We do not agree, however, that the fact that Officer Schultz waited some 40 hours before telling Lieutenant Kozenczak of the odor he detected while in defendant's home automatically invalidated the probative value of this evidence. In reviewing the sufficiency of the complaint we are guided by the Supreme Court's statement in Spinelli v. United States (1969), 393 U.S. 410, 21 L. Ed. Dr. Tobias *67 Brocher, a neurologist and a psychiatrist, agreed with Dr. Rappaport's theory that parts of defendant "split off" and he projected these bad parts onto his victims, and then destroyed the victims, believing he was doing a service to society by ridding it of "human trash." In the first example of the revised questioning used by the circuit court of which defendant now complains, when the voir dire of this juror was completed, defense counsel was asked if he had any further questions and responded that he did not. There is little conflict in the evidence, and the question presented was what inference could appropriately be drawn therefrom. During his testimony, Rignall said there was a third person in the house during his torture. Because of the number of issues and because one of the contentions is that the People failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant was sane at the time of the alleged offenses, a review of the evidence is necessary. From the context of the statements, we find that the assistant State's Attorney was merely arguing that the People *98 had proved their case, and were entitled to a decision in their favor. He said, "You're just in time for the late show" and turned on a projector and showed a "gay" pornographic film on the wall of the room. 674, 678-79, 54 S. Ct. 330, 332-33.) [1] Trial counsel stipulated to the admission at the sentencing hearing of all the evidence presented at trial. RIgnall went to the police and was not successful getting them to do anything. Defendant had confessed *93 that he had picked up one of the young men whose body was found in the river at Clark and Lawrence in Chicago, one block from where O'Rourke and his transsexual lover were living. Defendant concedes that it is proper, under certain circumstances, to consider prior arrests and convictions of a suspect in determining whether probable cause exists. Dr. Richard Ney, a psychologist, was called to interpret the data contained in the survey and the material gathered from the press and electronic media. Defendant has cited no instance of failure to excuse for cause a prospective juror with a preconceived opinion but contends that the circuit court did not question the prospective jurors sufficiently to discover such opinions. Defendant contends that the People failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant was sane at the time of the alleged offenses. In view of the fact that the jury was instructed correctly as to the law on this point four separate times, all of the written instructions being correct, we fail to see how the jury was left with a mistaken interpretation of the law, or that it was confused on this point. Thats why he wanted to catch him.. We *107 also note that the examination of the history, background and mental state of defendant was quite thorough at trial, and that the information derived therefrom substantially fulfills the requirements (Ill. Rev. In Kubat, the court upheld a sentence of death although the jury had been given conflicting written instructions on the precise issue involved here. Dr. Leonard Heston, currently Professor of Clinical Psychiatry at the University of Minnesota, testified that while at the University of Iowa he examined defendant in 1968 pursuant to court order issued on a joint application of defendant and the State of Iowa. Rignall wrote a book called "29 Below: about his torture by Gacy and the aftermath. Defendant next complains that his trial counsel was incompetent for failing to present any evidence on the statutory mitigating factor of extreme mental or emotional disturbance. He diagnosed defendant as having borderline schizophrenia or borderline personality. We have rejected defendant's contention, and the applicability of Henry thereto in People v. Davis (1983), 95 Ill. 2d 1, 38, and in People v. Free (1983), 94 Ill. 2d 378, 427, and decline to reconsider it here. Here, however, the inference which the assistant State's Attorney was asking the jury to draw was that defendant's consultation with his attorneys prior to making statements to police concerning multiple personalities supported the experts' conclusions that defendant was attempting to fake an insanity defense. That was part of the projective identification that I was explaining before." Dr. Freedman explained that during the homosexual encounters with his victims, he projected his own anxieties about himself onto his victims, thinking that they, and not he, were "trash." After *51 a brief conversation, he and defendant engaged in sex for which defendant paid Ried. They began with the frequently emotional accounts of relatives and friends of some of the victims. 38, par. Defendant told Finder that he usually killed his victims for one of two reasons: because the victim demanded more money than originally agreed upon or because they posed a threat to him by exposing his sexual preferences to his neighbors. While police didnt seem to think the situation was that serious, Rignall felt in his gut that it was. Defendant described the killing of John Butkavitch, and stated that since Butkavitch threatened to kill him if he was released from his handcuffs, he killed Butkavitch instead. Tag: jeffrey rignall testimony transcript. We cannot agree. See People v. Gill (1973), 54 Ill. 2d 357, 364-65. Moreover, the evidence concerning Piest's activities in school and outside of school was relevant to defendant's statement to Officer Bettiker that Piest stated he would do almost anything for a great deal of money and the suggestion of a possible exchange of money for sex acts involved in the Piest murder. Despite this, defense counsel asked Dr. Cavanaugh whether defendant, if he were acquitted, could be civilly committed. Justice Jackson's observation that "any lawyer worth his salt will tell the suspect in no uncertain terms to make no statement to police under any circumstances" (Watts v. Indiana (1949), 338 U.S. 49, 59, 93 L. Ed. During the People's case in rebuttal, the following colloquy occurred: Defendant concedes that an objection was sustained, but that the damage to the defendant is so great that the error cannot be considered harmless. We have rejected this contention (People v. Brownell (1980), 79 Ill. 2d 508, 541-44) and will not reconsider it here. When asked how to reconcile the fact that the last five bodies were thrown into the Des Plaines River with his theory that the dead bodies were "love objects," Dr. Rappaport conceded that this was difficult to explain, but that there would be some explanation that he had not yet come to understand. The inventory of the items seized listed 57 objects, only one of which, the blue jacket, was listed in the warrant. He was never again seen alive. A common sense reading of the complaint would indicate that Lieutenant Kozenczak received his information from *23 Kim Byers, Robert Piest's fellow employee, and Mrs. Elizabeth Piest, his mother. Edward Lynch, a classmate of Donald Vorhees, testified that while he was at defendant's house in Iowa defendant threatened him with a carving knife and forced him into his bedroom. Fourth, defendant argues that the assistant State's Attorney improperly implied that the success of defendant's expert witnesses' private practices depended upon finding defendants insane where there was no evidence to support this implication. Defendant has also complained that he should have been allowed to hear in person why the court imposed natural life sentences upon him and also to witness the summary denial of his motion for a new trial. We find it unnecessary to address these contentions. Defense counsel insisted that the jury could draw an inference from the prosecutor's question that Dr. Rappaport had violated the court's order forbidding attorneys, experts and other parties from talking to the press about the case. The record reveals, however, that defense counsel only requested that the court ask the prospective jurors what they knew of other jurors' opinions about the case. Jeffrey Rignall testified that one night when he was walking to a local bar, defendant offered him a ride. In People v. Cravens (1941), 375 Ill. 495, the trial court was given information after a trial that one of the jurors, who had become foreman of the jury, knew the defendant previously and had already concluded that he was guilty. Defendant's next objection to the circuit court's questioning of prospective jurors concerns the insanity defense. Defendant cites United States ex rel. On further redirect examination, Dr. Eliseo was allowed to answer, in narrative form, the question: "Would you explain exactly how you came to the decision or opinion that the condition of paranoid schizophrenia existed for the last six, eight years?". Defendant next argues that the People's cross-examination of Dr. Rappaport was improper. She also testified to an incident where defendant was coming out of anesthesia and began thrashing around with "the strength of ten men." (Gannett Co. v. DePasquale (1979), 443 U.S. 368, 382, 61 L. Ed. It had been expected that Rignall would testify as a prosecution witness, but for tactical reasons . On this record the instruction was sufficient to render harmless any effect which the testimony may have caused, and we find no error which warrants reversal. Defendant's sister stated that she once found silk underpants in defendant's bed, and that when she was five or six years old, defendant had taken his mother's underwear and put it underneath the porch. No objection was made to this argument, and the issue is therefore waived. Although no objections were made at trial to the admission of these confessions, defendant argues that the plain error rule should be invoked or, alternatively, that the failure to object is evidence of the incompetency of counsel. Thus, on these facts we cannot say that the court abused its discretion by choosing to personally interrogate the jurors. At the time of his confession, the driveway was still intact. The contention that the circuit court was constitutionally mandated to provide funds for a study which would have "included a determination of the attitudes on the issues of sexual preference, deviant behavior, and the insanity defense" of the five major counties in Illinois is untenable. The defense theory was that defendant was able to function well in society except when stress levels rose so high that he experienced something akin to a psychotic episode and that defendant was fit to stand trial was consistent with his defense. 2d 637, 645, 89 S. Ct. 584, 590-91.) Ried grabbed defendant's arm and asked him what he was doing. Defendant points out that the complaint stated only that Lieutenant Kozenczak had received this information on December 11, 1978, but does not indicate on what date Piest was last seen at the drugstore. Defendant next contends that his trial counsel was incompetent since he failed to present other mitigating evidence. Not only did defendant fail to object to the use of these statements, he stipulated to their use and, at least in part, relied on them in arguing that his mental defect constituted a factor in mitigation which should preclude the death penalty. Defendant has also argued that the use of the term "extreme" renders the statute unconstitutional as it improperly limits the jury's consideration of any level of mental or emotional disturbance as a mitigating factor. While defendant asserts in his reply brief that "borderline personality" is only a new label for a diagnosis which has existed for a long time, and Dr. Hartman could have explained this, we are of the opinion that the objection to the form of the question was properly sustained. While there may be instances where such evidence is relevant, we fail to see its relevance here. 9-1), the jury found that one or more of the factors set forth in section 9-1(d) existed, and found that there were no mitigating factors sufficient to preclude a sentence of death. Rossi testified that defendant was not a heavy drinker, that he complained of his health often, told Rossi that he had leukemia and once experienced something that appeared to be a heart attack, but that his health never prevented his getting his work finished. This issue was waived. Because we have already determined that the prior searches were not illegal, this argument must fail. David Cram worked for defendant and moved in with him after defendant was divorced from his second wife. Moreover, we agree with defendant that the prejudicial nature of this information was compounded by reference to it in closing argument. It is not contended here that any of the prospective jurors deceived the court, but only that more information should have been obtained concerning their opinions of the case. As before, we will not question what appears *96 to be, on these facts, a tactical decision. The People did not argue that Mr. Amirante concocted the multiple-personality defect and told defendant to use it. Facebook. At that time he was diagnosed as having antisocial personality. When asked on cross-examination whether defendant was indistinct or contradictory, Dr. Reifman replied: "He tries to obfuscate, or tries to present a picture that is not clear." Defendant argues that any other interpretation would make the phrase "premeditated acts" meaningless and superfluous. (Ill. Rev. Rignall was a witness for the defense after all, and they definitely would've cross-examined Rossi (who was a witness for the prosecutors). 9, had an incised area on the upper portion of the fifth rib and two incised areas on the left lateral of the sternum which were consistent with stab wounds. Defendant contends next that the circuit court did not adequately question the prospective jurors concerning their attitude toward homosexuality. Jeffrey eventually passed away in 2000 at 49 years old. The evidence established that defendant offered his wife to adolescent boys in exchange for oral sex. I will be good." Was this information acquired through firsthand or personal knowledge of the informant?" We see no additional purpose to be served by a formal presentence investigation report under the facts of this case. We cannot agree. Oxygen correspondent Stephanie Gomulka contributed to this report. Third, defendant complains because he was not allowed to ask Dr. Hartman: We agree with the People that his question was vague and ambiguous. Now, Peacocks new docuseries, John Wayne Gacy: Devil in Disguise,shows how, in the face of trauma and the deeply entrenched societal homophobia of the 1970s, Rignall made it his mission to find Gacy and keep him from hurting anybody else. If defendant had revealed to his attorneys any details whatsoever concerning the 33 murders, defendant's attorneys were aware that some 27 or so bodies were buried in the crawl space and in other parts of defendant's home and that the police were on the verge of uncovering these bodies. On re-cross-examination, the following colloquy occurred: The objection was sustained and the court instructed the jury: The People argue that this was proper impeachment because the jury could have inferred that what "no one doubted" was that Dr. Freedman was correct in his opinion concerning whether Simon Peter Nelson was legally sane or not, and not whether he was with Nelson when he had a recurrence of his psychotic episode. After the attack, Gacy dumped Rignall off in a spot not far from where hed first picked him up. Defendant offered Donnelly a drink, and when Donnelly refused, defendant threw the drink in his face. In the course of the investigation defendant admitted that he had killed approximately 30 individuals, some buried in the crawl space under his home and five thrown into the Des Plaines River. Defendant contends that the jury was confused as to the requirements of the mitigating factor as differentiated from the defense of insanity and that this was evidenced by the confusion shown by the attorneys in their arguments in the death penalty hearing. The proposal was submitted by the National Jury Project and explained in detail the purpose of the survey and the manner in which it was to be conducted. While Dr. Ney indicated that people in Illinois might relate to the crime to some degree because of the jurisdictional boundaries of Illinois, more so than, say, a citizen of Montana, it must be kept in mind that the case had to be tried in some community in the State of Illinois. It should be noted that in each of the other references to the record that defendant contends show insufficient questioning on this matter, defendant was given an opportunity to suggest further questions when the court had completed its interrogation, and failed to do so. You're all set! In light of defense counsel's able representation of defendant throughout the trial proceedings, we reject the contention, made by appellate counsel, that trial counsel "abandoned [defendant] and rendered ineffective assistance of counsel * * *.". Other witnesses testified that defendant was boastful but not antisocial, that he was not a heavy drinker, and that he often had complained of physical ailments which did not appear to exist. Defendant admitted to some 1,500 homosexual relationships. The assistant State's Attorney repeatedly stated the proper test, and the jury was not misled by this one statement. He diagnosed defendant as having an antisocial personality. Sadness over twenty minutes past and neta. We agree with the People that the defendant's request was, in effect, an attempt to substitute public opinion polls for *44 the process of voir dire. Qu'est-il arriv Jeffrey Rignall ? In People v. Lewis (1981), 88 Ill. 2d 129, the defendant advanced similar arguments, contending that a second jury would not have preconceived notions that the death penalty should be imposed. She said defendant was a gentle lover, but that throughout the marriage they had increasingly less sex, until one day defendant stated that this would be the last day that they had sex together. He stated that he did not believe that there was not a psychoanalytic answer *59 for the 33 murders committed by defendant. Defendant complains of the questioning of Mrs. Loudenback, a prospective juror, but the record shows that after she was questioned by the court, the court inquired if there were further questions and defense counsel replied that he had "no more questions." Defendant relies upon Henry v. Wainwright (5th Cir.1981), 661 F.2d 56, vacated and remanded (1982), 457 U.S. 1114, 73 L. Ed. Additionally, we also fail to see the relevance in the evidence of the victims' surviving siblings or that Piest wanted to make Eagle Scout "badly" and similar information. Defendant asserts that defense counsel were required to bring out defendant's statements in cross-examination *73 of the People's experts because they "had to keep in mind that the judge had repeatedly ruled that the State experts could refer to statements made by the defendant to justify their conclusions." We also note that the inference may be drawn that defendant's prior imprisonment had failed to deter him from committing further crimes. ", The circuit court's first application of its ruling that defendant's experts could not testify to "self-serving" statements made by defendant occurred during the testimony of Dr. Eliseo. We are not concerned, as was the court in Aguilar, with the reliability of an unnamed informant because it is readily apparent from the affidavit from whom the hearsay information contained in the complaint was obtained. The cost of the venue evaluation was estimated at approximately $38,000, although confining the survey to a limited number of counties and applying other cost-cutting measures could have reduced the budget. Defendant's presence, however, was not necessary for a correction of the record. Photos taken at the time show chloroform burns all over his face. He was bleeding, sick, and covered in rope burns. We also note that no questions concerning the death penalty appear in defense counsel's list of questions submitted to the circuit court prior to voir dire. (Ill. Rev. She testified that her husband was very critical of defendant and never showed any affection towards him. By JUAN A. LOZANO April 21, 2023. Ivan Cantu had been condemned for the . On these facts we cannot see how defendant was prejudiced in this regard. Every time he would come to, he saw a person with "light hair parted in the middle," and at one . The more articles and news reports disseminated in a particular location, the more likely that area's inhabitants would recall the event. We note first that defendant did not exhaust the peremptory challenges that he was given. Their father would come home from work, lock himself in the basement, and drink. The record shows that defendant was in continuous contact with his attorneys during the days prior to his arrest and that on the *29 night before his arrest he had told his attorneys that he was responsible for 33 murders. On redirect examination, Dr. Freedman stated that he gave an opinion in that case because he was with Mr. Nelson and saw "a total reenactment under my eyes of a dissociated state by psychotic episode in which this man killed his *79 beloved six children * * *." Also, because of the prejudicial nature of the articles printed in Cook County, such as the articles associating defendant's trial counsel as one who sets killers free, prospective Cook County jurors were more likely to have *42 prejudicial preconceived ideas about defendant's cause. jeffrey rignall testimony transcript Mon - Sat: 7.00 - 17:00. jeffrey rignall testimony transcript panikos_loizou@cytanet.com.cy. Anna Watts for The New York Times. Defendant, in his reply brief, asserts that he never abandoned his claim of innocence because "at jury selection and at the time of jury instructions the jury was informed that there were two issues to be resolved: guilt and sanity." Defendant told him that he had some doctors that "were on his side," and that he thought he would go free. Oxygen Insider is your all-access pass to never-before-seen content, free digital evidence kits, and much more. Despite all the physical evidence that he had been badly assaulted, the police didnt seem to take Rignalls account very seriously when they interviewed him in the hospital. Because defendant repeatedly passed out at school, he was told by Dr. John Cavanaugh that he should be sent to Cook County Hospital for psychiatric evaluation. We decline to reconsider that decision on the basis of defendant's argument here. The record is replete with examples of defendant's experts explaining the bases of their determinations although not quoting verbatim his statements. The T-shirt and pants are even described as to the manufacturer "Levi." The employee showed Lucas the bag, and Lucas immediately turned the bag over to one of the policemen on the surveillance unit who was standing within 10 to 15 feet of them. Defendant also complains *85 that Mary Jo Melanie Paulus had testified with a brace on her neck despite defendant's offer to stipulate to her testimony. As in the prior argument where defendant contends that psychiatric testimony could have been repeated at the sentencing hearing, trial counsel may also have made the tactical choice not to repeat the suggested mitigating evidence of such matters as his family relationships and civic work which were already presented at trial. Defects in a presentence investigation report may be waived (People v. Godinez (1982), 91 Ill. 2d 47, 56-57; People v. Meeks (1980), 81 Ill. 2d 524, 533-34), and no objection was raised when the court proceeded to immediate sentencing on all the charges. Jeffrey eventually passed away in 2000 at 49 years old. When Donnelly again regained consciousness, defendant picked him up from the bathroom floor and brought him back into the room with the bar. Defendant called two witnesses who described defendant's assaults upon them. farmers arms for sale; symptoms of flea collar poisoning in humans. Nine months after Rignall was attacked, Gacy was arrested. Dr. Freedman also interviewed defendant's younger sister and his mother and spoke with the interviewers who were attempting to contact defendant's friends and neighbors. Again, in both these areas the impact in Cook County was much greater than in the other counties of the State. Mementos of jeffrey rignall testimony transcript of human legs were subscribers to the changing evaluations of peter the famous essays on the pharmacy. The People respond that since no sentence was imposed on either charge the issue is moot. Since we have held to the contrary, we need not address these issues. After the movie, defendant stuck his foot in Donnelly's stomach, put a gun to Donnelly's head, and played "Russian roulette." Defense counsel asked if he actually witnessed this, and Dr. Freedman replied: "I have, the tape which I have played to many experts, and no one doubts * * *." The question specifically asked if Dr. Hartman had diagnosed anyone in the last 28 years as "borderline." Several of the life and death witnesses *46 testified that the victims were not homosexuals, but had steady girl friends, had just begun to date girls, or had plans to marry. When questioned concerning Dr. Brocher's diagnosis, Dr. Fawcett explained why he disagreed with that diagnosis, and also explained that even if this diagnostic evaluation were to be accepted, there still was no causal relationship between his diagnostic theory and any possible inability of defendant to either appreciate the criminality of his conduct or conform his conduct to the requirements of law. Dr. Rappaport explained that he had not contacted the news media nor did he know of anyone who had. Defendant had no right to be tried in the county which was most likely to be favorably disposed to defendant and his theory of defense. Dr. Rappaport testified that he administered sodium amytal to defendant to induce a deep hypnotic condition. Defendant may have been a good husband and stepfather to his second wife and her children, but the evidence concerning his former marriage is anything but mitigating. However, for the reasons set forth in my separate opinions in People v. Lewis (1981), 88 Ill. 2d 129, 179 (Simon, J., dissenting), and in People v. Silagy (1984), 101 Ill. 2d 147, 184 (Simon, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part), I believe that the Illinois death penalty statute is unconstitutional and that the death sentence should be vacated. Our review of *33 the instances cited by defendant shows that with every prospective juror defendant had the opportunity to tender specific questions and failed to do so. Defendant's next disagreement with the court's questioning concerns the prospective jurors' opinions as to defendant's guilt. The second effect was the "halo" effect, or the concept that the manner in which information is presented could affect the reader's understanding *41 of that information's content. Moreover, considering the enormous amount of evidence establishing aggravating factors against defendant, we cannot say that these convictions, even if improper, deprived defendant of a fair sentencing hearing. 2d 697, 708, 80 S. Ct. 725, 735-36]." Defendant cites four factors that allegedly demonstrate the low level of his representation. Citing People v. Steptore (1972), 51 Ill. 2d 208, 216, and People v. Pfanschmidt (1914), 262 Ill. 411, defendant argues that a witness may not be impeached on a collateral matter and that "the test of collateralness is whether the fact for which the testimony is offered in contradiction of a witness' testimony could have been shown in evidence for any purpose independent of the alleged contradiction." Defendant argues that the evidence obtained as a result of the searches executed pursuant to the final three warrants must be suppressed as fruits of the prior illegal searches. Mais ds que Jeffrey a pris quelques bouffes, il a senti un coup . The doctor performing the autopsy listed the cause of death as "apparent drowning." He then moved behind Lynch, forced him onto a nearby mattress, and choked him until he stopped moving. We need not address the argument whether the jury was required to accept that the collective expert testimony in this case established that defendant was suffering from an extreme mental or emotional disturbance. No objection was made to this argument, so it too is waived. Trial counsel, however, chose not to recall any of the expert witnesses, but by using their previous testimony, which had been admitted by stipulation in the sentencing hearing, argued to the jury that the previous expert testimony was sufficient to show this mitigating factor. Get an all-access pass to never-before-seen content, free digital evidence kits, and much more! In the context in which it was made, and on this record, we hold that the error in failing to sustain the objection to the remarks of the assistant State's Attorney was harmless. She stated that defendant never hid the fact that he was bisexual. On redirect examination Dr. Traisman stated that because of defendant's paranoid schizophrenia, he had a minimal amount of control over his actions and that his disease "is related to the acting out and loss of control * * *.".