

Wednesday, September 17, in the afternoon?

MR. DOLL: That's fine, Judge.
 23

THE COURT: If my case does go to triaT,

OCOOD‘JO'EU'l-D-ODMA
they said it wou1d be over by Wednesday, so ...
MR. BRUN: Your Honor, if I may, first of
a11, I wi11 have two cases in the Justice Center
at 1:30. If the court is avai1ab1e 1ater in the
afternoon?
THE COURT: Or I cou1d set it at 9:00
o'c10ck on Thursday morning, September 18.
MR. BRUN: Ms. Hite Ross shou1d be

present. I have a 402 a150 in the Justice Center

NMNNN—L—LA—L-L-X-A—LA—K

at 9:00 o'cTock.
hUJN—‘OCOCD‘NIODUT-hWN—P

Any time after the 402, any time, 10:00

o'c100k or a11 afternoon on the 18th.

THE COURT: I have a coup1e of other

things set at 10:00 o'c1ock. I have severaT other

things set on the 18th, but I cou1d set it for say

3:00 o'ciock, 3:30.
MR. DOLL: That's fine.
MR. BRUN: That's fine, your Honor.

THE COURT: Is that acceptab1e to you,

sir, Mr. Wanke?

THE DEFENDANT WANKE: Which day was that?

THE COURT: We're now focusing I be1ieve

on Thursday, September 18, 3:00 o'ciock, 3:30.
 24

Any preference?
A
THE DEFENDANT WANKE: Three o'c10ck is
OCOCD‘IODU'l-hwm

fine, your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. Three o'ciock.

I do have other cases set that afternoon,

so -- but we'11 set it for 3:00 o'c10ck. We might

not get to it right then.

MR. BRUN: A130, with counse1 I do have

the originai discovery receipt, the first
suppiementai answer, second, third and fourth
supp1ementa1 answers for counse1.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. BRUN: I'm tendering at this time.
MR. DOLL: I wou1d acknow1edge receipt,

Judge.

THE COURT: A11 righty.

On motion of the defense then, it's set

for September 18 at 3:00 o'cTock for arraignment.

Time is t011ed, is that correct, CounseT?
MR. DOLL: Yes, your Honor.
Thank you, Judge.
THE COURT: Okay. That's a11. Thank

you.
MS. WELLS: Here's the orders, your
 25

Honor.

(Defendant remanded.)
(Which were a11 the proceedings of record
heard in this cause on this date.)
 26

STATE OF ILLINOIS
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 17TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
COUNTY OF WINNEBAGO
C E R T I F I C A T E
I, Joyce M. Oison, CSR, RPR, OfficiaT Court
Reporter, Seventeenth Judiciai Circuit, State of
I11inois, do hereby certify that I reported in

stenograph the testimony given at the hearing of

the said cause, and that the foregoing transcript

is a true and correct transcription of my
stenographic notes so taken as aforesaid, and

contains a11 the testimony given at the hearing of

the said cause to the best of my abiiity.

I further certify that I am not connected by
b100d or marriage to any of the parties in this
action, nor am I a reTative or emp10yee or

attorney or counse1 of any of the parties, nor am

I a reTative or emp10yee of such attorney or

counse1, or financiaTTy interested in said action,
or interested directiy or indirectTy in the matter
in controversy.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF I have hereunto set my hand

this 9th day of June, A.D., 2017.

7 .. M 7%
//7é
Of ” T‘Court'Reporter