People v. Simac
204 Ill. Dec. 192, 161 Ill. 2d 297, 641 N.E.2d 416 (1994)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A defense attorney who, without the court's permission or knowledge, substitutes a look-alike for the defendant at counsel's table engages in direct criminal contempt of court. Such conduct is deemed a misrepresentation calculated to obstruct the administration of justice and derogate the court's authority, regardless of the attorney's stated intent to test identification testimony.
Facts:
- Christopher Simac was charged with traffic violations stemming from a car accident on March 20, 1990.
- During his bench trial on December 11, 1990, his attorney, David Sotomayor, had David P. Armanentos, a clerical worker from his law firm, sit beside him at counsel's table.
- Armanentos and the actual defendant, Simac, shared similar physical characteristics, including being tall, thin, and having dark blond hair and glasses.
- The real defendant, Simac, was seated in another location in the courtroom.
- The State's only witness, Officer Ronald H. LaMorte, testified and identified Armanentos as the driver involved in the accident.
- Sotomayor remained silent and did not correct the record when the court noted the officer's identification of Armanentos as the defendant.
- After the State rested its case, Sotomayor called Armanentos as a witness, at which point the substitution was revealed to the court for the first time.
Procedural Posture:
- During a traffic trial, the Du Page County circuit court (trial court) found defense attorney David Sotomayor in direct criminal contempt of court.
- The trial court imposed a fine of $500.
- Sotomayor's motion to reconsider the contempt order was denied by the trial court.
- Sotomayor, as appellant, appealed the contempt finding to the Illinois Appellate Court.
- The appellate court affirmed the trial court's finding of direct criminal contempt but reduced the fine to $100.
- The Illinois Supreme Court granted appellant Sotomayor's petition for leave to appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a defense attorney's conduct of substituting a look-alike for the defendant at counsel's table without the court's permission or knowledge, thereby causing a misidentification, constitute direct criminal contempt of court?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Bilandic
Yes. A defense attorney's conduct of substituting a look-alike for the defendant at counsel's table without the court's permission constitutes direct criminal contempt. The contemptuous intent can be inferred from the conduct itself, which is calculated to embarrass, hinder, or obstruct the court in its administration of justice. Appellant's actions were not merely a good-faith test of identification but were calculated to cause a misidentification and deceive the court. This intent was evident from commissioning a look-alike, responding negatively when the clerk asked if the 'defendant' would be sworn, and most importantly, failing to correct the court when it noted the erroneous identification for the record. An attorney's duty of zealous advocacy does not permit deception; there were non-deceptive alternatives, such as an in-court lineup, that could have been used with the court's permission. The attorney's primary duty as an officer of the court requires a 'full and frank disclosure of all matters and facts which the court ought to know,' including the defendant's true identity.
Dissenting - Justice Nickels
No. The attorney's conduct was a good-faith attempt to protect his client from a suggestive in-court identification and did not possess the requisite intent to hinder or obstruct the administration of justice. The power to punish for direct criminal contempt is susceptible to abuse and should be exercised with extreme caution, giving latitude to attorneys acting on behalf of their clients. The trial court's finding of contempt was improperly based on inferences and presumptions, not on specific acts 'seen and known by the court.' The attorney did not make an express misrepresentation, acted respectfully, and promptly disclosed the substitution after the State's witness testified. A defense attorney has no obligation to assist the State in securing an identification, and the brief silence was necessary to effectuate the identification test. This conduct did not rise to the level of a contumacious design and should not be punished as contempt.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a bright-line rule in Illinois prohibiting defense attorneys from unilaterally using a decoy at counsel's table without the court's permission. It clarifies the hierarchy of an attorney's duties, prioritizing the duty of candor to the tribunal over zealous advocacy when the latter involves deceptive tactics. The ruling significantly curtails a defense attorney's ability to independently stage an identification test, requiring judicial oversight for such procedures. It reinforces that an attorney's role as an 'officer of the court' includes an affirmative duty to prevent the court from being misled on fundamental matters like the identity of the parties.
Unlock the full brief for People v. Simac