1 SIXTH DIVISION August 24, 2007 No. 1-05- 2039 THE PEOPLE OFTHE STATE OFILLINO IS, ) Appe al fro m the ) Ci

rcu i t Cou rt of Plai ntif f-A ppelle e, ) Coo k Count y, Ill in ois. ) ) ) No. 90 CR 11985 v. ) ) TONY ANDERSON, ) Ho no r ab le ) James B . Linn, Def endan t-App el l an t. ) Judge Presidin g.

JU STI CEJO SEP H G OR DO N del i v ered th e op i n i on of th e c our t: Defe ndan t, To ny An derson, appeal s f

rom the sum

ma ry dism is sal of his petiti on for reli

ef under the Post-Convic

tion Heari ng Act (Act) (725 I LCS 5/122-1 et seq. (West 2002)). He
co nt ends t hat t he circ uit co ur t er re d in summarily dismissing his pet itio n wher e he s et for t h t he gi st o f meri tori ous cl ai m s of (1 ) i n ef f ec ti v e a ss i sta n ce of cou n se l b as ed up on cou n se l ’s f ai l ur e to inv estigat e defendant’s claims of “cor rupt ion and coer cion” in the conduc ting of defendant’s lineups a t Area 2 and (2 ) t hat t he St at e violat ed his r ight t o d ue p ro ces s by fail ing t o d isclos e t he
ex i stenc e of vol um i nou s c l ai m s of A rea 2 pol i cetorture p urs

ua nt to Bra dy v. Ma ryland , 373 U.S. 83, 10 L . Ed. 2d 21 5, 83 S. Ct. 1194 (19 63). I. BACKG

ROUND De fe nd an t wa s in di ct ed o n o ve r10 0 c ha r ge s in t hir t ee n d iffe r en t ca se s in Co o k C o un t y,No. 1-05- 2039

1 Defens e counsel al so moved to suppress defendant’s num erou s in culpator y statements,
mad e on the ni gh t of hi s a rre st on A pri l 18 a nd 19, 199 0, a

l l eg i ng tha t the y were th e p roduct of po lice co er cion. Afte r a hear ing o n t hat mot ion, t he t rial co ur t fou nd t hat defend ant ’s co nfessio ns were not coerc ed. W

e note, howev

er, tha t in the prese nt ca se n o in cul patory statem en ts were
made b y def endan t wi th reg ard to the H al sted store robb ery, and non e wer e us ed at h

i s tri al
. 2 stemm in g from off enses he com mi tt ed i n March and A pril 1990. Case No. 90 CR 11984 was tried to a judge ; ca se

No. 90 CR

11 98 5 w as

tried to a jur y ; an d def en da n t pl eade d g ui l ty to charges i n 11 rem ai ni ng cases . Case Nos. 90 CR 11984 and 90 CR 11985 arose from two
se pa ra te robb eri es

of Tra k A uto store s b oth

com m i tted on A pri l 15 , 19 90 , the f

i rs t at 1 16 th

Street
and Hal sted, the se cond

at 73rd Stre et a

nd Ston y Is l an d. In c as e N o. 90CR

119 85, the

su bj ec t of thi s ap peal , def endan t was c onv

i cted of arm ed rob bery and senten

ced to 25 y

ears ’ i m pri sonm en t. Pr ior t o d efenda nt ’s jur y tr ial in case No . 9 0 CR 119 85, defens e co unse l, Will iam Heena n, f i l ed a m otion to suppre ss th

ree l i ne up i den tif i cations of

def endan t, conten di ng th at they were i m pr ope rl y su gg esti v e a n d a pr oduct of

pol i ce m i sc ondu ct. 1 At the June 5, 1991, hea

rin g on that motion, defe

ndan t fi rst call ed Detective Guy

Habi ak. Detecti v e H ab i ak testi f i ed th at on A pri l 19 , 19 90 , f

our da y s af ter th e robb er

y of th e T ra k A uto store at 73rd

St re et and S t ony I sland, he co nduc t ed t hre e se par at e lineups at Area 2 Vio lent Cr i mes l oca ted at 1 11 th Street , Chicago. According to Detective Habia k, the fi rst li neup was viewed by

Jam es Hill at approxim

ately 11:45 a.m., the second was viewed by

Wi ll ie Bradl ey at ab out 2:15 p.m., and the

thi rd was vi ewed by Li nda Hi nkl e at ab out 6 p.m
. Detec tiv e Hab i ak tes tif i ed th at the s am

e si x m en partici pated i n a l l three l i ne ups. OnNo. 1-05- 2039

3

each occasi

on, Detective Hab ia

k pla ced the si x partici pants i n the l in eup roo m a

nd i nstructed t hem “to st and in any po sitio n t hey want ed in t he lineup. ” Acc or ding t o D et ect ive Habiak , in t he Hill l ineup, defend ant st oo d in t he number one po sitio n, a nd in t he Hinkle a nd Br adley lineups , he stoo d in the num ber si x posi tion. Accordi

ng to Detect iv

e Habi ak, in the Hi nkle lin eup each pa rtici pa nt wasalso b

roug ht f orwa rd to a one -wa y m i rror to b e v

i ew ed by Hi nk l e, w ho s tood on the othe r si de of that m i rror. Det ect ive Habiak also t est ifi ed t hat he had initially

co nt act ed H ill

and H inkle by telep hone and requested that they c ome to t he station to vi ew the lin eups, to see if

they could recogni

ze an y body that “ m i ght h av e b een i n the Trak

Au to Store” on the

af ternoon of the robb ery . Detec tiv e Habi ak de

ni ed h avi ng tol d ei ther H i l l or Hi nkl e tha t there was a

n of f ender i n custody
. He al so deni ed di scussi

ng an y de scri ptions of the of

fen der prior to t he l

in eups or in structing ei

ther Hil l or Hi nkl e wh o to pick f rom th e l i ne up. Detective Mc Guire testi fi ed that on April

19, 1990, t ogether with Detective Habi ak, he
co nduc t ed t hre e se par at e lineups at Area 2 hea dqu ar t er s for Hill, Bra dley and H inkle. D et ect ive Habi ak adm itted that he was i

n the room wi

th Hil l wh en Hi ll ide ntif ie d defen dant, but averred that he, at no p oint in

time, di scussed the li

neups with any

of the witnesses. Detect iv e McGuire al so st at ed t ha t pr io rt o t he lineu ps he ne ve rt o ld H ill, B r ad ley o rHin kle t ha t he ha d a n o ffen de rin
cu st o dy. Defe ndan t next calle d Hil

l to the stand. Hil

l testi fi ed that on April

19, 1990, he recei

ved a t elepho ne ca ll requ est ing t hat he co me to t he po lice st at ion t o view a lineup. Hill stat ed t hat he dr o ve t o t he Ar ea 2 p o lice st at io n a lo ne . On ce t he r e, Hill vie we d a lineu p c o mpr ise d o f sixNo. 1-05- 2039

4

individuals and fro m that lineup ident ifi ed d efenda nt as t he pe rp et ra t or of t he r obbe ry at t he St ony Island Tr ak Au t o s t or e. Hill averr ed t hat pr ior t o t he lineup, he had no c onve rsa t ion wit h anyone at the polic e station concerni ng def endan t o r the li neup procedure. Hil

l f urther stat ed that altho ugh D et ect ive McG uire st oo d next t o him in the ro om while he view ed t he lineup, t he detective di

d not speak. Hil

l a ls o t estif ie d that even though h

e could see

Detective Habia

k t hr o ug h t he o ne - wa y mirr o rst an din g in t he r o o m wit h t he lineu p p ar t icip an t s, t he de t ec t ive did nothi ng to m ake h i m sel ect def endan t from the g roup. Bradl ey nex t t estif ie d that on April

19, 1990, he was workin g at the Trak Auto store when he rec ei ve d a tel ep hon e c al l f rom a p ol i ceof

f i cer re que sti

ng hi s p res en ceat a l i ne up. Soon thereafter, the store manager, Hi ll , drove Bradley

to the police station. Bradl ey stated t hat even though he was aware that Hil l h ad vi ewed a l in eup earlie r that day, durin

g the ride to the police station, the two o f them

did n ot dis cuss the l

in eup or any de scri

ptions of the of

fen der. Bradley further testif

ie d that once at Area 2 headquarters he v ie wed a lin eup and i dentif ie d defen dant as the perpetrat or o f the robb ery at the Trak Auto sto re. Bradley testifi ed that the li

neup was compri sed of si

x i ndi vi dual s, who were i

nstructed to stand up, turn lef t and then ri

ght. Bradley als o st at ed t ha t he did no t dis cu ss t he lineu p w it h a ny o f t he o ffice r s a nd t ha t he wa s ne ve rt o ld that the pol i ce h ad an off ender i n custody
. Hi nkl e nex t testi f i ed th at when

she arri ve d to work on A

pril 19, 199 0, Hi

l l , her store
man ag er , t o ld h er t ha t t he po lice “w an t ed [ he r ] t o lo o k a t a line up ab o ut t he r o bbe ry.” Hin kle sta ted th at D ete cti

v es Ha b i ak an d M cG ui reth en pi cked h er upf rom th e store an d d rove h er to the Area 2 polic e station. Accordi ng to Hinkl

e, the detectives di

d not t ell h

er that t hey

had anNo. 1-05- 2039

2 We note tha t these photographs

are n ot part of the rec ord on ap peal
. 5 off ender i n custody, an

d she di d not describ e the off

ender to t hem . Hin

kle further testif

ie d that
onc e at t he po lice st at ion, she view ed t he lineup a nd ident ifi ed d efenda nt as t he pe rp et ra t or of t he rob b er y . Acc ordi

n g to H i n kl e, al th oug h Detecti v e M cG ui rere mai n ed i n th e v i ewi n g r oom wi th her dur ing t he lineup, he did no t spe ak t o he r. Finally , H inkle t est ifi

ed t hat befo re she w ent t o t he stati on, n ei ther H i l l nor Br adl ey tal ked to h er ab out the l

i ne ups th ey had vi ewed earl i er tha t day
. The State also i

ntroduced t wo photo graphs of the l in eup partici

pants and def

ense couns el asked that these be admi

tt ed as exhi

bi ts. 2 In cl osi ng , de f en se cou ns el arg ue d that the c om

pos i ti on of t he lineups was unfair be cau se t he differe nce in t he individuals’ “he ight , w eight , a ge, and clothi ng” was“extrem

e.” C ouns el

al so argued th at the i

den tif i cations were tai

nted be caus e the

re wa s a mple o pp o r t un it y fo rHill t o dis cu ss t he lineu p h e h ad vie we d in t he mo rning wit h H ink le
an d B ra dl ey , w h o vi ew ed

th e s am e l i n eu psl ate r that day. C ounse l

also ask ed th e c our t to co nsider t he “circ umst ance s o f the po lice act ivity in gat her ing t hese wit nesse s t o view t he lineup[ s], in [ sic ] infor ming the m of t heir p olice r equ est s o r d esire s t o ha ve t hem view t he lineup[ s]. ” Pa rt icular ly, co unse l not ed t hat t he t wo officer s pick ed u p and dr ove Hinkle t o t he police station, gi

vi ng them am ple oppor tunity

to dis cuss the l

in eup i n advance an

d taint he r ident ifi cat ion. At the close of thi s heari ng, th e court deni

ed de f endan t’s m otion to suppre ss th

e l i ne up. In doi ng s o, the court noted:

“I hav e had an oppor tunity

to li sten and h

ear the wi tnesses. I hav

e al so had the oppor tunity

to look at t he two photo graphs, whi ch h ave b een presen

ted,No. 1-05- 2039

6 in dicatin g the li ne-ups [ sic ] view ed by t he individuals. And I wo uld no t e t he followi ng: Three of

the people i

n the l in e-up [ sic ] ha

ve gy m shoes on , three

don’ t. The re can’t be mor e t han an [ sic ] three- in ch spread on t he hei

ght o f an y of these in div idua ls . They are all a pproxim ately the sam e hei ght. There is

no question that there are s ome i ndi vi dual s wh o are sl i ghtl y tal l er tha n M r. An ders on [de f

endan t]. I t hink t her e is o ne who loo ks like he co uld be w ithin a sixt eent h of a n inch of t he he igh t an d a no t he ro ne wh o is ve ry clo se t o t he he igh t . A c o up le mig ht be slig ht ly tal l er. I do n’t know t hat you can set a fairer composition of the i ndi viduals standi ng i n thi s lin e-up [ sic ]. There is absolutely no indi cation that any

of these three indi viduals who vi

ewed these t here separat e li ne-ups [ sic ] w er e led by
an yo ne t o id en t ify a nyo ne . As a ma t t er o f fa ct , qu it e t he co nt r ar y. Re sp ec t fu lly, the m otion to suppre ss th

e iden tif i cation wi l l be den i ed.” On Jun e 5, an d Jun e 6, 19 91, de f

endan t proceeded wi

th a j ury tria l f or arm ed rob bery . The evidenc e pr ese nt ed a t t rial est ablished t hat on Ap ril 15, 199 0, Hill was wo rk ing as t he
manager of

the Tra k A uto store at 73rd

St re et and S t ony I sland, t og et her wit h Bra dley and Hinkle, who wer e o per at ing t he ca sh re gist er s at t he fro nt of t he st or e. Acco rd ing t o H ill, a ro und 3:30 p. m., at Bradley’s request, he went t o t he f ront of the sto re to place chan ge in the cash registers . Hil l

stated that j ust as

he place d hi s key i nto the c ha nge drawe r, a m an ap pr o ac he d h im fro m the r ear and a nnou nced a “st ick- up. ” Hill made an in-c ou rt ident ifi cat ion o f defend ant as t he
man who approache d hi

m on tha t day
.No. 1-05- 2039

7

Hil l a ls o t estif ie d that ini

tial ly he thought that t he “ stick-up” was a joke, but then n

ot ic ed a taller man with a gun, standi

ng be hi nd Hi nkle. Thi s m

an was we arin

g a bl ack j acket and a bl

ack cap . T he gu nman walke d o ver t o B ra dley and p ut t he gu n t o B ra dley’s bac k, while defend ant took money

f rom th e ch ange dra wer a nd B radl ey ’sregister an

d put i t in a Trak Au to bag. De f en da nt th en orde red Hi l l to ope n Hi

nk l e’ s reg i ster, a

nd af ter H i l l obl i ge d, h e took mone y f rom both th e regi ster an d the cash b ox b eneath

i t and place d i t in the s am e Trak Au to bag. Hil l f urther test if

ie d that defenda

nt ordered t he others to st ay nex t t o t he regi sters but pushed Hi

ll to move to ward the off

ic e i n the b ack. Defen

dant forced Hi

ll to open the off

ic e saf e, t hen t oo k t he mone y from t he sa fe, a nd pu t it in t he T ra k Aut o ba g. Altho ugh H ill fear ed t hat t he gunm an was goi

ng to shoot hi

m, b ot h def

endan t and the gunm

an then “j ust walked out the doo r.” Hil l al so testif

i ed ab out the l

i ne up con ducted on A pril 19, 199 0, at A

rea 2 h eadq uarters where he i dentif

ie d defen dant as one of the m

en wh o part ic ipa

ted in the robbery . Hil

l’ s trial tes ti m ony reg ard i ng the l i ne up wassu bs tan ti al l y the sa me a s h i s te sti mony at the suppres si

on heari ng. In addi

tion, Hill stated t hat on the day

of the robbery

defen dant was not further than

“ si x, seve n, ei gh t i nc he s a wa y ” f rom hi m an d that there

wa s n othi ng obs tructi ng hi s v i ew of defen dant’s f ace. Durin

g trial , Hil

l a ls o iden tif ie d the gun an

d the bl ack j acket worn by

the tall er man du r ing t he r o bbe ry. On cross-exam

in ation, Hill in dic ated that t he robbers

were not in the s

to re for more than fi ve to six mi nutes. He al so stat ed that he could n ot recall i f on A pril 15, 1990, im

me dia tely after the robbery, he gave

the police off

ic ers a descri

ption of the robb ers’ age, hei ght, weigh

t, faci al ha i r, sca rs or com pl exi on.No. 1-05- 2039

8

Bradl ey nex t t estif ie d to substantially

the sam e sequenc e of eve

nts as Hi ll . Bradley ide ntif ie d defen dant in -court as one of the robb ers and stated that when def endan t fi rst announced t he “s t ick
- up , ” h e s t o o d 1 8 i nc he s a wa y fr o m him. Br ad ley a dd ed t ha t du r ing t he r o bbe ry, defend ant t hre at ened Hinkle wit h “[P ]u t your head do wn o r I ’ll kil l you” a nd Hill with “[ G] et t he
re st of t he mone y or I’ll kill y ou .” Bra dley also add ed t hat aft er defend ant pus hed H ill into t he office, he o rd er ed B ra dley to move e ver yone t o t he bac k o f the st or e, and B ra dley obliged . At t hat po int, Bra dley esco rt ed t he cu st omer s t o t he bac k exit do or and t old a fellow e mployee a t t he pa rts c oun ter to c al l the pol i ceto rep ort a r

obb ery i n progres s. B rad

l ey retu rned to the f ron t of the store, where he saw Hi ll in the off ic e wi th the robbers. Bradley

stated t hat defe

ndan t was with a taller man

, who wore a black l

eather ja cket and a bas ebal

l h at and carrie d a gun. Bradley then heard defe

ndan t t hreaten Hi

ll with “ [O]pen the saf

e or I kill y

ou [ sic ],” and af

ter t hat saw de fe nd an t an d t he gu nma n le av e t he st o r e w it h a ba g o f mo ne y. Bra dley also t est ifi

ed t o t he Apr il 19, 1 990 , lineup . H is te st imony was su bst ant ially t he
same as t he t est imony he gave at t he su ppr essio n hear ing. B ra dley also ident ifi ed t he gu n t hat t he tal l er m an wascarry

i ng a nd th e leather j acke

t that he wore. On cr os s-e xaminatio n, B ra dley st at ed t hat when he spo ke t o p olice immediat ely after t he robbery , he gave

them a descri ption of b ot h off

enders. He desc

rib ed defe ndan t as bei ng a b la ck male abo ut 5 feet 8 inches , w eighing ar ou nd 16 0 po unds , w ith faire r sk in, facial hair o n his chin, and no not iceable sc ar s, w ear ing an unz ipped whit e jack et and s hirt . B ra dley had d esc ribed t he gunm an as a bla

ck m an ab out 6 feet 1 i

nch tall , weigh

in g about170 pounds, of a darker
co mplexion, wit h facial hair ar ou nd t he up per lip and o n t he side of his chin, wit h no s car s, a ndNo. 1-05- 2039

9

wear i ng a bl ack c ap. Hin kle testifi ed that on April

15, 1990, she was workin g at the cash regi ster at t he Trak Auto at 7352 S out h Stony Isl and. She stated t hat about 5 p.m. she l ooked up and noticed that Hil l, def endan t and a tall

er man in a dark baseb all c ap and a dark j acket were standi ng at Bradl ey ’s regi ster and that the tall er man hel d a gun to Bradley ’s ri

bs. Hi nkle further testif

ie d that when the two men n

ot ic ed that she was l

ooking at them, the tal

le r pointed the gun at her an d said, “B– t ch , pu t yo ur he ad do wn no w o rI will blo w yo ur f-
- - - ng he ad o ff. ” H ink le imme dia t ely obl i ged, b ut she stated

that sh e coul d he ar tha t Bradl ey ’schange dra

wer opene d. Accordin g to Hin kle , the gunm

an then cam e over to her register, grabbed h er by the back of her sm ock, pushed her b ackwards, and h el d the gun to t he b ack of he r head. The two men t hen co mmanded H ill

t o o pen H inkle’s r egist er and p ut t he mone y in a Tra k Aut o ba g. Acco rd ing t o Hin kle , de fen da nt t he n o r de r ed ev er yo ne ex ce pt Hill t o lea ve t he fr o nt o f t he st o r e. Hin kle
com pli ed an d l ef t the store. Hinkle also t est ifi

ed a bou t t he Apr il 19, 1 990 , lineup . H er t est imony was su bst ant ially t he
sam e as her testi mony at the s uppre ssi on heari ng. Detective Sel

le rs nex t t estif ie d regardin

g the ci rcumstances of def

endan t’s arrest. He st at ed t hat abo ut 5 p. m. o n Apr il 18, 1 990 , he was wo rk ing wit h his par t ner , D et ect ive Bro snan, when he not iced a late mod el Oldsmo bile tu rn o nt o Abe rd een Ave nue a t a high r at e o f spee d and then park at Aberdeen and 51st Street in front of a l

iquor store. Det ective Selle rs testif ie d that after he obtai

ned the vehi

cl e’s l ic ense pl ate num ber, he discovered that the vehi cl e had b een re po rt ed s t olen. Det ect ive Seller s t hen o bser ved t hre e men exit ing t he liquo r st or e and ent er ingNo. 1-05- 2039

10

th e p ar ke d veh i cl e. The of f i cersex i ted th ei r s qu ad ca r a n d i den ti f i ed th em se l v es to th e oc cu

pa n ts of the Ol dsm obi l e. A t trial , Detec tiv e Sel l ers i den tif i ed de f endan t as the dri ver of th e v ehi cle. Det ect ive Seller s t est ifi

ed he t hen o bser ved D et ect ive Bro snan r emove a black jacke t fro m the backs eat of

the v ehi cle, f rom w hi ch a loaded, s

mal l cal i ber sem i automati c wea

pon w as re cove

red. Af ter thi s, Detecti

ve Sel l ers p l ace d def

endan t unde r arres t and took hi m to Area 2he adquarters. At t r ial, de fe nd an t pr es en t ed an alib i d ef en se . De fe nd an t ’s wif

e, Fe rnie ce Bu rkl ey, testifi ed that on April

15, 1990, defenda

nt was at home an

d did n ot le ave the apartm

ent until at least 5 p. m. De fendant ’s sist er -in-law , Ma rlin Bur kley, t est ifi ed t hat on Ap ril 15, 199 0, she a nd her chi ldren went to defendan

t’s apartment at 2 p.m., and that def endan t, his wi fe an d three childre n wer e at home. Mar lin Burk ley sta t ed t hat when s he ar rived at t he ap ar t ment, defend ant wassleepi

ng, a nd th at aroun d 3 p.m., she wen

t in to hi s b edroom

to wake h

i m up an d borrow $ 20. Burkl ey testi f i ed th at she, Fe

rni ece and the si x chi l dren rem ai ne d at the apartm en t unti l 5 p.m ., when they went to Red Lobster for East er din ner. Both Ferni

ece and M arli

n Brukley testifi ed t hat when t hey ret ur ned fr om Re d Lo bst er wit h t he childr en so mewher e bet wee n 10 p .m. and 10:30 p.m ., def endan t was stil l sleepi ng. In i ts c as e i n r eb uttal , th e Sta te c al l ed Scott Vol

k a nd Ri ck y Norwood, e

m pl oyee s of
an oth er Tra k A uto store , loca

ted at 1 16 th and Halsted, whic

h ha d al so been robb ed on Apri l 15, 1990 (and whi

ch was the s

ubj ect of case No. 90 CR 11984). Bot h Volk a nd Norwoo d testifi

ed that aro und 2:45 p.m ., on April 15, 1990, t hey

saw def endan t, and a taller man

, wearin g a bl ack l eather coat an

d carr y i ng a gun , at the H al sted store. At the cl ose of the j ury tri al , defen dant was f

ound guil ty of arm ed robbery

and sen tencedNo. 1-05- 2039

3 We no t e t ha t in his st at eme nt o f fac t s d efe nd an t do es no t ind ica t e t ha t he ap pe ale d h is
co nvictio n but ra t her asse rt s t hat aft er t rial he filed a p os t co nvictio n pet itio n in which he ch alle ng ed t he su fficie nc y o f t he ev ide nc e t o co nvic t him. Ac co r din g t o de fen da nt , t he pu blic defen der appointed to represent hi m i n thi s postconviction petition fi le d a m ot ion to withdraw pur suan t to Penns yl van ia v. Fi nley , 4 81 U . S . 5 51, 95 L . E d. 2d 5 39, 107 S. Ct . 1 990 (1 987 ), and t he ap pe llat e c o ur t affir med his c o nvic t io n. De fen da nt lo o ks t o t he po st co nvic t io n p et it io n in t his case as h is third postconviction petition rather than his second one. The State, on the ot her han d, points o ut that defendant ap pealed his original conviction and t herefor e co nsiders defendant’s
cur re nt po st co nvictio n pet itio n as his se co nd po st co nvictio n pet itio n. B ase d o n ou r r eview o f the
re co rd , a nd o ur dec ision in the unpu blished o rd er in do cke t No . 1 -9 1- 207 0, we a gr ee w ith t he Stat e and f

in d that on review de fen

dant presents us wi

th hi s second postconviction petition. See Peop l e v . A

nd ers on , 1-91-2070 (No vem ber 12, 1993) ( un pu blish ed o r de rpu r su an t t o Su pr eme Court Rul e 23). Whi

le there would be

very li tt le dif feren ce between our revi

ew of a second a

nd a t hir d p o st co nvic t io n p et it io n, o ur de t er minat io n t ha t t his is de fen da nt ’s se co nd pe t it io n, if
an y thi ng, works to def

endan t’s adva ntag e. 11 to 25 yea rs ’ i m pri son men t. D ef en da n t ap pe al ed h i s c on v i cti on . Th e pub l i c def

en der a pp oi n ted to repr es en t de f en da n t on appe al, howev er , f

i l ed a m oti on re qu esti n g l ea v e to w i th dr aw as appe l l ate cou ns el pur suan t to And er s v. Ca lifo rnia , 386 U. S. 738, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1 967 ). On No vember 1 2, 199 3, we g ra nt ed t he mot ion o f the public de fender and a ffi rmed t he judgm ent of the ci

rcuit court. See Peop l e v . A nd ers on , 1-91-2070 (No vem ber 12, 1993) (un pub l i shed order

pursuan t to Suprem

e Court Ru

l e 23). 3No. 1-05- 2039

12

On Septem

ber 29, 2000, defen

dant fi le d a pro se pos tcon

vi cti on p eti ti on challenging t he suf fi ci ency of the evi

dence use d to convi

ct him and al le gin g in eff ective assistance of tria

l counsel f or, inter alia, cou

n se l ’s f ai l ur e to “ pr es en t a def ense ca se on th e s ug ge sti v e l i n eu p” an d to im peach the li

neup iden tifi cation witnesses. On Oc t o be r11 , 20 00 , t he cir cu it co ur t su mmar ily dis mi ssed def endan t’s petition. In doi

ng so the court not ed: “I h av e read the

peti tion . *** I h

av e rev i ewed trans cri pts i nc l uded i n the peti tion
. The th i n gswe tal ke d a b out w ere h

an dl ed at tr i al . I d o n ot f i n d a n y pr ob l em wi th t he t rial, w ith anyt hing ra ised in t he pe t itio n. I t do es no t co me clos e t o s how ing i nc omp etence of

coun sel . *** [D ef

endan t’s] c ase ha s b een af f i rmed on appe al . I f i nd th e post con

vi cti on petiti

on pa tentl y wi thout m eri t.” On appe al of th at d i sm i ss al, a pp el l ate cou n se l f i l ed a m oti on to wi th dr aw pu rsua n t to Penns yl van ia v. Fi nley , 481 U. S. 551, 95 L. Ed. 2d 539, 107 S. Ct. 1990 (1987), and we af fi rmed the d i sm i ssa l
. Peop l e v . A

nd ers on , 1- 00 -4 06 8 ( A

pri l 18 , 20 02 ) (u

n pu b l i sh ed ord er pu rsua n t to Supreme C ourt Rul e 23) . On A pril 30, 2005, defenda

nt fi le d a pro se “Pet itio n for Leave t o F ile a Suc ces sive Peti tion f or Post Conv

i cti on Re l i ef

” an d attach ed to that h

i s su cce ssi ve postconv i cti on petiti

on. In t he pe t itio n for leave t o file his suc ces sive po st co nvictio n pet itio n, d efenda nt co nt ende d t hat he
met th e statu tory re qui re men ts o f ca us e a n d p re j udi ce as re qui re d u n der the rec en

t am en dm en ts to th e A ct ( se e P ub l i c A

ct 9 3- 49 3, e f

f . J an ua ry 1, 2 00 4 ( am

en di n g 7 25 IL CS 5/ 12 2- 1) ). As to cau se, defend ant asse rt ed t hat his co unse l’s ineffect iveness a nd t he St at e’s failur e t o p ro vide t he
re l ev an t Brady ma terial s whi

ch tended to negate hi s guilt were the obj ective fac to rs that im

pededNo. 1-05- 2039

13

hi m f rom rai si ng the consti

tut iona l i ssues that he raises i

n hi s current postco nvi

ction petition in

an ear lier pe t itio n or pr oc eed ing. As t o p re judice, defend ant ar gue d t hat had t he evide nce t hat he at t ache s t o his s ucc essive p et itio n been p re sent ed a t t he pe t itio ner ’s hea ring t o s upp re ss t he ident ifi cat ion and /o r a t t rial, t he o ut co me of t he t rial wo uld have been d iff er ent as it wo uld have estab l i shed h

i s i nn ocence. I n t he ac t ua l su cc es sive po st co nvic t io n p et it io n, at t ac he d t o t he pe t it io n fo rlea ve t o file th e p eti ti on , de f en da n t as se rte d th at th e l i n eu psus ed to co n v i ct h i m weresu gg esti v e a n d th at b oth the l i ne ups a nd th e i n-c ourt id en tif i cations s houl d ha ve be en suppress ed. De f en da n t also c on ten de d th at h i s tr i al cou n se l wa s i n ef f ec ti v e b ec au se

h e: (1 ) f ai l ed to i n v esti ga te a n d p re se n t av ai l ab l e ev i den ce

of pol i ce ab us e a n d m i sc on du ct u se d to e

x er t confes si ons and obtai

n wrongf ul c onvictions, an

d (2) fai le d to present evi

dence that one Leo Hicks was i

ncorrect ly iden tifi ed as defendan

t’s cod efendan

t in case nos. 90 CR 11979, 90 CR 11980, 90 CR 11986, 90 CR 11990 and 90 CR 11991, even though i

t was later determi

ned that Hickswason house a

rrest at the ti

me the off en ses were com m i tted. De f en da nt n ex t as serted tha t the State f ai l ed to di sc l ose

excul pa tory ev i de nc e i n v i ol ati on o f Brady , inc lud ing ev ide nc e: ( 1) t ha t t he de t ec t ive s w ho m de fen da nt ac cu se d o f co nd uc t ing his sugg esti ve l i ne up had b een

accuse d of

m i scon duct b y other de f endan ts an d (2) that there

were numer ou s inst ance s o f po lice miscond uct at Area 2, indicat ing a syst emat ic pr act ice o f employing coerci ve tacti cs to obtai

n c onf ess i ons, i den tif i cations a nd c onv i cti ons. In addi tion, def endan t contended that his cons

titutional righ ts were vi olated when

he was pl ac ed i n l i n eu psaf ter h e ex ercise d h

i s r i gh t to remai n si l en t an d r eq ue ste d a n attor n ey toNo. 1-05- 2039

4 Defe ndan t’s aff ida vi t is attached to t he succe ssi ve postconviction petition as Exh ibit 2. 14 re pr ese nt him. Finally

, d efenda nt alleged t hat his app ellate co unse l, bo t h on d irect and postco nvi ction appeal, were in

eff ective becaus e they

fai le d to rais e these i ssues. On May 9, 2005, the c i rcui t court di sm

i sse d the peti tion , whi ch

def endan t now ap peal s. II. ANA LYSIS 1. Ineff ective Ass is

tance of Counse l On appeal, defen

dant fi rst contends that t he trial

court erred when i

t summ aril y di sm is sed hi s p eti ti on b ec au se

he sta ted the gi st of a c l ai m of i ne f f ec ti ve as sista nc e of cou ns el i n v i ol ati on of h i s s i xth an d f our tee n th am en dm en t ri gh ts ( U. S. C on st. , a

men ds . V I, XIV ). D ef

en da n t as se rts t hat his tr ial cou nsel wa s ineffect ive for faili ng t o inves t igat e his allegat ions t hat Area 2 vio lent
cr imes det ect ives t old wit nesse s t o s elect him f ro m the lineup s. I n sup po rt of t his co nt ent ion, de f en da n t as se rtsi n h i s p eti ti on th at j us t two weeksaf

ter th e l i n eu psi n th i s c au se , i

n a s ep arate robbe ry i nv es ti ga ti on a l so i nv ol vi ng de f en da nt, the de tec ti ve s i n q ue sti on s ecure d a

wa rra nt f or th e a rre st o f on e L eo H i ck s, b as ed

on th e p osi ti v e i den ti f i ca ti on of wi tn es se s m ade f rom an ei ghtpartici pant li neup. Acc ording to defen dant, it soon cam

e to ligh t t hat Hi cks could n

ot have been the p erpetra

tor of this robbery

be caus e he had b een

on home conf i nemen t at the rel

ev an t tim e. In the sam

e context, defenda

nt asserts that had counsel Heenan undertaken a proper in vestigation, he would have di scovered evi dence of systematic tor ture and mi sconduct at Area 2
use d t o o bt ain co er ced co nfessio ns and wr ong ful co nvictio ns. I n sup po rt of t his co nt ent ion, de fen da nt at t ac he s his o wn affid av it 4 in which he ave rs t hat in conne ct ion wit h his arr est in a sep arate c ase , be ari

ng c ase No. 90 CR

11984 , wh ere h

e was trie d i n a bench trial

f or the rob beryNo. 1-05- 2039

15

of the Hal sted Trak Auto st ore, he to ld h is trial counsel that Detect iv

es McDerm

ot t and Masl

anka
co er ced his co nfessio n in that cas e and led t o him making “incr imi nat ing st at ement s” in many ot her cas es a s we ll. Altho ugh d efenda nt co nced es t hat t her e wa s no co nfessio n or incriminating statement used agai

nst hi m i n the cause

at bar, he argues that evi dence of systematic tor ture at A re a 2 wou

l d h av e s uppor ted h i s c l ai m of a ta i n ted l i n eu p a n d, i f i n trod uc ed at h i s m oti on to suppress t hat li

neup or at trial, could have ch anged the out come of those pr oceedings. The State cont ends that def endan t’s petition was properly

dis mi ssed b ecause i

t was barred by the doctr in

es of wai ver and res judicata . We agree. The Post-Conviction Heari ng Act (725 ILCS 5/122-1 et seq . ( We st 20 04 ) ) pr o vid es a me an s by w hic h a de fen da nt may c ha lleng e h is convi ction f or substantial

“v iolations of

federal or stat e constitutional

righ ts.” People v . Tenner , 175 Ill . 2d 372 , 37 7, 6 77 N .E.2 d 85 9, 8 62 ( 199 7). A t the f i rs t stageof

pos tcon vi cti on pr o ce ed ing s, t he cir cu it co ur t mus t de t er mine w he t he rt he pe t it io n is “ fr ivo lo us o ris p at en t ly witho ut merit. ” 725 ILCS 5/1 22- 2.1 (a) (2) (West 200 4); Pe o ple v. Bo cla ir , 202 Ill . 2d 89, 99, 789 N. E. 2d 7 34, 740 (2 002 ). In o rd er t o a void dismissal at t his st age , d efenda nt need only pr ese nt the g i st of a

meri torious constituti onal clai m . People v . Gaultney

, 174 Ill . 2d 410, 418, 675 N. E . 2d 10 2, 10 6 ( 19 96 )
. De fen da nt ne ed o nly p r es en t a limit ed amo un t o f de t ail a nd all w ellpl eade d al

l egati ons i n h i s petiti on m ust b e taken

as true and li beral l y construed. Peo ple v. Edwards , 1 97 I ll. 2d 2 39, 244 , 7 57 N .E .2 d 44 2, 445 (2 001 ). We re view t he circ uit co ur t 's
su mmar y dis miss al de novo
. People v . Colem an , 183 Ill . 2d 366, 387-88, 701 N. E.2d 1063, 1075 (1998 ). Because an

action seeki

ng postconviction rel

ie f is a coll

ateral proceedi

ng, not an appealNo. 1-05- 2039

16

f rom th e un derl y i ng judgm en t, the Act contem

plates th e f i l i ng of onl y one p ostconv

i cti on petiti

on. Peo ple v. Eva ns , 186 Ill . 2d 83, 89, 708 N.E .2d 1158, 1161 (1999). Consequen tly, all is sues act ually decide d o n dire ct app eal o r in t he o riginal po st co nvictio n pet itio n ar e bar re d by t he do ct rine o f res judicata , an d al l i ss ue s th at c oul d have b een r

ai se d i n th e ori gi na l proc ee di ng , or origi na l postconv i cti on petiti

on, b ut were n ot, are wai

ve d. Pe o ple v. Bla ir , 215 Ill . 2d 427, 443, 831 N.E.2d 604, 615 ( 2005). Where res judicataand w aiver p re clude defend ant fro m obt aining rel i ef , such a clai m wil l ne ces sari l y be f ri vol ous an d paten tly wi thout m eri t. Bla ir , 215 Ill . 2d at 445, 831 N.E.2d at 615. In the pres en

t case , wef

i nd tha t de f en da nt’ s c l ai m of i ne f f ec ti ve as sista nc e of cou ns el f or f ai l i ng to i nv es ti ga te d ef en da nt’ s c l ai m s of “ corr upti on a nd coerci on” at A rea 2 i n or de r to sh ow t ha t his lin eu p id en t ifica t io n w as “o r ch es t r at ed ” is wa ive d b ec au se de fen da nt co uld ha ve r ais ed it in hi s origi nal postco nvi

ction petition. See Bla ir , 215 I ll . 2d at 445, 831 N.E. 2d at 6 15; 725 ILCS 5/1 22- 3 (W

es t 200 4). De f

en da nt’ s enti re c l ai m of a tai nte d l i ne up i s p red i ca ted on th e c onte nti on that at the tim e of his l i ne up, detecti

ve s at A rea 2 were c oerci

ng c onf ess i ons, w

hi ch would i n turn the n m ake the p ropr

i ety of hi s l i ne up proce dur

e q ue sti ona bl e. H owe ve

r, d ef en da nt wasaw are

of the pre di ca te f ac ts i nv ol vi ng coerce d c onf

es si ons at the ti me h e f i l ed hi s ori gi na l pos tcon vi cti on pet itio n. T his fact is app ar ent fro m defenda nt ’s o wn affidavit at t ache d as par t of his su cce ssive postco nvi ction petition, which states that prior to hi s trial in the cause at bar, he told h is counsel t hat in a sep ar at e ca se D et ect ives McD er mot t and M aslank a co er ced him i nt o mak ing
co nfe ss io ns. De fen da nt wa s t hu s a wa r e o f t he co er cio n a t t he t ime t ha t it alle ge dly t o o k p lac e in 199 0 a nd at the ti me of hi s tri al i n 1 991 . Neve

rth el es s, d ef en da nt d i d n ot raise al l eg ati ons ofNo. 1-05- 2039

5 The exh ibits are m

arked from

Exhi bi t 1 t o Exhi

bi t 4 foll owed by Exhi bi ts B through Exh i bi t Q, and wi

l l be di scu sse d i

n gr eater detail

be l ow. 17 co er cio n t ha t wo uld su pp o r t a c o nt en t io n o f a t ain t ed lineu p e it he ro n d ire ct ap pe al o rin his
o r igin al p o st co nvic t io n p et it io n. I nst ea d, de fen da nt wa it ed 14 yea r s, un t il Ap r il 20 05 , t o r ais e it in hi s second postconviction petition in the context of counsel ’s f ai lure to in

vestigate the general
co er cive t act ics use d at Area 2 t o s how t hat his li neup was t ainte d. As we find tha t defend ant coul d have ra

i se d th i s c l ai m ea rl i er, i n h i s d i rect appe al

f ol l owi ng tri al or i n h i s f i rs t pos tcon

vi cti on peti ti on i n 20 00 , hi s f

ai l ure to d o so con sti tute s wai v er of th i s c l ai m an d p rop erl y wa rra n ts sum ma ry dism is sal of his postconviction petition. See Bla ir , 215 Ill . 2d at 445, 831 N. E.2d at 615; 725 IL CS 5/1 22-3 (W est 200 4). Defend ant never t heless c ont ends t hat his pet itio n is not pr oc edu ra lly bar re d bec aus e t he
so ur ce s r elie d o n by him n o w c o nst it ut e “ ne wly d isc o ve r ed ev ide nc e, ” w hic h c o rr o bo r at e h is cl ai m th at c ounse l

wa s i n ef f ec ti v e f or n ot i n v esti ga ti n g h i s a l l eg ati on s of “ coe rc i v e a n d c orru pt” lineups. In su ppo rt of his co nt ent ion d efenda nt at t ache s numer ou s do cument s, w hich he org ani zes in to 22 exhi bi ts. 5 Fo r the rea son

s th at f oll ow, we f i n d def en da n t’s con ten ti on wi th out m eri t. We f i rs t n ote t ha t in t he co nt ex t o f asu cc es siv e p o st co nvi ct io n p et it io n, t he rul e o f w aiv er is n o t mer ely a prin ci ple of j udic ia l a dmi ni stration, but, rat her, an ex press requi

remen t o f the statut e. See Pe o ple v. Pi tsonbarger , 205 I ll . 2d 444, 458, 793 N.E. 2d 609, 6 20-21 ( 2002); 725 I LCS 5/122-3 (West 2002)) (“[a]ny

cl ai m of substantial

deni al of consti tut iona l ri ghts not raised i

n the origi

nal or an amended p et ition is waived”) ; Pe opl e v . Sm i th , 341 Ill . App. 3d 530, 539, 794 N.E. 2d 367, 377No. 1-05- 2039

18

(200 3) ( because t here is less i nter est in pro vidi

ng a forum for t he vi

ndication of defendant ’s
co nst itu t ional r ight s in a suc ces sive pr oc eed ing, “w aiver, which wo uld be a pr oc edu ra l affi rmat ive de f ense f or p ur pos es of th e f i rs t peti ti on , b ec om

es a s ub sta n ti v e c on si dera ti on goi n g to th e m eri ts of a suc ces sive po st co nvictio n pet itio n”) . As s uch, waiver is gene ra lly fat al to a su cce ssive postco nvi ction petition, li

ke the one bef

ore us to day . However, our suprem e court has held that the statut ory bar to a successi ve postconviction petition ma y b e rela xed wh ere “f undam ental fai rness s o requires.” People v . Morgan , 212 Il l . 2d 148 , 153, 81 7 N.E.2d 524, 52 7 (200 4). In Pitsonba rger , ou r sup re me c our

t m ade i t cl ea r that th e s ol e “ an al y ti ca l tool” th at is to b e u se d to de term i ne whether f

un da men tal f ai rnes s req ui res an exce ption to th

e s tatutor y proc ed ura l ba r of wai ver or res judicatato a succ ess i ve postconv i cti on petiti

on i s the caus e-an d-prejudice test. Pitsonba rger , 205 Ill . 2d at 459, 793 N. E.2d at 621. The cause-an d-prejudi ce test as enunci

ated in Pitsonba

rgerha s s ub se qu en t ly bee n c o difie d in se ct io n 1 22
- 1( f) o f t he Ac t , wh ich be ca me eff ective on January

1, 2004. That sect ion states: “Only one p et itio n may be fil ed by a p et itio ner unde r t his Art icle witho ut leave o f the
cou rt. L ea ve of cou rt m ay be gra nte d on l y i f a p eti ti one r de mons trate d c au se

f or hi s or her failure t o br ing t he claim in hi s o r he r initial po st [] co nvictio n pr oc eed ings and prejudi ce resul ts from that f

ai lure. For purposes of thi s subs ection (f ): (1) a prisoner shows cause b

y i dentif yi ng an obje ctive factor that im

peded his or her abi

li ty to raise a specifi c cl ai m duri ng hi s or her in itial postco nvi

ction proceedi

ngs; and (2) a petitioner shows prej udic e by

dem onstrating that the cl ai

m n ot rais ed durin

g hi s or her in

itial post[] convi

ction proceedi

ngs so i nf ected the trial

that t he resul

ting conv iction or sentenceNo. 1-05- 2039

6 The OPS i

nve stigati on began

in 1989, foll

owing i nternal in vestigation of pol

ic e m i scon duct at A rea 2. “ The f i rst se cti on of

the O PS report i s kn

own a s the

Gol dston re

port. It 19 vi ola ted due proces s.” 7 25 IL CS 5/1 22-1(f ) (We st 2004 ). We find t hat in the p re sent cas e de fendant has failed t o s at isfy the “ca use ” pr ong of t he t est , so as t o be gr ant ed lea ve t o p ro cee d wit h his succ essive p os t co nvictio n pet itio n, be cau se he has f ai le d to point to an objec

tive f actor t hat im

peded hi m f rom rai si ng thi s clai

m i n an earli er procee di ng. In his brief, def

endan t att em pts to ci rcumv ent the cause prong by

si mpl y s tating that “objec t ive fact or s impede d t he pr ior ra ising of t he issue s ad vance d in t he inst ant pet itio n; spe cifically

*** t he emer genc e o f new evide nce, t he failure of c ou nsel t o inves t igat e, and * ** t he State ’s f ai l ure to su rrend er exc ul pa tory ev i de nc e p urs

ua nt to Bra dy v. Ma ryland .” However, we find de fen da nt ’s co nc lus o ry st at eme nt pr o vid es no pla us ible “ ca us e” fo rhis fa ilur e t o r ais e h is claim of ineffect ive assist ance of c ou nsel for failure t o inves t igat e allega t ions o f “cor ru pt ion and coercion” at Area 2 earl

ie r, because ev

ide nce of s ys tematic to rture was widel

y a vai la ble i n 2000 when he f i l ed hi s f i rs t pos tcon

vi cti on p eti ti on . See People v . Mahaf fey , 194 Ill . 2d 154, 185, 742 N.E.2d 251, 268 ( 2000), citin g Pe o ple v. Fr an klin , 167 Il l . 2d 1, 15 , 656 N .E.2d 750 , 758 (1 995). In f act, most of the cases that def endan t cites to in h

is postco nvi

ction petition were decided between 1987 an

d 2000. See , e.g., Peop l e v . Wi l son, 116 Il l . 2d 29, 5 06 N.E.2 d 571 ( 1987) ; People v . Banks , 19 2 Ill. App. 3d 9 86, 549 N.E .2d 766 (19 89) ; Wi ls on v. Ci ty of Ch ic ago , 6 F.3d 12 33 (7 th Cir. 1 993 ); Uni

ted States e

x re l . Max

wel l v. G i l more , 37 F. Su pp . 2d 10 78 ( N. D. I ll. 1999) . Si m i l arl y , the Report o f the C

hicago Polic e Departmen

t’s Off ic e of Professi

onal Standards (OPS) re port 6 to which defen

dant cites in h

is current petition, and which he atta ches as Exhi

bi t B,No. 1-05- 2039

documen ts the all egations of

50 dif feren t suspects concerni

ng m is conduct by

Area 2 personn

el fr o m 19 73 t o 19 86
. T he alle ga t io ns in clu de d 2 7 in cid en t s o f be at ing s, 13 inc ide nt s w he r e a pla st ic bag or typewri

ter cover was placed ove

r a suspect’s head, 11 in

ci dents where a f

irearm was used to threaten

or stri ke a s uspe ct, 9 i

nc i den ts of e l ectrosh

ock, an d 2 hangi ng i nc i den ts. The report co nc lud ed t ha t Ar ea 2 p o lice , [ he ad ed by co mmand ing o ffice rJo n B ur ge ] , en ga ge d in sys t ema t ic abuse of suspects duri

ng the 13-y

ear period, whi

ch i ncl uded pl ann

ed tor ture.” People v . Orange , 195 Ill . 2d 43 7, 44 5- 46 , 74 9 N
. E . 2d 93 2, 93 7 ( 20 01 )
. T he se co nd se ct io n o f t he OP S r ep o r t is the Sanders report, which is an an al ys is of the An

drew Wi ls on case. That report found that “Bur ge [ himself] act ively part icipat ed in t he ‘mistr eat ment’ of Wilson, bur ned Wilso n wit h a
ra diat or , r epe at edly sho cke d him, and ‘eng age d [ him] in sever al unjust ifi ed p hysical alte rc at ions durin g whi ch Mr. Wi

ls on was han

dcuff ed and i ncapab le of provi din

g any resi stance.’” Peo ple v. Patte rs on , 192 Il

l . 2d 93, 1 41, 735 N.E.2d 6 16, 643 (2000 ).
7 Am ong ot her things, Exhi

bi t G co ntains OPS report s detaili ng allegations agai

nst Se r ge an t Jo hn B yrn e, mad e b y Gr eg o ry Ba nk s a nd Da rr ell C an no n. On e o f t he r ep o r t s in E xhib it G i s a one -pa gedoc um en t titl ed “ Sum mary Re port– Sub j ec t: C om pl ai nt R eg i ster In ve sti ga ti on No. 188 617 .” The re po rt bear s t wo dat es: June 4, 199 3, and M ar ch 20 , 1 995 , a nd co ncer ns all egations of misconduct by Grego ry Banks agai

nst Sergeant John By

rne. Exhibit G also
co nt ains a Ja nuar y 31, 199 4, OP S r epo rt co ncer ning Dar re ll Cannon’s allegat ions o f abuse at t he ha nds of A rea 2 p oli ce of f i cers . 20 Exhi bi t 3, as well

as portions of Exh

ibit G, 7 wascom

pl eted on Septem ber 28, 19 90, ten

years be fo r e d efe nd an t filed his o r igin al postco nvi ction petition. See Orange , 195 Ill . 2d at 445, 749No. 1-05- 2039

21

N.E.2d a t 937. We simil ar ly f ind t hat t he major ity o f the exhibits t hat defend ant at t ache s t o his s ucc essive postco nvi ction petition are not “new,” as they were in exi stence at the tim

e he f il ed hi s origi

nal po st co nvic t io n p et it io n in 2 00 0. As s uc h, de fen da nt co uld we ll hav e e st ab lishe d h is c ur r en t cla im
o f ine ffec t ive as sis t an ce o f co un se l fo rfailu r e t o o bt ain ev ide nc e o f “c o er cio n a nd co rrup t io n” in the l i ne up proce dures

at Are a 2, b ase d on the data th at was al ready av ail ab l e to hi

m at that ti me. All the do cument s in Exhibit 1 , p er t aining t o t he ca se o f Leo Hicks and t he ar med r obbe ry o f the An j on Be auty

Sal on (an d i n w hi ch def endan t was a l so ch arged i n c ase No. 90 CR

11991 ), are da ted 199 0 a nd were th ere f ore a va i l ab l e 1 0 y

ea rs be f ore d ef en da nt f i l ed hi s f i rs t pos tcon

vi cti on peti tion
. Si m i l arl y , Ex hi bi t C, a cop y of a p arty ’s an sw er to p l ai

nti f f ’s com pl ai nt i n th e c as e of Wi ls on v. Ci ty of Ch ic ago , No. 86 C 2360 (N. D. Ill ., Octo ber 3, 1995), is dated Jun e 21, 1995, fi ve y ears prior to defendan

t fili ng hi s origi nal postco nvi

ction petition. Exhi

bi t D, a po rtion of an
un t it led leg al p lea din g, sig ne d b y t he co r po r at io n c o un se l o f t he Cit y o f Ch ica go an d a ga in
r efe r en cin g p laint iff Wilso n, is d at ed Ma y 15 , 19 95 , five yea r s p r io rt o de fen da nt ’s filing o f his first po st co nvictio n pet itio n. E xhibit J, a memor andu m from t he chief ad mini st ra t ive officer of t he Ci ty of Ch ic ago detailin

g le gal bi ll s paid in connecti on with the Wi

ls on v. Ci ty of Ch ic ago ca se , is dated N ovem

ber 7, 199 1, pred

ati ng d ef endan t’s ori gi na l postconv i cti on petiti

on by ni ne years . Two Citizen Al

ert lett ers, cont ained i

n Exhibit K, bot h predat e the fil ing of defendant’s origi nal postco nvi

ction petition. The fi

rst is dated Jul

y 26, 1989, an

d asks that OPS open an invest igat ion int o a llegat ions o f abuse by Jon B ur ge, and t he se co nd is da t ed Au gus t 2, 199 9, andNo. 1-05- 2039

8 T he firs t ar t icle r ep o r t s t ha t t he t he n S t at e’ s At t o rne y Ric ha r d D ev ine as ke d t he I llino is Su pr eme Co ur t t o t empo ra rily halt pr oc eed ings in thr ee d eat h pena lty cas es– Aaro n Pat t er so n, Ro nald Kitc hen and Der ick King–be cau se p ro cee dings in Da rr ell Canno n’s ca se c ou ld re so lve the question of

whether there was s

ys tematic coercion at Area 2. The s econd articl e report s that Patterson ’ssupp orters m

et wi th State’ s A

ttorney Dev i ne to mak e the i r cas e f or a ne w h eari ng. The third article is an edi

to rial , arguing that “[N] ow is the time to det ermi ne whether there was a patter n of b

rutali ty by police or ot hers that put in nocent people on Dea

th Row.” 22 ask s Chicag o p olice s upe rint ende nt , T er ry G. Hillard, OP S d irect or , C allie Baird, and t he presi dent of the Ch i cago Poli ce Board, Dem

etrius E. Carne y , to reo pen a

nd rev i ew the OPS invest igat ion. Si m i l arl y , m ost of the ne wspa pe r ar ti cl estha t de f en da nt a ttac he s to h

i s curren t pe ti ti on predate the fi

li ng of h is origi nal postco nvi

ction petition. Exhi

bi t L, a Chi cago Tribun

e edi to rial calling for a full pro be o f the Dar re ll Cannon, Aaro n Pat t er so n, R ona ld Kitche n and D er ick King
cas es, was published on J uly 31, 199 9. Exhibit M , a Chicag o S un- Times co mmentar y, ar guing that Aaron P att erso n’s all egat ions of abuse at the hands o f Jon Burge reinforce t he newspaper ’s pr ev io us ca ll fo ra mo r at o r ium o n e xe cu t io ns in I llino is is da t ed De ce mbe r15 , 19 98
. E xhib it E is a one-page transcri

pt o f a “ 60 Mi

nutes II” segm

ent, which ai

red on televi

si on on Decem

ber 7, 199 9, app ro ximately 10 mo nt hs pr ior t o d efenda nt ’s fili ng his o riginal po st co nvictio n pet itio n. Sim il arly , Exhi bi t Q contains three Ch

ic ago Tribun

e newspa per articles that are all

dated 1999. 8 Exhi bi t N also contain

s documen

ts predating the f

il in g of def endan t’s origi nal postcon v i cti on peti ti on b y moreth an

10 yea rs . Th at ex h i b i t i s c om pri se d of a s eri es of l ette rstoNo. 1-05- 2039

23

Fl i nt Tay l or, one of

Patterson ’sattorney

s, con cern i ng th e A ndr ew W i l son c ase , whi ch

are postm arked Marc h 6, 1 989, M arch

15, 198 9, an

d Jun e 16, 1 989. In the sam

e vei n, Exhi bi t Q contains a s eries

of correspondence regardi ng the i nj uries sustain ed by An drew Wi ls on, which was i

n ex is tence 18 y

ears bef ore defenda

nt fi le d hi s origi

nal po st co nvictio n pet itio n. T his co rr esp ond ence includes a Febr uar y 17, 198 2, lett er fro m Dr. Raba t o t he t he n s up er int en de nt o f p o lice , Ric ha r d B r ze cz ek , de t aili ng Wils o n’ s in jur ies , fo llo we d b y a Fe br ua ry 28 , 19 82 , let t er fr o m Br ze cz ek t o t he t he n S t at e’ s A t t o rne y Ric ha r d M
. Da ley, i nf orm i ng Dal ey tha t he ha d re ce i ve d a l ette r f rom Dr. Ra ba i nd i ca ti ng tha t An dre w W i l son “sust ained c er t ain injuries su bseq uent t o his a rr est ” and see king Da ley’s direc t ion “as t o ho w t he Departmen

t should proceed i

n the i nve stigati on of these al

le gations.” E xhi bit Q a lso co nt ain s a let t er fr o m Je ss e L . Ja ck so n t o t he t he n S t at e’ s A t t o rne y, Ri chard Dev

in e, requesting a

review of the proceedi

ngs i n Aaron Patt erson’s cas e, dated Feb ruary 23, 199 9. We do recogni

ze, however, that a few of the documen

ts on whi ch def

endan t reli es as ne wl y di sc ove red ev i de nc e b ec am

e a va i l ab l e on l y af ter h e f i l ed hi s ori gi na l pos tcon vi cti on p eti ti on i n 2 000 . Thes e i

nc l ude : (1 ) a c opy

of a p arty ’s res pon se to a m oti on to b ar th

e d ep osi ti ons of Ma yor Rich ar d M . D ale y and o t her o fficials in t he c as e o f Patt erson v. Burge , No. 03- C-4433 (Ci r. Ct. Cook Co.) ( Patte

rs on ple adi ng), dated September 24, 2004; (2) copi es of two Citi zen A l er t l ette rsaddr es se d to R

i ch ard D ev i n e, re qu esti

n g th e a pp oi n tmen t of a s pe ci al pr ose cu tor to in vestigate all

egations of

mi sconduct by

police off

ic ers under the com

ma nd of J on Burge dated March 29 an

d April 2, 2001 (Exh

ibits O an d P), and a copy of

a l etter dated April

4, 2001,No. 1-05- 2039

9 We also note t hat defe

ndan t att aches two undated m aterial s: (1) a copy of an

undated
ar t icle c ut fro m an u nide nt ified n ew sp ap er , r ep o rt ing t hat a fo rme r H o us t o n, Te xas , s her iff
rece i ve d a 10 -year s en

tenc e upon

his con vi cti on f or eli ci tin g conf ess i ons v i a torture (Ex

hi bi t H); and (2) a copy of

an un dated book review of a

nonf iction book about t he W

il son case, Un sp ea ka ble Ac t s, Or din ar y Pe o ple , by John Conroy (Exh i bi t I). 24 wr it t en as a r es po ns e t o t he se r eq ue st s b y t he Ch ief De pu t y t o t he Co o k C o un t y S t at e’ s A t t o rne y, en cou rag i ng Ci tizens A l ert to c ome f

orwa rd wi th a ny ne wl y di sc ove red ev i de nc e or i

nf orm ati on they mi ght have as soon as possi

ble (port ion of

Exhi bi t Q); and (3) copies of

two newspaper articles, the fi

rst an Apri

l 29, 2002, Ch

ic ago Tribun

e articl e report in g the appoin

tment of a s

peci al pros ecutor to i

nv es ti ga te al l eg ati ons tha t Bu rge an d others tortured su sp ec ted

cri m i na l s ( pa rt of Exhi bi t Q) and the second a Feb ruary 12, 2001, Sun-Ti

me s articl e i n wh ic h Of fi cer Peter Dignan den i ed that Darre l l

Can non wastortured i

nto con f ess i ng a t Area 2 (Ex hi bi t F). 9 Ho weve r, even if t he una vailabili t y of t hese t hre e piec es o f evidence wo uld p ro ve su f f i ci en t to es tab l i sh

ca us e f or de f en da nt’ s i na bi l i ty to raise the cl ai m of i ne f f ec ti ve as sista nc e of counsel for fa il ure to in vestigate hi s alle gations of “coerci on and corruption” i n hi s lin eup pr o ce du r e e ar lier , de fen da nt ca nno t es t ab lish t ha t he su ffer ed an y pr eju dic e in co nne ct io n w it h t his clai m. “‘ Prejudice’ ex

ists where the defendan

t can show t hat the claim

ed constitut ional

erro r so in fected h is trial that t he resul

ting conv iction vi olated due process.” People v . Brockman , 36 3 I ll. A pp. 3d 6 79, 689 , 84 3 N .E. 2 d 40 7, 4 15 ( 200 6). Be ca us e the c onv

i cti on of an i nn ocent p ers on violat es t he du e pr oc ess c lause of t he I lli nois C ons t itu t ion, ou r su pr eme co ur t has r eco gnized t he
r igh t o f a p o st co nvic t io n p et it io ne rt o as se r t a c laim o f ac t ua l inno ce nc e b as ed up o n ne wlyNo. 1-05- 2039

25

dis covered evi

dence. See Brockman , 363 Ill . App. 3d at 689, 843 N.E . 2d at 415. T o win rel ie f under thi s theory, howeve r, defen dant mus t show that t he ev

ide nce h e i s rel yi ng on (1) i s of such concl usi ve ch aracter t hat it wi

ll probabl y c han ge the resul

t o n retrial ; (2) i s m

aterial to the is sue, not merely cumulat ive; and ( 3) was disco ver ed s ince t rial and is of su ch cha ra ct er t hat t he defen dant in the exercise of due di

li gence could not have di scovered i t earlier. See Brockman , 363 Ill . A pp. 3d a t 689 , 84 3 N .E. 2 d a

t 416 ; s eealso Orange , 195 Ill . 2d at 450-51, 749 N.E.2d at 940, citi ng People v . Molstad , 101 Il l . 2d 128 , 134, 46 1 N.E.2d 398, 40 2 (198 4). I n lig ht o f t he o ve rwh elming ev ide nc e o f de fen da nt ’s gu ilt , t he r e is no pr o ba bilit y t ha t t his evi dence would ch ange the resul

t o f def endan t’s proceedin

g on retrial . The evi

dence prese

nted at defend ant ’s t rial est ablished t hat t hre e o f the st or e emplo yees ident ifi ed d efenda nt in cou rt as o ne o f t he pe r pe t r at o r s o f t he ar med r o bbe ry at t he St o ny I sla nd T r ak Au t o st o r e. All t hr ee vic t ims t es t ified in g r ea t de t ail r eg ar din g t he r o bbe ry and t he t hr ea t s ma de t o t he m by d efe nd an t . All th re e wi tn es se s a l so t esti f i ed as to th e c i rc um sta n ce s of th ei r l i n eu p i den ti f i ca ti on of de f en da n t, which o ccu rr ed o nly f

ou r d ays aft er t he r obbe ry, a nd all t hre e indicat ed t hat t hey had mad e t he i den tif i cations i nde pen den tly , wi thout coerci

on, i nterf eren ce or m i scon duct b y the of f i cers involved. Tw o a ddit ional wit nesse s t est ifi ed t hat t hey had be en r obbe d by defend ant in the vic init y o f t he St o ny I sla nd T r ak Au t o st o r e o n t he mo rning o f t he r o bbe ry and ide nt ified him in open court. In l

igh t o f this evi

dence, there i s no reasonab le probabi li ty that, had general

iz ed evi dence of a systemati c pattern of to rture at Area 2, wi th no referen

ce to mi sconduct in

li neup ide nt ifica t io n p r o ce du r es , be en int r o du ce d a t de fen da nt ’s t r ial, t he r es ult o f t he pr o ce ed ing wo uld ha ve be en di f f eren t.No. 1-05- 2039

26

Moreover, a review of

the Patte rs on pl eadi ng, th e corres ponde nc e b etween C i

tiz en Al ert
an d R i ch ard De vi ne , an d the n ew sp ap er a

rticl esrev eal s th at n one of the m con tai n a ny i nf orm ati on that would support defendan t’s alle gations that Detectives Habi ak and McG

uire “orchestrated” his li neup ident ifi

cat ion. Neit her officer is mentio ned in any o f the se d oc ument s. M or eo ver , t he alle gations of

coercion an

d to rture in the Patte

rs on pleadi ng an d the a rticl esi nv ol ve the us e of to rture t echn

ique s, nam

el y, el ectric sh ock, t o obt ai

n coerced conf

essi ons and m

ake no refe

rences to mi sconduct in

li neup i dentif ic ation procedures. In thi s context, we further note that in respec t to the Patte

rs on ple ad ing , se lf-s er ving do cu men t s p r ep ar ed in a nt icip at io n o f lit iga t io n “g en er ally la ck the earm

arks of trustwor thin

ess an d reli abi li ty.” Pe opl

e v . Sm i th , 141 Ill . 2d 40, 73, 565 N. E . 2d 90 0, 91 4 ( 19 90 )
. Mo r eo ve r , wit h r es pe ct t o ea ch o f t he se do cu men t s, at be st , ea ch wo uld pro vide cumulative corro borat ion of the previ ous evidence of A rea 2 co ercive tactics and i s, therefore, not “new.” See Orange , 195 Il l . 2d 450 -51, 74 9 N.E.2d

at 940. Mor e over ridingl

y, because gener ali

zed claim s of abuse, w ithout any l

ink to d efendant’s
cas e, i.e., some ev

ide nce corroborat in

g defen dant’s al le gations that he was

coerced in

to ma kin g a confes si on, or so me

si mi la rity between the ty

pe of abus e alle ged by

defen dant and that presented by the e vi den ce of other cases

of a bus e are i ns uf f i cien t to support a cl

ai m of c oerci on, the y are certai nl y too t en uous or rem

ote to support a cl

ai m of a “tai nted l i ne up.” Se e, e.g. Peo ple v. Ma xw ell , 173 Ill . 2d 102, 120-21, 670 N. E.2d 679, 687 ( 19 96 ) ( ho ldin g t ha t wit ho ut so me ev i den ce th at def en da n t wa s i n j ur ed , e v i den ce

of th e trea tmen t of oth er su sp ec ts, th

rough repor ts of phy sical abuse and coerc i on of

conf ess i ons a t Area 2, coul d not, by i tself , be the b asis f

or a po st co nviction evident iary hearing); Peop l e v . Hi nton , 302 Ill . App. 3d 614, 626, 706 N.E. 2dNo. 1-05- 2039

27

1017, 1022-23 (1998) (Gr ei ma n, J., specially

concurrin

g) (rejecti ng def endan t’s contention that he was e ntitled to an evidentia

ry h earin g on hi s postconviction petition because he h ad new
ev ide nc e t ha t sho we d “ sys t ema t ic t o r t ur e” at Ar ea 2, sp ec ifica lly an a ffida vit fr o m an I llino is at t or ney, O PS re po rt s, findings fro m the C hicago po lice boa rd , a nd his o wn affidavit asse rt ing that he was

be aten , pi stol -whi

pped , sho cke d and suffo cat ed, beca use defend ant did no t pr ese nt su fficient evid enc e o f h i

s o wn inj ury); People v . Hobley , 159 Ill . 2d 272, 311-12, 637 N. E.2d 992,1009-10 (1994) (holdin g it was n ot error for t rial

court to bar testim

ony of three witnes ses who cl ai med th ey had also be en

abuse d by

the s am e of f i cer w ho ab use d def endan t bec aus e the

re was no evi

dence that the def

endan t had sustain

ed i nj uries consi stent with h

is cl ai m of police brut ality); People v . Hobley , 182 Il l . 2d 404 , 448-4 9, 696 N .E.2d 313 , 335-3 6 (199 8) ( Hobl ey II ) (deny in g postco nvi

ction petitioner’s request to pr oceed to an ev ide ntiary heari ng, holdin g that “n ew evi dence” cons is

ting of the OPS report and transcri pts of testim

ony f rom other all

eged victim s of abuse did not alter t he cou rt ’s determi nation tha t defenda nt did n ot suf fer i nj uries
co nsistent with his claim

s of abu se); People v . Murray , 254 Ill . App. 3d 538, 553, 626 N.E. 2d 11 40 , 11 50 ( 19 93 ) ( ho ldin g t ha t de fen da nt ’s alle ga t io ns o f ab us e o f o t he rsu sp ec t s w er e p r o pe r ly excluded becau se t hey were “g enera l i n natu re” ); Ma ha ffey v
. Sc ho mig , 29 4 F .3d 90 7, 9 17 (7 th Cir
. 20 02 ) ( no t ing t ha t de fe nd an t ’s fa ilu r e t o pr o du ce an y co rr o bo r at ing eye wit ne ss t es t imo ny, med ica l re co r ds o rsu pp o r t ing ev ide nc e d ea ling wit h t he inju r ies he alle ge s he su st ain ed wh ile in
cus t od y signifi

cant ly under mined his involunt ar y confes sion c laim). All the mo re , u nder t he reasoni ng an d anal ys is of the f orego in g cases, the f

act that t hese three pi

eces of ev ide nce m ay sho w t ha t o ffice r s a t Ar ea 2 a bu se d a nd t o r t ur ed de fen da nt s t o co er ce t he ir c o nfe ss io ns it isNo. 1-05- 2039

28

insu fficie nt t o es t ab lish t ha t t he o ffice r s he r e p er pe t r at ed a d iffer en t t ype o f misc o nd uc t in manipulat ing wit nesse s for t he pu rp os e o f obt aining false lineup ide nt ifi cat ions, so as t o w ar ra nt cons i derati

on i n a suc ces si ve postconv i cti on petiti

on. Th i s i s al l the m ore true here, w

here the re was testim

ony b y three wi tnesses n egatin g any such i nterferen ce or man ipul ation by the police off ic ers i nvol ved i n the l in eup procedure. We further find that we cannot at t his tim e enter tain any consideration o f defendant’s
re liance up on t he Re po rt of t he Sp ecial St at e’s At t or ney for evidenc e o f co er cion. While the
r ea so ns alr ea dy a r t icu lat ed ab o ve wo ul d p er t ain t o t he Re po r t o f t he S pe cia l S t at e’ s A t t o rne y, na mel y tha t ev i de nc e of a p atte rn of sy stemati c c oerc i ve tac ti csto obta

i n c onf es si ons i s too
r emo t e t o es t ab lish c o er cio n in a lineu p p r o ce du r e, we ne ve r t he les s s ho uld no t co nsid er t his doc um en t at al l , at th

i s ti me, b ec au se

de f en da nt d i d n ot atta ch i t to hi s s uc ce ss i ve pos tcon vi cti on petition b ut introduced it f

or t he f irst tim e on appeal . We note that although we i ni tial ly granted de fen da nt ’s r eq ue st t o cit e t o t ha t r ep o r t as ad dit io na l au t ho r it y, w e fin d t ha t it wo uld be ill ad v i se d f or u s to con

si der that rep ort f

or th e f i rs t ti me on appe al wi th out i t f i rs t b ei n g a ttach ed to defen dant’s postconviction petition for i ni tial scrutin y a nd eval uation at the trial

court le vel . See 725 ILC S 5 /1 22- 2 ( West 200 2) (“[ a po st co nvictio n] p et itio n shall haveatta ch ed th ereto af f i dav i ts, records , or other ev

i den ce, suppor

ting its allegation

s” (emphasis ad ded) ); Peo ple v. Co lli ns , 20 2 Il l . 2d 59, 66- 69, 782N.E .2d

195 , 19 9-2 00 ( 200 2) (hol di ng tha t pos tcon vi cti on petitioner can

not be excuse d from

the pleading req uirement s of sec tio n 122- 2); People v . Turner , 187 Il l . 2d 406 , 414, 71 9 N.E.2d 725, 73 0 (199 9) (hold

i ng th at f ail ure to attach

the n ece ssa ry af f i dav i ts, records

or other ev

i den ce or ex plai n i ts ab sen ce is “ f atal” to a postcon

vi cti on petiti

on);No. 1-05- 2039

10 I n a n e ar lier ap pe al fr o m a d en ial o f a d iffer en t po st co nvic t io n p et it io n file d b y t he sa me defend ant wit h re spe ct t o a not her co nvictio n (c ase No . 9 0 CR 119 84) , w e did c ons ider , w ith t he ap pa r en t ac qu ies ce nc e o f bo t h p ar t ies , t he imp ac t o f t he Re po r t o f t he S pe cia l S t at e’ s A t t o rne y, without it f

irst ha vi ng be en f il ed i n the trial court . See Peop l e v . A

nd ers on , No. 1- 05-1379 (D ece mber 2 2, 200 6) (u npublished or der pur sua nt t o S upr eme Co ur t Rule 2 3) . I n t hat dec ision,
wef oun d that u nd er th e f ac ts of tha t ca se cou pled , am ong othe r thi ng s, w i th th e e xp l i ci t ref us al of t he Re po rt of t he Sp ecial St at e’s At t or ney to sup po rt defend ant ’s co nt ent ions w ith r esp ect t o a ny of his convi

ctions, that defen

dant did n ot suf fi ci ently cross the threshold of

cause an d prejudi ce for his petiti on to proceed to the second stage of postconviction proceedi ngs. See Peo ple v. A nd ers on , No. 1-05-1 379 (D ecem ber 22, 20 06) (un

pub l i shed order

pursuan t to Suprem

e Court 29 Colem an , 183 Ill . 2d at 380, 701 N. E.2d at 1071, quot in g People v . Jenn

in gs , 411 Ill . 21, 102 N.E.2d 824 (1952) ( holdi ng that fai

lure to att ach the n

ecessary documen tation by itsel f j ustif ie s the p eti tion ’ssum

mary di sm i ssa l); Peop l e v . Je f

f ers on , 345 Ill . App. 3d 60, 71, 801 N.E. 2d 552, 56 0 ( 20 03 ) ( ho ldin g t ha t , at t he firs t st ag e o f po st co nvic t io n p r o ce ed ing s, “ ‘[ t ] he cir cu it co ur t is requi red to m ake a n i nde pen den t asse ssm en t *** as to whether the allegations in the petition, li beral ly construed and taken as true, set forth a constitutional cl ai m f or reli ef.’ (Em

phasis added) [Cit at ion. ] I ssu es t hat ar e r aised for t he first t ime on ap pea l are by de fini t ion no t ‘allegat ions in t he pet ition’ ”) ; People v . Montgom ery, 327 Ill . App. 3d 180, 186, 763 N.E. 2d 369, 375 (2001) (holdi ng that aff

ida vi t att ached on appea

l b ut not as part of defe

ndan t’s postco nvi

ction petition as required b

y the Act i s stricken

because “[a]ppel la te review is general ly restricted to what has been properl y pres en ted an d pres erved of

record i n the tri al court”). 10 Altho ugh t he Re po rt of t heNo. 1-05- 2039

Ru l e 2 3) . H owev er , w e rec ogn ize i n th i s dec i si

on th at th e b ette r p ra cti ce wou l d h av e b een n ot to have considered that repo rt in an y e ven t for the fi rst t im e on appeal

without it f

irst ha vi ng be en pres en ted to the tri al

court, f or the re ason s heretof

ore i ndi cated.
11 Th e R ep ort of the Spe ci al State ’s A ttorn ey wa s c om plete d pu rs ua nt to a cou rt ord er of t he ch ief ju dg e o f t he cir cu it co ur t cr iminal d ivisio n e nt er ed o n Ap r il 24 , 20 02 , an d r ele as ed in July 200 6, six years aft er defend ant fil ed his se co nd po st co nvictio n pet itio n, a nd aft er defend ant fi le d the reply

bri ef i n the current cause. 30 Spe ci al State ’s A ttorn ey di d n ot material

izeun ti l af ter th e c i rcu i t cou rt h ad al rea dy rul ed on defend ant ’s po st co nvictio n pet itio n, 11 we no t e t hat neithe r by st at ut e no r c ase law is t her e any li mi t t o t he num

ber of successi

ve postco nvi

ction petitions that can be f il ed with the trial court , so as t o en ab le t ha t co ur t t o firs t co nsid er an y alle ge dly n ew ly dis co ve r ed ev ide nc e b efo r e it is subm itted for appella

te review
. Defe ndan t may well c ontend that even wi thout considerin

g the Report o f the Speci al S t at e’ s A t t o rne y, thi

s c as e i s s i

m i l ar to Patte

rs on , 192 Ill . 2d 93, 735 N.E. 2d 616, and Peo ple v. King , 19 2 I l l . 2d

18 9, 7 35 N. E.2 d 5 69 (2 00 0) , c as es h ol di n g th at def en da n ts were en

ti tl ed to evi den tia ry he ari ngs ba sed on al l egati ons of newl y di scovered e

vi den ce of pol i ce a bus e at A rea 2. We find t hese cas es inap po site . We first not e t hat bot h King and Patte rs on invo lve d n ew ly disco ver ed e vidence pr ese nt ed in a firstpo st co nvictio n pet itio n, no t in a suc ces sive po st co nvictio n pet itio n. Mo re ove r, in bot h King and Patte rs on the defendants sought t o est abl ish t ha t t he ir o wn co nfe ss io ns w er e c o er ce d b as ed up o n e vid en ce sho win g a pa t t er n o f sys t ema t ic abus ive co nduc t by officers at Area 2 t o o bt ain suc h co nfessio ns. I n neithe r c ase did t heNo. 1-05- 2039

31

de fen da nt s t ry t o us e e vid en ce o f sys t ema t ic c o er cio n o f co nfe ss io ns t o es t ab lish mis co nd uc t in the l i ne up proce dure. In

the prese nt ca se, def

endan t ma de n o in cri m i na tin g statem en ts that we re used agai nst hi m a t t rial . As such, as al

ready di scussed ab ove, evidence of mi sconduct by

ot her offi cers in coercin

g confessions from other defendants at Area 2 w ould be too remote t o est abl ish a tai nted l i ne up. 2. Brady violat ions Def endan t nex t conten ds that his petiti

on state s a g i st of a

meri torious clai m und er Brady v. Ma ryland , 37 3 U
. S. 83 , 10 L. E d. 2d 21 5, 83 S. Ct
. 11 94 ( 19 63 ) , be ca us e t he St at e v io lat ed his due proc es s ri gh

t to a f ai r tri al by f ai l i ng to di sc l ose

excul pa tory ev i de nc e of vol um i nou s c l ai m s of Area 2 poli

ce tort ure “ech

oing” defen dant’s cl ai ms of coercion. Speci

fi cally defen dant contends that t he State fai

le d to dis cl ose evi

dence of a pattern of coercion of conf essi ons at Area 2 involving Det ect ives Ha biak and McG ur ie which wo uld have bolst er ed his c ont ent ion t hat t he lineup in his case was t ainte d and led t he t rial co ur t t o c onc lude t hat “the lineup ident ifi cat ions could n ot be trusted.” Defen

dant further ass erts that Assi stant Stat e’s A tt orney K ip Owen kn

ew of th i s m i scon duct, b ut fa i l ed to di scl

ose i t to t he def en se. The same r eas ons t hat led us t o c onc lude t hat defend ant ’s co nt ent ions o f ineffective assist ance of c ou nsel in fail ing t o o bt ain evidenc e o f a syst emat ic pat t er n of c oe rc ed c onfe ssio ns to es tab l i sh a ta i n ted l i n eu p w ere wi th out m eri t l ead u s to con

cl ude th at def en da n t’s atte m pt to obtai n re vi ew b y reas on tha

t the State f

ail ed to di scl

ose thi s i nf orma tion m ust l i kewi se f ail
. Ill in ois courts have l

ong recogniz ed that a crim in al defen dant’s ri ght to due process and a fair t rial is violat ed by t he pr os ecu t ion’s fa ilure t o d isclos e mat er ial evidence favo ra ble to t heNo. 1-05- 2039

32

def en se a nd th at such c l ai

m s are cogn izab l e i n postconv

i cti on proce edi

ngs . Pe o ple v. Ha rr is , 206 Ill. 2d 1 , 44 , 79 4 N. E. 2d 3 14, 341 (20 02) ; People v . Hobley , 182 Ill . 2d at 429-32, 696 N.E.2d at 326-332. To establ

is h a Brady violation, def

endan t must show that the suppressed ev ide nce was b oth mate rial an d f av ora b l e to h i s def ense . Ev i den ce i s m ate rial i f th ere is a re as on ab l e p rob ab i l i

ty t hat t he r esu lt o f the defend ant ’s t rial wo uld have been d iff er ent had t he pr os ecu t ion d isclos ed t he
evi den ce. People v . Thomas , 3 64 I ll. App. 3d 9 1, 101 , 8 45 N .E .2 d 84 2, 852 -5 3 ( 200 6) . “A
re aso nable pr oba bili

t y of a d iff

er ing re sult is one *** sufficient t o u nder mine confidenc e in the trial ’s actual

out come.” Thomas , 36 4 I l l . A pp . 3d at 1 01 , 84 5 N .E. 2d

at 8 52 -5 3. A

cc ordi n gl y , to succeed on a cl

ai me d Brady

violation, a def

endan t must dem

onstrate t hat (1) the undi sclosed evi dence is f avorabl e to him because it i s ei ther excul pator y or i

mpe achi ng, (2) the evi

dence was eit he rwillfu lly o rina dv er t en t ly wit hhe ld b y t he St at e, an d ( 3) wit hho ldin g t he ev ide nc e r es ult ed in prej udi ce to hi m . People v . Rapp , 343 Il l . Ap p. 3d 41 4, 418, 7 97 N.E.2 d 738, 7 41 (20 03). We f irst note that defenda

nt has wai

ved thi s clai

m b y f ai li ng to raise i

t in h is origi nal postco nvi ction petition. See People v . Pitsonbarger , 205 Ill . 2d 444, 458, 793 N.E .2d 609, 620- 21 (2002); 725 ILCS 5/122-3 (West 2002) (“[a]ny cl ai m of substantial

deni al of consti tut iona l right s not raised in the o riginal or a mended pe tit ion is waived”) ; Pe opl e v . Sm i th , 341 Ill . App. 3d 530 , 5 39, 794 N. E. 2d 3 67, 377 (2 003 ) ( beca use t her e is less int er est in pro viding a fo ru m for t he vind ica t io n o f de fen da nt ’s co nst it ut io na l rig ht s in a su cc es sive pr o ce ed ing , “w aiv er , wh ich wo uld be a p ro ced ur al affirmative d efense for pur po ses o f the first pet itio n, be co mes a su bst ant ive consideration goin

g to the me

rits of a s uccessi ve postconviction petition”). As detai le d above, t he ex hibit s s ub mit t ed in su pp o r t o f de fen da nt ’s cla im we r e d isc o ve r ab le p r io rt o his filin g h isNo. 1-05- 2039

33

original post convicti on pet ition i

n 2000. Mor eover, even assumi ng that t he Stat e did possess
su ch ev ide nc e o f misc o nd uc t at Ar ea 2 a t t he t ime o f de fen da nt ’s t r ial, an d t ha t de fen da nt co uld not h ave di sc ove

red i t at the ti me h e f i l ed hi s ori gi na l pos tcon vi cti on p eti ti on, de f en da nt c an not me et the Brady

mate rial i ty test b ec au se , a s d

i sc us se d a b ov e, th ere is n

o re as on ab l e p rob ab i l i

ty tha t, h ad such ev i de nc e of sy stemati c tortu re a t Ar ea 2 b een d i sc l ose d to the d ef

en se , th e re sul

t of the proceed

i ng woul d ha

ve be en di f f eren t. CONCLUSION Fo rt he fo r eg o ing r ea so ns, we find t ha t de fen da nt 's p o st co nvic t io n p et it io n w as pr o pe r ly dismissed fo r failing to st at e any merit or iou s claims. Ac co rd ingly, we a ffi rm t he o rd er of t he ci rcui t court of C ook County
. Af fi rmed. FITZ GERA

LD SM ITH, P.J., a

nd McNULTY, J., c oncu r.