STATE OF ILLINOIS

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE 17TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

WINNEBAGO COUNTY

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE

VvVVVVVv
OF ILLINOIS,

vs. NO. 20l4-CF—922

RICHARD WANKE, STATUS

Defendant. C O P V

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS at the hearing in the

10 above—entitled matter before the Honorable Rosemary

ll Collins, Judge of said Court, heard on Thursday, the 13th

12 of October, 2016.

l3 APPEARANCES:

l4 MS. MARILYN HITE ROSS,

Winnebago County State's Attorney,
l5 Chief of the Criminal Bureau,
appeared on behalf of the People;
l6
MR. JAMES BRUN,
17 Winnebago County Deputy State‘s Attorney,
Criminal Bureau,
18 appeared on behalf of the People;

19 MS. PAMELA WELLS,

Winnebago County Assistant Deputy State's Attorney,
20 appeared on behalf of the People;

21 MR. NICK ZIMMERMAN,

Winnebago County First Public Defender,
22 appeared on behalf of the Defendant;

23 MR. ROBERT SIMMONS,

Winnebago County Assistant Public Defender,
24 appeared on behalf of the Defendant.

Brittyn Higdon, CSR, RPR

Official Court Reporter
CSR License #084—004810
 THE CLERK: Number 6, People vs. Richard Wanke.

THE COURT: Good afternoon, Mr. Wanke.

THE DEFENDANT: Say it again, your Honor.

THE COURT: Good afternoon. Good afternoon. Let's

try it again. Can you hear me now?

THE DEFENDANT: NO.

THE COURT: I feel like that TV commercial. Nothing

yet?

THE DEFENDANT: Yeah. Okay.

10 THE COURT: It's all turned on, so

11 THE DEFENDANT: That microphone —— which microphone

12 do you speak into?

13 THE COURT: That one, this one here.

14 THE DEFENDANT: That one's not working.

15 THE COURT: It should be. Can you hear me?

16 THE DEFENDANT: I can hear you through ambient

17 noise, probably through those microphones that are on the

18 podium or something, but I can‘t hear you directly.

19 THE COURT: We'll see that if helps. Does that

20 help?

21 THE DEFENDANT: Yes.

22 THE COURT: All right.

23 THE DEFENDANT: Thank you.

24 THE COURT: I have two microphones now. All right.

Brittyn Higdon, CSR, RPR

Official Court Reporter
CSR License #084—004810
 So, Mr. Wanke, prior to your being brought into

the courtroom, we had a scheduling conference where we

have to talk about issues relating to the trial itself

that aren't substantive issues and so we talk about them

outside of your presence and we did do that today. So we

are ready to get started at this time.

I also want to tell the attorneys I have

received a return on subpoena that was issued from WTVO.

WTVO is always —— I think their regular course of

10 procedure is to call the administrative office or to

11 e—mail the administrative office and ask if they can send

12 it instead of delivering it in person. That's what they

13 did. They sent the scripts over. They also attached an

14 eumail that say they're attaching the scripts of the

15 stories that they did.

16 They indicate in this e—mail, "We weren't

17 archiving video on to DVDs at the time of these stories

18 ran, so the video is not readily available." So they do

19 not have the videos readily available and they also sent

20 a copy of this to Katie Zimmerman who's in the State's

21 Attorney's Office, I believe, because they're used to

22 communicating with her over cases that are involving

23 publicity and issues regarding that.

24 Mr. Jakeway did give this to me this morning. I

Brittyn Higdon, CSR, RPR

Official Court Reporter
CSR License #084-004810
 told him that they should not be communicating with Katie

Zimmerman in respect to an attorney on subpoena and they

indicated they would follow that in the future. So this

will be turned over to the State to be turned over to the

defense.

MR. ZIMMERMAN: Your Honor?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. ZIMMERMAN: I also had a subpoena duces tecum

returnable for today. I presume since you didn't mention

10 it that you don't have any other ——

ll THE COURT: Who's it from?

12 MR. ZIMMERMAN: It's from the sheriff's department.

13 Deputy Juanez.

14 THE COURT: I've got nothing.

15 MR. ZIMMERMAN: The note I have, the return of

16 service indicates that he was just served Tuesday. So

17 I'll contact him and see if maybe he didn't have time to

18 prepare a response.

19 THE COURT: I'll have Jamie double check too. He'll

20 do that now and double check.

21 While he‘s doing that, we do have a spectator in

22 the courtroom. Sir, would you please state your name.

23 MR. WORBOYS: My name is Charles Worboys.

24 THE COURT: I'm sorry. I didn't hear your last

Srittyn Higdon, CSR, RPR

. rial Court Reporter
CSR License #034—004810
 name, Charles.

MR. WORBOYS: My last name's Worboys, W-o-r—b—o—y—s.

THE COURT: W—o—r—b—o—y—s.

MR. WORBOYS: Correct.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, sir. Are you

listed as a witness in this case?

MR. WORBOYS: I am not.

THE COURT: Okay. We have a rule here that no

witnesses are allowed to be present. That's to prevent

10 witnesses from finding out some things before their

ll testimony that might influence their testimony. That

12 also includes communicating with the witness. So you may

13 not communicate with potential witnesses to tell them

14 what is said here in open court or what you think the

15 testimony's going to be. Are you willing to follow that

16 order?

17 MR. WORBOYS: Yes, I am.

18 THE COURT: If it's a problem for you, I understand,

19 but then we just ask that you remain outside. So —— but

20 if you're willing to follow that order, then I'm fine

21 with you staying here.

22 In particular, I know you've been here in the

23 past with an individual named Diane Chavez. So you will

24 not be able to communicate with Ms. Chavez to tell her

Erittyn Higdon, CSR, RPR

Official Court Reporter
CSR License #084-004810
 what's happening in court regarding testimony. Are you

willing to abide by that?

MR. WORBOYS: Yes, I am.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you, sir.

All right. We're here then for argument on

the —— well, the defense has filed a brief in response to

the State's amended 27th, 33rd and 34th motion in limine.

Defense was going —— or the State was going to file a

written motion in limine, amended motion in limine 8, I

10 believe it was. So, but you need some additional time to

ll do that?

12 MS. HITE ROSS: Judge, I'm getting mixed stories

13 from my staff and the staff that filed it is off this

14 week, but I'm told that it was filed last week. It's not

15 showing up scanned.

16 THE COURT: Just check it next week.

17 MS. HITE ROSS: So we w ill check it, Judge.

18 THE COURT: It's —-

19 MS. HITE ROSS: It's --

20 THE COURT: We have time. We can check it. I just

21 wanted to, for housekeeping, just wanted to see if you

22 had it and we could do it today, but

23 MS. HITE ROSS: Yes. Because I prepared it the same

24 day, I believe, or even the following day when it was

Brittyn Higdon, CSR, RPR

Official Co urt Reporter
CSR License #084—004810
 addressed orally and we each signed it and we were told

that it was filed and a copy was to be sent to the

defense. They've said they've not gotten a copy. I was

looking this morning on staff desks to see if it might

still be there and I haven't been able to locate it

still.

THE COURT: Yeah. It still hasn't been received by

the clerk's office either. So we'll track it down or

you'll track it down ——

10 MS. HITE ROSS: Yes, Judge.

ll THE COURT: -— next week. That'll be fine.

12 So I will also notify then the defense and the

l3 State at this time that we have not received a return on

14 your subpoena. My bailiff did just go and check and

15 nothing's been received. So find out about that.

16 I know we have court dates next week, don't we?

17 Do we have any dates next week?

18 MS. HITE ROSS: The 20th. We have the 20th, your

19 Honor, at 1:30.

20 MR. ZIMMERMAN: Next Wednesday.

21 THE COURT: All right. Yeah. The 20th at 1:30.

22 Great.

23 MR. ZIMMERMAN: I'm sorry. Next Thursday.

24 THE COURT: Thursday. Perfect.

Brittyn Higdon, CSR, RPR

Official Court Reporter
CSR License fi084~004810
 And, if possible, the 21st in the afternoon. I

had that for some reason strangely open. Why is that?

THE BAILIFF: There's no trial now.

THE COURT: Oh, that's right. I have more free time

next week because my trial put out, so I do have more

time. So we'll look at that as we go through this.

All right. Defense, would you like to speak in

support of your brief which, frankly, was very well done

and I appreciated the footnotes and all.

10 MR. SIMMONS: Just briefly, your Honor, because I

11 think we have laid out everything we wanted to in the

12 brief. What we think is important for the Court and its

13 analysis of the State's motion, we felt that a lot of the

14 statements from the various court dates were being lumped

15 together and, frankly, we don't think they should have

16 been. So we tried to separate out by each court date and

l7 what actually occurred on each court date.

l8 And I think it's important to note that on the

19 March 14th, 2007, court date as well as the May 7th,

20 2007, court date that the State has asked to have

21 statements from, I think the nature of the transcripts,

22 what transpired in court both those days is Attorney

23 Clark is on the first court date on his own asking to

24 withdraw and stating the basis for his motion to withdraw

Hrittyn Higdon, CSR, RPR

of 2 L :ial Cour: Rep-Crier
CSR License #084-004810
 which we acknowledge are communication issues on his

behalf.

We don't think on that court date Mr. Wanke made

any claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. He

didn't on his own, therefore, open any sort of doors to

waiving the privilege. He did answer questions from the

Court and we're not sure Mr. Wanke was in a position not

to answer direct questions from the Court once asked, but

we don't think that he waived any privilege on those days

10 and we do think it's important to note that it was

ll Attorney Clark who brought the issues up.

l2 Second, on the May 7th date we think the same

13 thing occurred. Attorney Clark joined in the State's

14 motion to continue which evolved into Attorney Clark

15 renewing orally his motion to withdraw for the same

16 reasons, that being the lack of communication.

17 Some of this we've heard through other

18 statements of other witnesses that Attorney Clark thought

19 there was a problem with defendant Wanke's defense of

20 that case or proposed alibi defense. He clearly had some

21 problems, based on what the State has put forth through

22 Mr. Henbest, that he had some concerns about how ethical

23 the defense would be to present and he's asked to

24 withdraw.

Brittyn Higdon, CSR, RPR

Official Court Reporter
CSR License #084—004810
 10

What he characterizes as communication issues,

we think, rather was his, he was not comfortable with the

defense because on the May 7th date he had answered ready

for trial. He had disclosed the defense, but then comes

to court and explains that he doesn't, that he's had zero

communication about case strategy, trial strategy. And

that just isn't —— can't be accurate. He filed an alibi

defense. He had filed evidence in support of that or,

excuse me, disclosed evidence in support of that alibi

10 defense. He disclosed witnesses.

11 So he had had some conversations about trial

12 strategy. We think he may not have been comfortable with

13 it. He may not, maybe he didn't think it was a good

14 defense. Frankly, we don't know. But what he

15 represented to the Court we don't think is demonstrated

16 or supported by what took place prior to trial in that

17 case and the fact that he did eventually put forward that

18 defense.

19 So the times Mr. Clark is, or Attorney Clark is

20 discussing the lack of communication we're not sure that

21 that's even accurately supported by what took place.

22 We'd ask the Court to consider that because he did, the

23 defense, he did want that was put forward or, excuse me,

24 explained by defendant Wanke to his attorney was the one

Brittyn Higdon, CSR, RPR

Official Court Reporter
CSR License #084—004810
 11

that was put forward and it appears based on the filings

in that case, that Attorney Clark was aware of it and

took steps to present that defense.

And then November 7th we acknowledge is

different. On that date Mr. Wanke clearly alleges

ineffective assistance of counsel. It's included in the

post—trial motion. And then we think that that court

date is similar to all the subsequent filings to the

higher courts.

10 Our stance on that is that when a client alleges

11 ineffective assistance of counsel, they're actually

12 trying to uphold one of their constitutional rights and

13 that any waiver of that attorney/client privilege is

l4 limited to the purpose of litigating that claim. It's

l5 not a waiver for all time and it's not a waiver for any

l6 other purpose which it could be used; and we think that

17 cases we have cited to support that.

18 So regardless of what Mr. Wanke said in court on

19 the 7th or any of his filings to subsequent courts, we

20 don't think that the waiver would be so broad as to be

21 allowed to be used against him at a later proceeding.

22 And that definitely applies to all the things Mr. Wanke

23 said or filed himself.

24 As far as what the appellate attorney filed on

Brittyn Higdon, CSR, RPR

Official Court Reporter
CSR License ##084~[)O4820
 12

his behalf, I think it was Ms. Silvern (phonetic), we

would just proffer that we communicated with Ms. Silvern.

And it's the appellate court practice or appellate

defender's practice, I guess, is that they choose which

issues they put forward and the client really doesn't

have input as to what they're going to put forward into

their briefs and what they're going to try to put forth

before the appellate court.

So we don't think that has a lot of relevance in

10 this —— what Ms. Silvern chose to appeal from Mr. Wanke's

11 trial court case because his personal input was not taken

12 into consideration. She could only choose from the

13 issues that were preserved at the trial court. However,

14 what she put forth in her own brief, we don't think, if

15 she was called to testify, she'd say Mr. Wanke had any

16 input on whatsoever.

17 The rest of our arguments as summarized in the

18 brief, I think, make a clear record as to our stance and

19 where we feel each of the issues should fall. Thank you.

20 If I could have one moment.

21 THE COURT: Mm-hmm.

22 (Discussion held off the record.)

23 MR. SIMMONS: Thank you, Judge.

24 THE COURT: All right. State?

Brittyn Higdon, CSH, RPR

Official Court Reporter
CSR License #084—004810
 13

MS. HITE ROSS: Well, Judge, first of all, we

believe that we delineated and segregated the various

statements sufficiently which is why we attached the

transcripts for the Court so that the Court could see all

of those statements in their appropriate context.

Also when defendant says —— I'll address the

appellate counsel issue. First of all, you have an

agency relationship which means specifically that

appellate court counsel acts as an extension of the

10 defendant and on behalf of the defendant and represents

11 defendant. So to argue that the defendant has no input

12 in what appellate counsel does, I don't think is true,

13 Judge.

14 I think appellate counsel is going to file the

15 appropriate response on appeal, but they have to have i

16 their client's input. They're not going to just do it [

17 without any input from their client. In fact, when you

18 look at the nature of the basic appeals even before a 1

19 trial court counsel has to file a 604(d) certificate. So

20 there's certain procedures as appellate counsel that they

21 would follow and one of those would be communicating with

22 their client who they are representing.

23 But more importantly, what appellate counsel ——

24 everything that appellate counsel refers to in their

Brittyn Higdon, CSR, RPR

Official Court Reporter
CSR License #084—004810
 14

brief, they're referring to what is in the trial court

record. And the theme throughout the trial court record

is that the defendant was alleging that Mr. Clark was

ineffective. And even though as counsel says Mr. Clark

presented a defense, presented evidence the defendant

wanted him to do, what is relevant here is the

defendant's thought processes.

Even though the Court found that Mr. Clark

should not be allowed to withdraw, that doesn't take away

10 from the fact that the defendant thought Mr. Clark was

ll ineffective. And it's very clear, as we've outlined in

12 our motions in limines, that when the defendant puts this

13 back in issue that that is an intentional waiver, and he

14 did put it in issue and the case law is clear that we've

15 given the Court.

16 Once that's put in issue, any communications

17 that bear on that direct issue also come into play and

18 the privilege is no longer there. And an attorney has a

19 right to respond and defend themself when they're accused

20 of inappropriate conduct or ineffective assistance of

21 counsel.

22 And in counsel's brief, he cites cases that

23 deals with motions to suppress statements, how the State

24 can't use the defendant's testimony. That is not a

Brittyn Higdon, CSR, RPR

Official Court Reporter
CSR License 83084—004810
 15

situation that we have here and I will point out that it

is absolutely distinguishable. What we have here is a

claim raised specifically by the defendant on his own

without any law enforcement involvement whatsoever that

he was dissatisfied with the services of his counsel.

And even in one of the transcripts you have

Judge Prochaska making an obvious observation which also

does not come into play with respect to the privilege

because observations in open court of a defendant and his

10 interaction with his attorney are not covered by a

ll privilege. But Judge Prochaska obviously made an

12 observation to the point where he comments and basically

13 tells the defendant to settle down.

14 In addition, we do know that Mr. Clark had

15 concerns about the evidence that the defendant wanted him

16 to present at trial because he spoke to Mr. Henbest about

17 it which he's allowed to under the rules of professional

18 conduct and he also references on the cassette tape, you

19 know. He talks about certain things he doesn't believe,

20 and I'm paraphrasing, to be credible.

21 So he did have some concerns even though in the

22 end he did put forward a defense for the defendant. He

23 obviously had concerns about it. Perhaps after

24 discussing that with Mr. Henbest he felt better about it.

Hriftyn Hidden, CSR, RPR

.,i_- quurt Reporter
CSR License #084-004810
 16

But he did have enough concern that he discussed it with

his partner as to whether or not he would be able to

comply with his ethical responsibilities and present

evidence that the defendant wanted him to present.

And so what we're looking at here, Judge, is

what was in the defendant's mind. The defendant's mind

and his state of mind has been throughout that

relationship with Mr. Clark is that he never felt

Mr. Clark had represented him appropriately. He filed

10 his own affidavits with the U.S. Supreme Court and

11 Illinois Supreme Court alleging that. These are

12 statements that he decided to make on his own. These are

13 allegations that he made, again, without any involvement

14 from law enforcement. So I think some of those cases in

15 the footnotes that defense counsel cites do not apply in

16 this particular case.

17 And, again, as we point out in our motions,

18 documentations that were sent by Mr. Clark or

19 communications from Mr. Clark to the defendant were the

2O subject of the issue in court when Mr. Clark was asking

21 that he be allowed to withdraw. And we've attached those

22 communications that were recovered from the defendant's

23 home in a bag we believe belonged to the defendant

24 pursuant to a search warrant.

Brittyn Higdon, CSR, RPR

Official Court Reporter

CSR License #084—004810
 17

There are more than one letter referring to "You

haven't responded to my prior communications." So even

though counsel argues that there was communication,

obviously Mr. Clark's position is that there was not

enough or sufficient communication as he indicated to the

Court when the Court inquired as to what the issue was.

And these statements should come in. We've

outlined our basis and our reasons and I won't go over

those. I know the Court has read those, but we would ask

10 that our motions be granted.

ll THE COURT: Okay. Anything else from the defense?

12 MR. SIMMONS: Yes, very briefly, your Honor.

13 Just, I guess so it's clear what we're —— why

14 we're asking for what we are asking for, when any client

15 in this context raises an ineffective claim, they're

16 challenging, they're stating that their right, their

17 constitutional right to effective representation of

18 counsel has not been awarded them.

19 And whenever a client challenges a

20 constitutional right, they're not forfeiting their right

21 to remain silent in doing so. And the case law on that

22 is clear and that's why the case I cited to is about a

23 motion to suppress. In that case the client's saying my

24 4th Amendment right was violated.

Brittyn Higdon, CSR, RPR

Official Court Reporter
CSR License #084~004810
 18

What the Court's have said is when you assert

yOur 4th Amendment right, you're not giving up your 5th

Amendment right. So if a client, defendant testifies at

a hearing in 4th Amendment issues, the State is precluded

from using that testimony in their case in chief.

Now, if a client testifies contrary to what, at

trial contrary to what he did at the hearing, sure,

that's available for impeachment, but it cannot be used

in the case in chief.

10 Similarly here Mr. Wanke attempted to assert his

11 6th Amendment right to effective representation of

12 counsel. His statements cannot be used against him later J

13 in any proceeding because —— and case law's clear, the

14 waiver of attorney/client privilege is only as broad as

15 is required to litigate the claim of effective

l6 representation of counsel or ineffective claim, excuse

17 me.

18 So if the trial court had called on Attorney

19 Clark to testify, had a full—blown hearing, yes, Attorney

20 Clark could have testified at that hearing about the

21 topics that defendant Wanke complained about.

22 In this case, I think it's clear, he held a

23 Krankel hearing where he didn't feel he needed, the trial

24 court did not feel he needed to hear from Attorney Clark

Brittyn Higdon, CSR, RPR

Official Court Reporter
CSR License #084-004810
 19

further based on his observations and the reasons Mr.

Wanke listed for his ineffective claim. So the issue

from our stance is done at that point and the

attorney/client privilege was not waived beyond that.

And so we don't think that Mr. Wanke's words

through his filings, through what he said in court that

day can be used against him. We think the case law on

that issue is pretty clear. Thank you.

THE COURT: All right. Did you submit the addendum

10 with the cases that you cited?

ll MR. SIMMONS: I did not, your Honor. I have them.

12 I can make copies today. Frankly, it was a lot to read

13 and so I didn't submit them unless the Court wanted them.

14 THE COURT: Yeah. Why don't you.

15 MR. SIMMONS: I will.

16 THE COURT: Okay. Alrighty. Anything else we need i

17 to do today? I think we're done with the arguments then

18 on the motions.

19 Okay. All right. So I think we're going to be

20 okay with just keeping it set for next Thursday at 1:30,

21 frankly. I think we're going to be able to finish this

22 up and keep your Friday, October let open in case we

23 need, and if I need to, I'll set it so you can say I have

24 something else set in case we need it, but I don't know

Brittyn Higdon, CSR, RPR

Official Court Reporter
CSR License fiOB4-004810
 20

that we will.

MR. BRUN: And, Judge, just on that note for the

Court's knowledge, I will be out of state on Friday

the let. I'm not sure if we'll need that date at all,

but I will be unavailable.

THE COURT: I don't know if that's available to the

other attorneys anyway.

MR. BRUN: Friday the 21st I will be out of state.

THE COURT: I don't know that we'll need it, but I'm

10 worried about us running out of time. As you know, I

11 don't have time right before the trial. So that's what

l2 I'm concerned about.

l3 All right. Depositions tomorrow. Back in court

14 on Thursday, October 20th. And we'll see where we are at

15 that time.

16 MR. SIMMONS: Your Honor, I just have one final

17 question. Mr. Wanke had wanted a copy of the brief. I

18 just wanted to clarify whether it was okay or not that I

19 gave him a copy obviously without staples or anything in

20 it based on the prior rulings.

21 THE COURT: State, do you have any comment?

22 MS. HITE ROSS: Judge, I don't have a problem with

23 counsels tendering a copy.

24 THE COURT: All right.

Brittyn Higdon, CSR, RPR

Official Court Reporter
CSR License #084—004810
 21

MS. HITE ROSS: It's filed.

THE COURT: You can give him a c0py of the brief.

MR. SIMMONS: I'll hand a copy to the corrections

officer so they can ——

THE COURT: Thank you.' All right.

Anything else?

MR. ZIMMERMAN: Just one second, Judge.

THE COURT: Mm—hmm.

(Discussion held off the record.)

10 MR. ZIMMERMAN: Judge, we're going to depose

11 Attorney Zerouali tomorrow as though all of her testimony

12 is relevant. Obviously I'll make an objection at the

13 time to preserve that, but

14 THE COURT: The transcript of her testimony should

15 be done immediately. Just so you know it's because

16 that's, you know, that will be what we'll likely use. I

17 know you're videotaping it too and we may be able to use

18 parts of it, but there's going to be some parts I'm sure

19 that the Court's maybe going to grant an objection to.

20 And so have the transcript ready right away.

21 MS. HITE ROSS: Yes, your Honor.

22 THE COURT: I unfortunately have cases set so I

23 probably won't be able to go over there, but you never

24 know. My cases could all disappear and then I can be

Brittyn Higdon, CSR, RPR

Official Court Reporter
CSR License #084—004810
 22

part of the proceedings. So if I can I will.

MS. HITE ROSS: Thank you, Judge.

MR. ZIMMERMAN: Judge, one other matter that's

somewhat related to, I think, the arguments today. When

the State and the defense swapped a list of witnesses,

the State had included Judge Prochaska as a witness on

that list. I know that previously the Court had ruled

that Judge Truitt wasn't going to be called.

And so anyway, I just wanted to make the Court

10 aware of that. At this point I don't think it's anything

11 we need to address now, but at some point, depending upon

12 the Court's ruling, we're going to be asking, I guess,

13 for an offer of proof if the State does intend to call

14 Judge Prochaska.

15 THE COURT: Okay. All right. Thank you.

16 (End of proceedings.)

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

Brittyn Higdon, CSR, RPR

Official Court Reporter

CSR License 80811—004810
 23

STATE OF ILLINOIS

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 17TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

COUNTY OF WINNEBAGO

C E R T I F I C A T E

I, Brittyn G. Higdon, CSR #084—004810,

an Official Court Reporter for the Circuit Court of

Winnebago County, 17th Judicial Circuit of Illinois,

10 reported in machine shorthand the proceedings had on the

11 hearing in the above-entitled cause and transcribed the

12 same by Computer Aided Transcription, which I hereby

13 certify to be a true and accurate transcript of the

14 proceedings.

15

16 IN WITNESS HEREOF I have hereunto set

17 my hand seal this 26th day of June, 2017.

18

19

20
/’ Officiai’Court Reporter
21 17th Judicial Circuit
State of Illinois
22

23

24

Brittyn Higdon, CSR, RPR

Official Court Reporter
CSR License #084—004810