in 

1 STATE OF UJJNOIS 12m?

35' Baum
3 or a 0 I Pig?gi cmcuu mum
3 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK CDUNTY

EDUNTY DEPARTMENT-CRIMINAL DIVISION

THE PEOPLE THE

I
5 OF I

I Case No. 9?-21325
5 v5 3

Before JUDGE LDH W. SHULTZ
I JUAN HERNANDEZ 

MARCH 9. ZUUD


Cuurt convenud pursuant to adjournmenL.
Present:
L1 HONORABLE DEUIHE.

State's Attorney of tour. County. by
12 NFL. and

H5. CARMEN AGUILHR,

13 Asustant State's Attorney's.
appeared in: the People:

MR. RICHARD EEUKE. J?d
. SAM EHIH,
appeared. Em: the defendant.

Paul. P. Marzanu, CSR. REF.

3. folcial Caur'l: Reporter

265D E. California. Home 41:02
4 ?hicago. 1L EUEUB

License trad-001739

 

 

 

i

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I I 
u; 

I:
Transcript of Record
Appeal
0- 
art-mu. Court of ?ljnois
r1151 District
Circuit Court No. 9? 2.32;
 Judge In: rm.an smurer

 

Reviewing Court No.

03-1535

TIE I?um THE STATE BF

V5.

41!? 



 

COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS

from 
I EFFTII
CIRCUIT COURT -- =01?
i .r
of

STEVEN M. mm

CLERK

COUNTY CRIMINAL DIVISION

mum 5 DE 13


(HIV. 

Per

NEW BROWN.
Clark ?(the Circuit 

IIMIIE

Dcpuiy

 

 

 

 

 

1 1 a 
3 DATE: 319.100
5. PAGES:

1 through 2?

Motion to Bisque].in Defense . ..

 

 

 

575
WWI, PAGE 146

 

 

 

 

 

 

iThe following proceedings
were had out or the
hearing of Lhe jurytl
THE COURT: People versus Juan Hernandez,
91-21329.

Thia matter is a jury trial that
was commenced and continued from yesterday.

The record may reflect all of the
parties including Mr. Hernandez. the dotendant, are
present in court.

Before commencing again with the
trial, I understand that the State has a nation they
Wish to make.

MR. SHLIFKA: Ens. Judge.

at this timer the State would be
making a motion to disqualify Hr. Beuke as the
defendant's attorney or record based on a conzlict or
interest which we discouered last night and received
more internation on today's date.

THE COURT: n11 right.

What do you uieh to state or
preaent in support of your motion?

HR. SHLIFKH: Judge. an I was discussing

preliminarily the Lestimnny with Detective Guevara. who

 

 

57B

 

 

involving some domestic relations problems.

He learned today in chambers that
Hr. deuce has also conferred with Detective Guevara
regarding the potential filing of a libel suit by
Detective Guevara against others who had apparently
claimed some sort of police misconduct against
Detective Guevara, and we also learned that there may
be some legal advice dispensed regarding paternity
issues.

This is a relationship that we have
came to learn over the last 15, IE. IT hours that has
apanned apparently almost 15 years between attorney
Richard Eeuke and Detective Guevara.

What makes that very important in
our case. Judge. is essentially starting with the tenor
of the opening statement an

THE count: Let me ask you a Couple of other
preliminary questions.

The tire: that you learned of Mt.
Beuhe': relationship with Detective Guevara was in
recent conversation you say over the last -- well since
we adjourned court yesterday?

HR. EHLIFKA: Yesterday evening otter HE

adjourned.

 

 

 



 

 

 

 

 

is a named witness and a ralatiVEly crucial witness in
our case after we left court yesterday, Detective
Guevara informed me that Hr. acute in his lawyer and
has been his lawyer and that he has Mr. Eeure has
represented him.on several cases.

This morning, 1 spoke a little bit
in further detail with Detective Guevara who indicated
to be that Hr. Beuke has represented him in the past on
the following matters: A child support matter which to
the heat or Detective Guevara'e recollection was
between and l992. a accident from 19?5.
an accident involving Detective Guevara and a squad car
sometime after 1955.

Detective Guevara informed no that

he was jumped on by several people and sued the persons

responsible about five or six years ago and HI. Beuke
was his lawyer for that. That Hr. Eeuke handled
detective Guevara's wife?s personal injury accident
approximately two years ago.

Detective GueVara further informed
me that he has dilcuered other matters With Mr. ?anker
but was not retained, but did diecuee them as his
lawyer to which eeuke indicated that he would find

another lawyer tor Detective Guevara. those 1 believe

 

 

 



 

 

 



THE COURT: According to Detective Guevara,
when doea he recall the last contecc. legal contact to
be with Hr. Beuke?

HR. SHLIEKA: He indicated the last legal
contact was recently. That was regarding a divorce
matterv

THE count: Did he give some time frame
reference?

HR. SHLIFKA: 5 don't believe he gave a time
frame raterence. when I tried to pin him down on the
last time Hr. Beute actually reproaented him in court,
he stated it was actually two years ago.

THE count: What participation or role does
Detective Guevara play in the State's case?

HR. SHLIFKA: Insofar as this case is
concerned, Judge. Detective Guevara is involved in each
and every identification procedure that was conducted
in this investigation.

He showed photographs to I believe
five civilian winneesee who were out in the area or the
22 hundred block of North Hohile when the shooting took
place,

He conducted lineup: with there

witnesses. What makes that crucial again. Judge. la

 

 

 

 

JUAN HERNANDEZ TRIAL MINI, PAGE 147

 

 

 

 

 

 

the tenor 0: the defendant's opening statement in this
case where he fully conceded that every witness was
going to come in and identify this detendant as one of
the attenders, but that it was an attempt by the police
to try and place blame on somebody they Hare told would
have. should have, or could have done this. That the
police get internation on a particular day. but did
nothing with it. That Detective Guevara during the
lineup: would not allow the attorney who was then
representing Juan Hernandez, Kent arody, to be with
witnesses when they were viewing the lineup. obviously
luggasting impropriety on the part of Detective Guevara
during the viewing or the lineups.

Counaoi Hunt on to suggest that the
police had to get identifications in this case because
they know that Hr. Brady was going to surrender the
defendant and his brother that evening, somehow that
the PDliCe are compelled to get some identifications.
again suggesting the impropriety on the part of the
Chicago Police Department and specifically Detective
Guevara.

There's no question that Detectiv:
Guevara's credibility is going to be brought into issue

in this trial. and the reason that that raises a

 

 

53D

 

 

 

 

just smacks of a conflict hare, Judge.

For that reason, 1 would submit
that Mr. Eouke should be disqualified as an attorney.

I would also point out that
although vaivar could he a remedy in some situations,
it does not apply here because at the timing in which
this was brought up. and.it also has a twofold problem.

Mr. Hernandez would undoubtedly
want the Iltnasn's lawyer to be his own lawyur because
there's no question Hr. Beuke would know more about
Detective Guevara than a witness who hasn't represented
Detective Guevara.

And the other problem we have here,
Judge. is if HI. Hernandez is allowed to waive this
issue and he is convicted, you know that first issue on
appeal is going to be my attorney did not zealously
represent me because he had a duty to that witness on
the stand, that uitneas that was so crucial to the
prosecution's case, that witness who was so crucial to
show that there was no imyropriety conducted during any
of the iduntification procedures.

Judge. we are at a point e? an
early point in this trial to bring this up. I do

believe that the facts presented do present a conflict

 

532?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Problem is Mr. Heuko has had a longstanding
relationship with Detective Guevara,
undoubtedly as he has had communications with Detective
Euuvara which are protected by the 
privilege and that the dilemma that that poses 13, Ht.
Beuka cannot serve two masters and because we are doing
this, not in hindsight. but in foresight. He can?t
predict what might happun.

But there's the potential as an
example that Detective Guevara could say something.
could say something about police procedure, could say
something about the way that ho handles cases which may
be inconsistent with something that he may have told
Hr. acute in confidence.

Hr, saute, if he goes to impeach
DeteCtiue Guevara on that, would be breaching the
attorneyfclient privilege. I: he roluaos to impeach or
decides to uphold the attorneyfclient privilege, he's
not serving his client. Juan Hernandez. So. that is
tho problem. That is the dilemma that?s raised here,
Judge.

You have an attorney who not only
is attacking in opening stotomont his own client, but

ho?a going to go after him on the witness stand. and it

 

 

 

581

 

 

JUA

 

 

of interest. and what surprises me is it wasn't brought
to anyone's attention before jury selection.

I wanld submit that Hr. Brute would
have to he disqualirled in this case, Judge.

THE COURT: Ht. Beuke.

HR. BEUKE: Judge. it I can begin by stating to
the Court that thin was brought to my attention at
about 10:30 at so this morning in a trio: conversation
that I had with Mr. Shlifta coneerning whether or not I
had represented Mr. or Detective Guevara in the
past.

when that Has brought up, my best
recollection, your Honor, is that my representation
there I actually went into a courtroom on behalf at
Mr. of Detective Guevara was possibly oight. nine.
ten years ago.

Detectiva Guevara had a situation
where individual woman were seeking support payment:
from him In: children that they had. I agreed to go
into court and try to remedy that situation and in the
course at doing that. the situation was remedied, and
that was concluded. I think, back in 91 or 92, your
Honor.

I guess I should preface this by

 

l?

ERNANDEZ TRIAL MINI, PAGE 148