voluntary statement. By defendant’s testimony, Owen was prepared to take a statement, but did not after learning defendant was unwilling and wanted to speak to an attorney. According to the State, Lacy allegedly attended two interviews with Troy where defendant made voluntary statements. Considering defendant’s testimony to the contrary that he made no statements during these interviews, that Troy wanted him to sign a written statement and choked and kicked him when he did not, Lacy was a material witness to the voluntariness of defendant’s statements. Obviously, the red-haired officer was a material witness as defendant alleged that the officer threatened him with a gun and greater abuse unless he cooperated and gave a statement. (See People v. Wright (1962), 24 Ill. 2d 88, 93 (<HOLDING>).) According to the State, a written statement
holding that the constitutional right to be present is satisfied so long as the defendant is given an opportunity to register his opinions with counsel after juror questioning and is present when the exercise of strikes is given formal effect even if the defendant is not present when his lawyer actually exercises the peremptory challenges recognizing that it is inevitable that law enforcement officials will in some cases reasonably but mistakenly conclude that probable cause is present and  that in such cases those officials  should not be held personally liable holding that the constitutional right to present a defense is not violated by the exclusion of a defendants proffered evidence where he is otherwise given the opportunity to present his defense and crossexamine the key prosecution witnesses recognizing constitutional right to be present when sentence is imposed holding that materiality of witnesses in coercedconfession cases is not limited to those physically present when a confession is actually made but extends as well to those who were present when the alleged illegal conduct took place