## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 10

- 3407 S OL OM ON M ON R OE, Pet i t i one r -Appe l l ant, v. R ANDYJ. D AV IS, W ar den, R espo nd ent-A pp ellee.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 06 C4334

—Jo an B. G ott schall, Judge
.
A RGUED A PRIL 10, 2012

— D ECIDED A PRI L 4, 2013

Befo re P OSNER, R OV NERa nd H A MI L T ON, C ircu it Judges. R OV NER, Cir cu it Judg e . S o l o m o n Monr o e appe al s th e dist ri ct c ourt ’ s deci sion to deny hi s peti ti on f ora w ri t o f h ab ea s c o r p u s. M onroev. Zi m m e r m an , 20 10 W L 33070 81 (N .D . I ll. A u g. 18 , 201 0); see 2 8 U .S
. C. § 2 254. M onr oe w as convi cted o ffi rs t- degre e m urder on a n acco untabi l i ty th eo r y i n the Ci r cui t Cou r t o fCo o kC ou nt y, I l l i no i s, a nd sente nced to a t er m o f40 y ea rs . M onr oe conte nd s that hi s federa lco n sti tuti onalr i ghts w er e v i ol ate d i n thr ee2 N o. 10

- 3407

re sp ec ts : he w as arr es t e d w i th ou t p ro b ab le c au se , in vi ol ati on o fthe Four th A m endm ent; hi s t ri alco u nsel was i ne ffec ti ve i n f ai l i ng to ca l l hi s br o th er an d sis te r - i nl aw as witnes ses attr i aland in s u p porto fhi s m oti on t o su p p re ss h is p os t-a rre st st at em en ts , in vio lat ion of h is Si xth A m endm ent r i ght t o effecti ve l ega lr epres entati o n; a nd fi na l l y tha t th e S ta te p r es en te d i ns uffi ci en t evi dence to support hi s co nvi cti on o n an ac countabi l i ty th eo r y, i n v i o l at i o n o fhi s F o urte en thAm en dm en t r i g ht to due p r o c e s s . F i n d i n gn o me r i ti n a n y o fth e s e a r g um en ts , we affi r m the de ni alo fhi s habe as pe ti ti o n.

I. I n the e a r l y mo r ningh o ur s o fNo v e mbe r 2 3 , 1 9 96, K eit h Sta lke r w as fat ally blu d ge on ed an d st a b b e d in th e afte r m ath o fa dr ugs al e g o ne wro ng . W i tn es se s to the at ta ck o n S ta l k er l ed Chi ca g o po l i ce to M o nroe and thre e fe l l ow m em ber s o fthe Blac k P- St one N ati on s tr eet g an g: M i ch ae lTho m as , Ty r o ne Cur r y, a nd To r y J ac k so n. I t tu rn ed out thatthes e four m en had bee n m aking st re et sal es ofc ra ck coca i ne and St al ker, a m em bero fano ther g a n g, h a d b e e n h e l p i n gt o r e c r u i tc u s t o me r s f o r th e m. S t a l k e r i n c u r r e d th e wr a th o fth e o th e r me n a ft e r t wo m em bers of Stalke r ’s gan g d rove up to m ake a p urch as e butthe n s ped o ffwi th o ut p aying fo r the c o ca i ne th eyha d been gi ve n. He was b ea te n b y M o nr o e an d C u rry , an d th en st ab b ed by T h om a s . M on ro e w ou ld l at era ckno wl edg e th athe di d st r i k e S ta l k erb ut denie d a ny f or ekno w l edge that Thom as w oul d stab hi m . M onr oe ple ad ed notgui l ty to a char ge ofm urderN o. 10

- 3407 3

an d pr o ce ede d t o t r i al, cont endi ngtha t he ha rbo r ed no k no wl e dg e o r i nt e nttha tS t a l k e r wo ul d b e k i l l e d. J acks on, afterhi m sel fbeing ac quit ted o n a m urder charg e, o pted to coo perat e with the author i ti es and w as a keywitnes s a gainst M onr oe at tr i al

. J acks on e xplained that on the ev eni ng o fN ove m ber22

- 23, 19 96, he, Thom as, Cur r y, a nd M o nr o e wer e se l l i ngc rack c o ca i ne o n the 4500 bl ocko fN or th M agno l i a Avenue, i n the hear t o f Ch i cago ’ s U ptow n nei ghborhood. Each of the m en pl ay ed a di ffer en t r o l e i n the op er at i o n o fthe i r “ dr ug spot”: Thom as , a ra nki ng m em bero fthe gang, was re spo ns ibl e f o r suppl y i ngthe c o ca i ne a nd s upe r vi sing and enf or ci ng di sci pline am ong th e othe rs . J acks on t oo k care of the retail en d of th e op eration, l ocat ing cu stom ers and m aking hand-to

- hand sa l es. M onr oe kept the s tas h ofco cai ne hidd en and suppli ed re tai l

- quanti ty packet s ofco cai ne to J acks on as needed. Curryhandle d secur i ty, kee ping one eye o n the coca i ne supply and anothero n J acks on, to m ake sur e that he w as not “stuck up” by a custo m er . R. 31

- 3 a t 1 1. S tal ker, w h o w as a m em bero f th e G ay lo r d N at ion st re etga n g, h elp ed Jac ks on rec ru it cus to m er s. S ta l k erwas a c o ca i ne a ddi cta nd a fr eque nt c u s t o me r o fJ a c k s o n ’ s , a n d o n o c c a s i o n h e h e l p e d o ut J ac k so n i n ex ch an g e f o r co ca i ne when he l ac k ed the m oneyto support hi s habi t. Thei r ro l e in fiel ding cust o me r s r e q u i r e d J a c k s o n a nd S t a l k e r t o s t a t i o n th e ms e l v e s o n th e s t r e e t, w h i l e th e o th e r s l a r g e l y k e p tth e msel ves out ofvi ew i n nearby gangways and shrubber y. J ac k son rec al l ed th ats o m et i m e be twe en3 : 00 a nd 4 : 0 0 a . m. o n No v e mbe r 2 3 , a r e d C hevy Bl a z e r dr o v e u p.4 N o. 10

- 3407 A passe ngerexi ted the v eh icle and spoke bri efl y with S t a l k e r . T he ma n ha d the l e t t e r s “ GLN” t att oo ed across his fo rehe ad

. GL N i s an ab breviation for Gay lord N ati on, the gang to w hi ch St al ke r bel onge d; and Sta l ker appe ar ed t o kno w the man. He was i nt er es te d i n mak i ng a dr ugpur ch ase, so Sta l k ers te er ed hi m t o J ac k so n. The m ana sk ed Ja ck so n wha t $1 50 woul d b uy hi m ; the answ erwas an “e i ght b al l” (about 3. 5 g ra m s) o fcr ack c oc ain e. Ja c ks on d id n oth av e t h at qu an tit y on h is per so n, s o he di r ecte d the Bl az ert o dr i ve a r o und the bl ock w hi l e he obt ai ned the coca i ne fro m M onr oe. W he n the v eh icl e r etur ne d, J ac k so n h an ded th e co ca i ne to th e p as se n ge r th ro u gh th e o p en ca r w in d ow . I m m ed iat ely afterJ acks on handed the co cai ne o ver, the Blaz er sped aw ay. J acks on, wh o had not be en p aid, gr abbed th e do o r fr ame a nd mana g ed to ho l d on to the s pee di ng vehic l e fora coupl e o fbl ock s, unti lthe dri verdel iber ate l y b rushed the Bl azer aga i nst a n El vi aduct, kn ocki ng J acks on t o the g ro und unconsci ous. A nother cus to m ero fJ ac k so n’ s, who ha p pen ed to wi tn es s th e i nci dent, r oused hi m back to co nsci ousness , and J acks on m ade hi s way bac k t o the dr ug spot
. J acks on f ound Thom as i n a gangway. Thom as w as furi ous about the l os s of the co cai ne, and he knocke d J a c k s o n t o th e g r o u n d wi th a p u n c h t o th e e y e . As J acks on pi cked hi m sel fup, h e sa w thatThom as w as angr i l y s tabbing the ground w i th a 12- i nch l ong “Ram bo” hunting kni fe. T h om as gr um bl ed that J acks on was “al w ays fucki ng up. ” R. 31

- 3 a t 3 0. A s th e tw o m en w er e t al ki ng, they h ea rd Currywh i stl e tw i ce, wh i ch they re cogni zed as a sign al forthe gang m em ber s t o showN o. 10

- 3407 5 them sel ves. J acks on a nd T h om as walk ed out ofthe gangw ay onto M agno l i a Avenue, wh er e they s aw that Cur r y a nd M o nr o e wer e do wn the b l o ck, e sc o r ting S ta l k er, s ho ul dert o s ho ul der, t o war d them

. Acco r di ng to J acks on, as he a nd Thom as em er ged fro m the gangw ay , M o n r o e s tr u c k St alk er in t h e fa c e, ca u sin g h im to f al lto the gr ou n d . M on ro e, j oi ned by Curr y, co nti nued to pu nch St al ker

. Then M onr oe ran overto a nearby co ns truct i o n dum pst er an d r et r i ev ed a tw o -by

- f o ur pie ce o fwood, wh i ch he use d to str i ke St al kertwice
. Cu rr y then to ok the b oa rd fro m M onr oe and bega n to str i ke St al kerwith i t hi m sel f

. J acks on e st i m ate d that the tw o m en h it Sta l kerwith the bo ar d a to talo ffi ve to seve n ti m es. At th i s po i nt, Tho m as l eft J ac k so n an d r an o ver to the othe r m en. A s Thom as approached, M onr oe back ed aw ay fro m S talk erbyabo ut a f oo t. W i thout any for ew ar ni ng, T h om as produced his kni fe a nd st abbed S ta l k eri n the s to m ac h. Af te r Tho m as r emov ed th e k ni fe fr o m S ta l k er ’ s ab do m en, he a l o ngwi thJ ac k so n, Cu rr y, and M onr oe fl ed the scene i n M onr oe’ s ca r. They d rove to an ap artm en t belongin g t o fr iend s of T hom as’s on the so uth si de ofthe ci ty, wh er e they s pent the ni ght. Stalker w as take n to Il linois M ason ic H osp ital, w he re he di ed l ate r that day. A n auto psy would r eve al l acer ati ons to the upper b ack port i on o fS tal ker ’ s hea d an d t o hi s sh i n a nd l o werl eg, abrasi o ns o n the fr o nt an d s i de o fhi s he ad, a nd c o ntus i o ns o n h i s ch ee k s an d l i ps

— al lco nsi ste nt with bei ng st ruck by a blunt obj ect (i nc lud ing a fi st an d a tw o-by-f ou r)

— as w el las a ni ne-6 N o. 10

- 3407 i nc h, j agged woun d t o hi s uppe r abdo m en . The as si st an t m edi ca le xa m i ne r f o und e vi den ce o fsw ell i ng o fthe b r a i n re s ul t i ngfr o m t he b l o ws t o S t a l k e r ’ s h e a d. The exam i ner concl ud ed that St alk er di ed as a r esul t o f th e s t ab w o u n d t o h i s ab d o me n, a n d th a tth e t r a um a i nfl i ct ed o n S ta l k er ’ s he ad was a s i g ni fi ca ntc o ntr ibut i ngf ac to r t o hi s dea th

. Pr el i m i na r y i nv es ti g at i o n l ed th e po l i ce to J ac k so n, w ho t ol d them wh at had happ ened and ga ve them M onr oe’ s a dd ress. The pol i ce t oo k c ustody ofM onr oe at hi s ho m e a nd t oo k h i m to a pol i ce s tat i on f orquesti oni ng. There , M onr oe or al l y a cknow ledged, fi rs t t o a d et ec tiv e a n d lat er to a p ro se c u to r, th at h e h ad p ar tic ip at ed i n t h e b ea tin g of S ta lke r an d h ad st ru c k h im tw i ce with the tw o-by

- f our. In a fi nal, co rr ecte d w ri tte n sta tem ent, M onr oe i nd i cate d that he and Curryhad c o mpl e t e d th e i r a t t a c k o n S t a l k e r b e f o r e T h o ma s a pproa ched w i th the kni fe; ea rl i er, he ha d i nd i cate d that th e bea tingwas s ti l li n pr o g r es s when Tho m as r anup an d stabb ed Stalker. M onr oe w as cha rg ed with m urder on a n acco untab ility th eo ry . B efo re tria l, M on r o e m ov ed to qu as h h is ar r es t ( al o ngwi ththe fr ui ts o fthe a r r es t, i nc lud i ng hi s pos t- ar re st st at em ents) , co ntending that the pol i ce lac ke d p r o b a b l e c au se to be liev e h e w as inv olv ed in S t a l k e r ’ s mur de r as o fthe t i me the y t o o kh i m i nt o c us t o dy at hi s ho m e. Se parat el y, M onr oe m ove d to supp re ss th e oraland w ri tte n sta tem ents he m ade atthe pol i ce sta ti on o n the gr ou n d that they were the product o f c o e r c i o n, a l l e g i ng tha t he wa s i mpr o pe r l y i so l a t e d,N o. 10

- 3407 7 denie d acces s t o an at torne y, and physi cal l y abused by the det ec tives who questi oned hi m . The tr i alj ud ge den i ed bo thmot i o ns a fte r a h earing
. In de ny i ngthe mot i o n t o qua s h the a r r e s t, the t r i a lc o ur tr ej ecte d M onr oe’ s c on tenti on that he w as ar re ste d at hi s ho m e. The cour t ins tea d fo und thatM onr oe had accom panie d the pol i ce v ol unt ar ily to the pol i ce s tat i on a nd was pla ced und erar re st ther e a t a l ate r ti m e, bywh i ch p oin t t h e p o lice h ad am p le e vid en c e c on firm in g h is i nv o l ve m en t wi thS ta l k er ’ s dea th

. M onr oe tes tifi ed i n hi s o w n defe nse a t t ri al

. M onr oe aga i n acknow led ge d that he st ruck St al kerwith the twoby-fou r. M onr oe tes ti fi ed that he di d so afterS tal ker fi r stpi ck ed up the t wo-by-f o ura nd s wung athi m ( M o nr o e) wi th o utpr o vo ca ti o n, s tr i k i nghi m i n the ha nd a s he wa s a t t e mpt i n gt o s h i el d h i s h e a d fr o m th e b l o w. At th atpo i nt, Cur r y punc he d S ta l k er, kn o ck i nghi m t o the gr ound. M onr oe, angry with St al kero verthe unp ro vok ed as sau lt, pi ck ed up the b o ar d a nd s truckS ta l k er, b ut onl y tw i ce a nd in th e le gs. Then Currysnat ched the tw oby- f our aw ay fro m M onr oe, and M onr oe bega n to wa l ka wa y . He s a w a n d h e a r d C ur r y i n fl i c to n e o r t wo bl o ws o n S t a l k e r wi th th e b o a r d

. C u r r y th e n c a u g ht up w i th M onr oe as he co nti nued to walka w ay fro m the s cene. I t was atthatpoint, M onr oe te st ified, that Thom as ra n past M onr oe and C urr y t o St alk er, pull ed o utthe kni fe, a nd s tabbe d Stal k er . M o nr o e sa i d tha t he and C urr y we re hal fa bl ockaway fro m S tal kerwh en Tho m as s tabb ed hi m . Thom as the n j o i ne d M o nr o e an d C u r r y, a n d th e y l e ftth e s c e n e a l o n gwi th J a c k s o n a nd drove to the south si de, wh er e they s pent th e night.8 N o. 10

- 3407 M onr oe d en ied thathe ha rbo re d any know l edge o r i n t e n t th a t S t a l k e r wo u l d b e s t ab b e d

. T h e r e was no agr eed- up on p lan t o ki l lo r harm S tal ker, M onr oe tes ti fi ed, and Thom as had neversa i d he w as going to stab S tal ker ; M onr oe sai d he did not ev en kno w that Thom as had a kni fe. M onr oe’ s t est i m ony departed fro m h i s wri tte n sta tem ent in cer tain re sp ects , incl ud i ng hi s a sse rt i on a t t ri al that St al ker had ta ken the fi rs t s w i ng with the tw o-byf our an d that M onr oe and C urr y were hal fa bl ock aw ay from S tal kerwh en Thom as stabbed hi m . M onr oe te st i fi ed th athi s wri tt ens tatem en t was no t ac cur at e an d th athe had signed th e st at ementunde r dur es s. As h e h ad i n m oving to suppress hi s o ra land w ri tte n sta tem en ts , M on ro e t es tifie d th at h e w as p u n c h ed rep ea te d ly b y tw o of th e d et ec tiv es w h o q u es tio n ed h im ; th a t h is re que st for c ounselwas dis re gar ded ; and that he was th r ea te ne d wi thl i fe i m pr i so nm en t i fhe d id no t si g n the w ritten sta tem ent. The S tat e’ s witnesse s deni ed that a nys uc h ab us e o r c o e r c i o n ha d o c c ur r e d. A s w e n o t e d a tthe o ut s e t, the j ur y c o nv i c t e d Mo nr oe on th e m urd er cha rge. T he Il lin o is A p p ell ate C ou rt aff i r med h i s c o nv i c t i o n i n a n un pu b l i s he d o r de r, h o l di ng, i nteral i a, thatther e was probab le c au se to ar re st M onr oe and that the ev i dence pres en te d at hi s t ri alwas s u ffi c i e n tt o su s t a i n h i s c o n v i c t i o n . T h e I l l i n o i s S u p r e me C ou rtd en ied M on ro e’s p e t itio n for lea ve to ap p ea l. In 200 2, M onr oe fi l ed a pos tco nvi cti on peti ti on in sta te cour t, co ntending that hi s t ri alco unselwas i neffecti ve i n f ai l i ng to cal las witnes ses i n supp or t o fhi s m oti on t oN o. 10

- 3407 9

su p p re ss an d at tr ial h is bro th er an d sis te r-in -law , C h r is and I sabe l l Estavi a, w ho l i ved i n the sam e tw o-fla t as M onroe and his m oth er and w e r e w itn esses to his arre st. M onr oe re prese nted thatthe Estavi as w ou ld ha ve t es ti fi ed th atthe po l i ce f o r ce d the i r way into the r es i den ce , thr ea te ne d t he f ami l y do g, a nd i g no r ed M o nro e’ s r equests to te l ephone hi s law yer ; thatte sti m ony, M onr oe asser ted , would have supp or ted hi s m oti on t o su p p re ss h is p os t-a rre st st at em en ts an d als o w ou ld have bol ste re d his tr i alte sti m ony about the dure ss to whi chhe w as su bj ec te d a t th e po l i ce s ta ti o n. The tr i alc o ur t su m m ar i l y di smi ss ed th e pet i ti o n a s l ac k i ng m er i t. The appel l ate co urt affi rm ed th e d i sm i ssa li n an unp ubl i shed o rd er, r eas oni ng i n vi ew o fcer tain confl i cts b et w ee n th e E st av ias ’ p ro sp ec tiv e t es tim on y a n d ce rt ain othe r evi dence and ar gum ents prese nted by the defen se th atM o nr o e’ s co uns elha d l eg i ti m at e strate g i c r ea so ns not to cal l the Estavi as as w i tness es and th at M onroe ha d n ot show n th at he w as p rej ud iced by cou ns el’ s f ai l ure t o pr es en t th ei r t es ti m o ny . M o nr o e ag ain s o ug ht l ea ve t o a ppeal to the I l l i no i s S upr eme Co ur t, b utthe co ur t den i ed hi s pet i ti o n. H avi ng exhaust ed hi s s tat e- cour t rem edi es, M onr oe filed a p ro se p et i t i o n f or a w ritof h ab ea s c or p u s in th e di st r i ctc o ur t. Inc l ude d i n tha t petit i o n wer e th e three c laim s M onr oe pu rs ues in thi s a pp eal : thathe was i m proper l y a rr est ed w i th ou t probabl e ca use in vi ol ati on ofthe Four th A m endm ent, such that the st at em ents he ma de f o l l o wi ngh i s a r r e s ts ho ul d h a v e be e n s up press ed; thatthe St ate ’ s e vi dence w as i nsuffi ci ent t o sustai n hi s co nvi cti on f orm urder on a n acco untabi l i ty theo ry ; and that hi s t rial c ounselwas i neffecti ve f or10 N o. 10

- 3407 f ai l i ngt o pre se ntthe te st i m o ny ofhi s br o th era nd s i st er - i nl aw as to the pol i ce m i sco nd uct surr ounding hi s a rr est
. ( A f ourth cl ai m was dis m i ssed o n the gr ound ofpro c ed u ra l d efa u lt a n d is n otatiss u e in th is a p p ea l.) R . 1. T h e d ist ric t c ou rtd en ied M on ro e’s p et itio n . M o n r o ev. Zim m e r m an , sup ra , 20 10 W L 33070 81. Because the s tat e cour t had gi ven M onr oe a fulland f ai r opportunity t o p resen t his m otion to qu a s h h is arrest, the d istri ct cou rt re as on ed , Stone v. Po w el l 42 8 U
. S. 46 5, 49 4, 96 S
. Ct. 30 37, 3052 ( 1976 ) , pre cl ud ed it fro m co nsi deri ng the m er i ts of h is Fou rt h A m en d m en t cla im
. M onroe, 20 10 W L 33070 81, at *8. A s to the su fficiency of the evid en ce, the cou rt no te d th a tu n d e r I l l i n o i s l a w, a s s u mma r i z e d b y the I l l i noi s Ap pel l ate Courti n affirm in g M onr oe’ s co nvi cti on, a defe nd ant m ay be c onvi cted o fm urde r on an acco untabi l i ty theo ryw hen he e nter s into a co m m on pla n to co m m i t a bat ter y a n d a m urder i s then com m i tte d in t h e c ou rs e o f th e b a t te ry . Id. , at * 9. T he cou rt note d that there w as am ple ev i dence supporting an i nfe re nce that M onr oe had enter ed i nt o a j oi nt pl an w i th hi s fel l ow gang m em ber s t o com m i t a bat ter y o n St al keri n re tal i ati on f orthe theft of th e d rugs by m em ber s of Stal ker ’ s g ang. In vi ew o fthatev i dence, th e I ll inois A p p ell ate Cou rt’s rej ection of M onro e ’s suff icie n c y a rg u m en t w as n otob j ec tiv ely u n re as on ab le. Id. Fi nal l y, as to M onr oe’ s cl ai m o fat torneyi neffecti venes s, th e co ur t f o und n o r easo n t o que st i o n the r ea so nabl eness o fthe Illinoi s Ap pel l ate Court ’ s co ncl usi on th at tria l co u n se l ha d legit im at e re as on s n o t t o c all the Esta vi as as w i tness es at ei therthe supp re ssi on h ea rin g or th e tria l, in vie w of th e con flict s be tw e e n th eir pr o spe ct i ve t es ti m o ny a nd the o th erev idence a nd a r g u-N o. 10

- 3407 11

Because M o n ro e had not s how n thathis tr ial counsel 1 was i ne ffec t i ve, the c our tr ej ec t ed M on ro e’ s addi t i ona l ar gum en ttha thi s appe l l at e c ouns elwas i ne ffec t i ve f or no tr ai s i ng thi s c l ai m i n M onr oe ’ s di re c t a p p ea l ofhi s c onvi c t i on. 2010 W L 3307081, at * 13. m ents that M onr oe’ s co unselpre sente d at the suppress i o n he a r i ng, the f a c t tha t the i r c r e dib i l i t y i n v i ew o f th o s e c o n fl i c t s an d th e i r s t a t u s a s Mo n r o e ’ s f a mi l y me mber s w as dim i ni shed, and M onr oe’ s o m i ssi on t o ra i se the ci rcum sta nces of hi s ar re st at tr i al

. The c ou rt als o di sc erned n othi ngunr ea so nabl e i n the s ta te c o ur t’ s co ncl usi on that M onroe had not dem onst ra ted thathe was pr ej udi ce d by hi s co uns el ’ s dec i si o n n o t to pr es en t th e E s t a via s’ t es tim on y. Id. , at* 10- * 12. The di str i ct 1 cou rt sub seq ue nt ly gran ted M onroe ’s requ est for a certi fi cate o fappeal ability in part, fi nd i ng as to thes e thre e i ssues that M on roe had m ade a substa nti al sh ow in g t h at h e w a s d en ied h is c on st itu tio n al rig h ts , in th at th es e issu es ar e “d eb at ab le am on g j u ris ts of r ea so n,” and M onr oe’ s a rgum ents “dese rv e e ncoura gem ent t o proce ed further

. ” M onroe v. Z im m e r m an , 2 0 1 0 WL 4038 787, at *1 (N
. D. I l l

. Oct. 12 , 20 10) ( quoti ng Port e rv. G ram ley, 112 F.3d 13 0 8 , 1 3 1 2 (7t h C ir. 19 97 )); R. 40 ; see 28 U
. S. C
. § 2253(c).

II. A
. Denialo fm oti on t o quash ar re st M onr oe challen ge s the deni alo fhi s m oti on t o quash hi s a rr est
. H e conte nd s that be cause the pol i ce l acke d12 N o. 10

- 3407 probabl e ca use t o bel i eve he ha d com m i tte d a cr i m e a s ofthe ti m e he w as ar re ste d at hi s ho m e, he was s ei zed invio lat ion o ft h e F ou rt h A m en d m en t, an d co n se q u en tly the s t a t e men t s h e s ub s e qu e nt l y ma de wh i l e i n custo dy shoul d have b een b ar re d fr om ev i dence pursuant t o the e xcl usi onary r ule

. W e be gi n by takin g n ot e o fa thre shol d argum ent that the S tate has r ai sed i n re sponse to M onr oe’ s a pp ealo n th i s po i nt, w hich i s th ata l th o ug h Monr o e ha s co nte nd e d th a th e d i d n o tr e c e i v e a fu l la n d f a i r he ar i ng on his m oti on t o quash i n sta te cour t, he ha s no t separ ate l y r enewed hi s co ntenti on t h at the pol i ce l ac k ed pr o babl e ca us e to a r r es t h im a s o fthe t i m e he wa s t a k e n i nt o c us tody ath i s h o me. T he S t a t e r e a ds M o nr o e’ s br i efto p resu m e th atthe de ni alo fa ful la nd fair h ea rin g on h is m ot ion by its elf w ou ld en tit le h im to habeas r el i ef

. S uc h a p resum pti on would be i ncor re ct, as the St ate m ai ntai ns. A s we shal ldi scuss i n gr eat er de t a i li n a mo men t, and a s the di s t r i c tc o ur tr e c o g ni z e d, Stone v. Po w el l , supra, 42 8 U.S. at 4 94, 96 S
. Ct. at30 52, bar s a federa lhabea s c ou rtfro m r eachi ng the m er i ts of a pet i ti o ne r ’ s F o ur thAm en dm entc l ai m s o l o nga s th e st at e co u r tg r a n t e d h i m a fu l la n d f a i r h e a r i n go n the c l a i m. Es t ab l i s hingtha tthe p e t i t i o ne r was no tg r a nt e d a ful l an d f ai r he ar i ng i s thus th e m ea ns of sur m o unt i ng the S t o ne b ar and openi ng the doorto federa lr evi ew o f th e me r i t s o fth e p e t i t i o n e r ’ s Fo ur t h A me n d me n tc l a i m. S eeWallacev. Ka to , 54 9 U.S
. 38 4, 39 5 n. 5, 12 7 S
. Ct. 10 91 , 109 9 n .5 (20 07 ) (co llec tin g h a b e a s d ec isio n s in whi chc o ur ts pr o ce ede d t o mer i ts o fF o ur thAm en dm en t c laim s a f te r fin d in g t h at p et itio n er s w er e d en ied fu llN o. 10

- 3407 13 and fa i r hear i ngs o n thes e cl ai m s in sta te c ou rt)
. Rel i ef on a Fo u rth A m endm ent c l ai m thus r equi re s a habea s p etitioner t o s h o w tw o things : ( 1) that th e state cou rt den i ed hi m a ful la nd f ai r he ar i ngo n h i s cl ai m , a nd ( 2) that the cl ai m w as m er i tor i ous. M onr oe’ s briefn ever re ac h es st ep 2. W e d o n otrea d t h e o m iss ion by its elf as re fl ecting a presum pti on that i t i s unnec es sa ryf or M onr oe to show t h at hi s F ourth A m endm ent r i ghts w er e vi ol ate d. H i s bri ef i nstea d r epeate dly conten d s t hat b ec au se h e w as d en ied a fu ll an d fair h e a r in g on h is cl ai m i n sta te cour t, he i s enti tl ed to habeas “r evi ew ” ( e . g. , M onr oe Br. 16 , 18 , 25 , 29 , 38 ) , wh i ch i s p ro b ab ly best und er sto od as a r equest, i n the eve n t w e a gr ee he was denie d a fulland f ai r hear i ng, thatwe or der the di str i ct c ou rtto ta ke u p th e m er its of th is c laim

. M or e t ro ubl i n g is the s tat em ent in M onr oe’ s br i ef th a t “ M o nr o e ’ s a pp o i nt e d c o un s e l do e s no t a r gue o n th is re cor d that hi s a rr estcan be s ai d to have l acke d probabl e ca use. ” M onr oe Br. 39
. That r eads l i ke a co ncess i o n th a t th e p o l i c e h a d p r o b ab l e c a u s e t o a r r e s t h i m, re gardle ss ofwh en the ar re st occur re d. I fM onr oe has n o a rg u m en t t h at h e w as arr es te d w ith ou t p ro b ab le c ause, ev en i f, as he c onte nd s, he was ar re ste d at his ho me, the n i ti s n o tc l e a r wh a ti s a ts t a k e i n thi s a pp ea l. C f. New York v. Harris , 495 U
. S. 14, 21 , 11 0 S
. Ct. 16 40, 1644

- 45 ( 1990 ) ( excl usi onar y r ule does notbaradm i ssi on o f post- ar re st sta tem ent that defendant m ak es o utsi de of ho m e f o l l o wi ngpo l i ce o ff icer s’ war r an tl es s an d no nconse nsual entr y i nto hi s hom e to m ake ar re st, i n vi ol ati on of P a yto n v . New Yo rk, 445 U
. S. 573, 1 0 0 S . C t
. 1371 (1980), so lon g a s a rre st w as su p p or te d by p ro b ab le c au se ). In14 N o. 10

- 3407 any e vent, bec ause w e co ncl ud e be l ow that the st ate co ur t di d no t depr i ve M o nr o e o f a ful l an d f ai r hearing on hi s F ourth A m endm ent c l aim , we need notco nsi der w h et h er th e fa ilu re to co n te st t h e e x ist en c e o f p ro b ab le cause m i ght c onst i tute a for fei ture , i fnota w ai ver, o f th e F o u r th A me n d me n tc l a i m. Ul t i mat e l y, i n o r de r t o p r e v a i lo n hi s F o ur th Am e nd

m ent c l aim , M onr oe w oul d have t o show not o nl y that he was a r r es ted w itho utpr o babl e ca us e, b uttha t th e st at e c ou rt, as a res u lt of t h e im p ro p er arr es t, sh ou ld have i nvoke d the e xcl usi onar y r ule to barthe adm i ssi on ofhi s pos t- ar re st sta tem ents at tr i al. See Ham pt on v. W yant, 2 96 F
. 3d 5 60, 5 62 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 2)
. Buta s th e S upr eme Co ur t emphas i ze d i n S t one, 4 28 U
. S. at48 6, 96 S. C t. at30 48 , th e p rim ar y a im of th e e x c l u sio n ar y ru le is t o de t e r the p o l i c e fr o m v i o l a t i ngthe Fou r th Am e nd

m en t r a t h e r th an to rem ed y a n inju ry to th e in d ivid u al. “Ev i den ce o bta i ne d b y po l i ce o ffi ce r s i n v i o l at i o n o fthe Four th A m endm ent i s e xcl ud ed a t tr i ali n the hope that the fre quency offuture vi ol ati ons w i l ldecrea se . ” Id. at 492; 96 S
. Ct. at30 51. A p p licat i on o fthe rul e co m es at a p r ice, f or exc lud ing p robative evid en ce of a defen d an t’s wro ng do i ng“ defl ec ts the t r uthfi ndi ngpro ce ss a nd o ft e n fr e e s the g ui l t y . ” Id. a t 4 90, 9 6 S
. Ct
. a t 30 50
. The Cou r t was c o nv i nc ed th atthe b en efi ts o fthe e xcl usi onar y r ule o utw ei gh the co sts wh en i nvoke d at tr ial or on d ire c t a p p ea l of a d efe n d an t’s co n v i c t ion
. Id. at 4 9 2

- 9 3 , 9 6 S
. Ct
. a t3 0 5 1

- 5 2
. Bu tthe Co ur tp e r c ei ved what ev era ddi ti o na lb en efi t t he r e m i g htb e to i nv o k i ng the rule o n col l ate ra lr evi ew o fa defe nd ant’ s con victio n to be to o s ligh t t o jus tify its co st
.N o. 10

- 3407 15 The v i ew tha t th e det er r en ce o fF o ur thAm endm en t vi o l at i o ns woul d b e fur th ered r es ts o n the dub i o us as su m p tio n th at law e n for c em en t a u th or itie s w ou ld fe a r th a tfe d e r a lh ab e a s r e v i e w mi g h tr e v e a lfl a ws i n a s ear ch orse i zure thatwen t u nd ete cted attr i al a n d o n a p p e a l

. E v e n i fo n e r a t i o n a l l y c o u l d a s s u me th a ts o me a ddi t i o na li nc r e men t a lde t e r r e nte ff ect woul d b e pr es en te d i n i sol ate d c as es , the r es ul ting ad vance ofthe l egi ti m ate go alo ffurther i ng F ourth Am en dm en t r i g ht s woul d b e o ut wei g he d b y the ackno w l edged cos ts to othe r va lues v i talto a ra ti onal sys tem o fcr i m i nalj usti ce. Id. at49 3-9 4; 96 S. C t. at30 52 (foot n ot e o m it t e d ). Th is l e d the Co ur tt o c o nc l ud e thatr e l i e fo n a F o ur th Am e nd

m en t c lai m s h ou ld n or m ally be u n av aila b le t o a p et itioner in hab eas c o rp us : “[W ]e conc lud e tha t w he re t h e St at e h as p ro vid ed an op p or tu n ity for fu ll an d fair l i ti gat i on o fa Four th A m endm ent c l ai m , a st ate pri sone r m ayno t be g r an te d federal habe as c o r pus r el i efo n the gr ound that e vi dence ob tained in an unconst i tuti onal s e a r c h o r s e i z ur e wa s i nt r o du c e d a th i s t r i al

. ” Id. at49 4, 96 S. C t. at 3052 ( footnote s om itted ). M uch i nk has been spi l l ed ove r w hat e xactl y c onst i tutes a fu lland f air he aring for p urp oses of St one . Se eC a brera v. H insley, 324 F.3d 52 7, 5 3 0 -31 (7t h C ir. 20 03 ). O u r d ec isi o ns i n C a brera a nd H a m pt on make c l ea r tha t i t m ea ns m or e than j ust the o pp or tuni ty to pres ent o ne’ s F ourth A m en d m en t c laim to th e s t at e c ou rt
. Id. at53 1- 32; Ham pt on , 29 6 F
. 3d at 563- 64. A st ate co urt proce ss that amoun ts t o a s ha m w ou ld no t co ns ti tu te a ful la nd fair h ea rin g e ve n th ou gh th e p et itio n er h ad h is d ay in16 N o. 10

- 3407

c ou rton th e c laim

. C a brera , 32 4 F
. 3d at 531-32; Ham pt on , 29 6 F
. 3d at 563- 64
. Ev alua tingthe a dequa cyo fthe hear i ng thus re quir es us t o gi ve at l eas t “ s o meat tenti on t o h o w th e s t a t e c o u r td e a l tw i th th e me r i t s ” o fth e c l a i m. Id. at 564 ( em phasi s i n or i gi nal )
. Bu t n ot t oo m uch a t t e n t i o n, a s we a d d e d i n C a b r era . 3 24 F
. 3d at5 31
. Our ro l e i s no t t o seco nd

- guess t h e sta te cour t o n the m er i ts ofthe peti ti oner ’ s cl ai m , but ra therto as sure o urse l ves th atthe s ta te c o ur t he ar d the c l ai m , l o o k ed to the rig h t b o d y o f ca se law , an d ren d er ed an int elle c tu ally h on es t d ec isio n . See Ham pt on , 296 F.3d at56 3-6 4; see also M iranda v. Le ibach , 394 F.3d 984 , 997 (7th C ir. 2005). He r e , Mo nr o e c o nt e nd s tha ta thre s ho l d e r r o r ma de b y t h e t r i al jud ge in re so lvin g h is m ot ion to qu as h h is ar re st re veal s that the heari ng he re cei ved w as nei ther ful l no r f a i r . I t t a k e s mor e tha n a n e r r o r i n the s tat e cour t’ s a nal ysi s t o surm ount the St onebarto co l l ate ra l re l i ef, however

. Id. a t 9 98 ; C a brera , 32 4 F
. 3d at 532; Ham pt on , 29 6 F.3d a t 5 6 4; se e also Watson v. H ulick, 48 1 F.3 d 53 7, 54 2 (7 th C ir. 20 07 ). An “ e g r e g i o us e r r o r ” i n a s t a t e c o ur t ’ s F o ur th Am e nd

m ent deci si on m ay s u ffice fo r th is pu rpos e, Tur e nt i ne[ v. M i l l er ], 80 F.3d [222] at 226 [(7th C ir. 199 6)], b ut notf orthe fl aw i t e xposes i n the sta te co ur t’ s an aly si s bu t r athe r f o r whati t r ev ea l s ab o ut th e bo na fi des o fthe st at e co ur t’ s ha ndl i ngo fthe Fo u r th A m en d m en t c laim , Ham pt on , 29 6 F
. 3d at 564. As we ex pl aine d i n Ham pt on , “a bl und er , n o m att er how o bvi ous, m att er s o nl y in conj uncti on with othe r ci rcum sta nces that i m plyr efusalbythe sta teN o. 10

- 3407 17

The record is silentas to how m uch ti m e pass ed b etween 2 the p oin t at w hich M on r o e w as tak en into cu stod y at his ho m e and the poi ntatwhi c h the t ri al c our tbe l i eve d M onr oe s ubs equen t l y was ar re s t ed a tthe pol i c e s t at i on. A ltho u g h, as w e rea d the re c o rd , the p arties’ s tip u lation d id 3 no ti de nt i fy pr e c i s e l y whe n a nd whe r e Mon r oe wa s h a nd

cuffed, se e R. 3 1 -2 at134 ( prosecut or s ti pu lat es that“[ M onroe] (c on tin u ed

... ) j ud i ci ar y t o tak e s er i ousl y i ts obl i gat i on t o adj ud i cate cl ai m s under the F ourth A m endm ent. ” Id.

. . . . M i r anda , 39 4 F
. 3d at 998 . A s w e shal lse e, the sta te cour t’ s e rr ori n thi s ca se d oe s n ot bet ra y a n unw i l l i ngness on the par t o fthe I l l i noi s j ud i ci ar y t o tr eat M onr oe’ s cl ai m hones tl y a nd f ai rl y. T he State m ore or le s s c onc ed es th at th e trialcou rt ind eed did err on a m aterial p oint. T he thru st of M onroe ’s mo t i o n t o qu a s h wa s th a th e w a s a r r e s t e d a th i s h o me wi th o utpr o babl e ca us e. In de ny i ngthe mot i on, the tr ial c ou rtfou n d th at M on ro e h ad ins te a d vo lu n ta rily ac co m pan i ed o ffi ce r s to the po l i ce st at i o n a nd tha t he w as not ar re ste d untilso m eti m e after he ar ri ved ther e; a nd a s o ftha tl a t e r p o i nti n t i me, the c o ur tr e a sone d, th ere w as su ffici en t p robab le cau se to arrest him . R . 3 1-2 at 185. Yet, the cour t’ s fi nd i ng tha t M onr oe w as not

2 arrested un tilaft e r h e reach ed the p oli ce stat ion ap p ears to have been i nconsi ste nt with the facts st i pu l ate d to by th e parti es, wh i ch acknow l edged thatM onr oe had been tak en away fro m hi s ho m e in handcu ff s. R . 3 1-2 at 134. A l though plac in g a n i nd i vi du ali n handcu ff s doe s 318 N o. 10

- 3407

(
. . . c o ntinu e d) l e ftthe h ous e wi th [ the po l i c e ] a nd wa s s ub s e q ue nt l y ha nd

cuffed”), M onroe’ s m oti on to quash repres ente d that the polic e ha d p laced him in ha nd cu ff s “[a]fter leav ing [ M on ro e’s ] apartm ent and w hil e s ti ll on the porc h o f t he building w here he then res ided,” R
. 31- 2 at 39, and the parti es s ti pu lat ed thatM onroe’ s m other, i fcal le d to te st ify, w ould stat e that “w hen Solom on w as taken away [ f rom his re sidence] , he was tak en aw ay i n h a nd cu ff s. ” R
. 31 -2 at 134
. (Th e p arties also st i p u l a t e d th a tth e d e t e c t i v e s w h o w e n tto M o n r o e ’s re s i denc e would h ave ar re s t ed h i m an d t ake n h i m f ro m the hous e withouthi s c ons en ti fhe ha d re fus ed t o a c c om pany the m . R
. 31 -2 at 135 .) T he State itse l f co nc ed es in the b rief it fil ed w ith thi s cou rt t h a t the part ie s st ipulate d that “peti ti oner w as le d aw ay f rom his res idence i n hand cuff s. ” St ate Br. 15. not i nvar i abl y s i gnalthathe i s under ar re st, see U nited State s v. Sm ith , 3 F.3d 10 88 , 10 9 4

- 9 5 (7t h C ir. 19 93 ) (co ll. case s) , “[ t] here c an b e li ttl e quest i on that a suspect p lac ed in h an d c u ffs is n otfree to lea ve an d , for all pract i calp urpose s, is i n pol i ce c ustody

. . . . ” U nited Sta tes v. Wi l s on , 2 F .3 d 226, 231 (7th Cir. 1993). T he re ap p ears to be no di spute her e that o nce M onroe w as pla ced i n handcu ff s, he was under a rr est
. Bu t a l though the tr i alco urt’ s r eso l uti on o fthe m oti on to su p p ress hin ged on it s ap p aren tly erroneou s un d erst an d in g of t h e fa c ts , th e a p p ella te co u rt ’s d ec isio n d id n ot . A lth ou gh th e a p p el lat e c ou rtd id n otex p re ss ly co r r ec t th e tr i alc o ur t’ s er r o r a s to the t i m i ngo fthe ar re st, i n the sense o facknow l edg i ng and l abel i ng i t a s er ro r, the cour t ce rt ain ly w as aw ar e o fthe m i sta ke, asN o. 10

- 3407 19 M o nr o e ha d e xpr es sly po i nt ed i t o utt o the c o ur t i n the di r ec t- appe alb r i efi ng . R. 2 0 at8 , 1 1. M o r eo ver, the S ta te , in r es po ndi ngt o M o nroe’s a ppel l at e ar g um en t ( whi chwas l ar g ely a b r o ads i de on th e r el i ab i l i tyo fthe w i tness es w ho had im p licated M onr oe i n the att ack on S ta lker to th e po l i ce , s ee R. 2 0 at6 , 2 5- 27 ) , r el i ed ex cl usive ly on info rm ati on that was kno w n to the pol i ce a t the t i m e they t oo k M onr oe fro m hi s r esi dence. R. 20 at 59- 65. The appel l ate co urt’ s a nal ys i s, i n turn, r el i ed on th e sa m e i nf o r m at i o n r ec i te d i n th e S ta te ’ s br i ef, an d the c ou rt pro ceeded to r ej ect M onr oe’ s co ntenti on that this i nfo rm ati on was i nsuffi ci entl y t rustw or thy a s pro of ofhi s invol vem en t in t he at tack

. R. 20 at85

- 91. M onr oe him self m akes n o argum en t tha t the a p p ell ate cou rt’s resolution of the p robab le cause i ssu e refl ecte d an err o ne o us unde r st an di ng o f when he was ar r es te d, as the tr i alco urt’ s r uling di d. The f act that the a pp el l ate cour t’ s a nal ysi s di d n ot re peat the er ro r i s i m port ant, bec au se i ts de ci si o n was the fi na lde ci si o n o fthe I l l i noi s cour ts to re ach the m er i ts of M onr oe’s Fou rth A m endm ent c l ai m , and as such i t i s that deci si on w h ich m at te rs for p u rp os es of h ab ea s re vie w . See , e . g. , Har r is v. Thom ps on , 698 F.3d 609 , 623 (7th C ir. 2012), pet’n for cert. filed, 81 U
. S. L.W
. 34 21 ( U
. S. J an. 16 , 20 13) (N o. 12-885). M o nr o e thus r ec ei ve d a ful la nd f ai r he ar ing o n the m er its of h is Fo u rt h A m en d m en t c laim in t h e Illino is cour ts. Both the tr i alco urt and the I l l i noi s Ap p ella te C o u r te n t e r t a i n e d a n d r e a c h e d th e me r i t s o fh i s c l a i m. Th e a pp e l l a t e c o ur tl o o k e d t o the a pp r o pr i a t e b o dy ofcas e l aw i n re sol vi ng the cl ai m , ci ti ng st ate p re ce-20 N o. 10

- 3407 den ts whi chs etf o r ththe r el ev an t F o ur thAm en dm en t p rin c ip les (for e x am p le, Peop l ev. Ki dd, 675 N
. E.2 d 910, 9 2 0 ( I l l

. 1 9 9 6 ) , wh i c h i n tu r n r e l i e d o n th e U
. S
. S u p r e me Cou r t’ s dec i si o n in B eck v. O hio , 37 9 U.S
. 89 , 91 , 8 5 S. Ct. 22 3, 22 5- 26 ( 19 64 ) ) ; an d th e co ur t co r r ec tly se t f orth the sta nd ar d fo r evalu at i ng probabl e ca use. R. 20 at85

- 86. B ot h th e t r ial a n d ap p ella te co u rt s t oo k t h e c laim se r i o us l y, a nd a l th o ug h the t r i alc o urt, i n r es o l vingthe cl ai m , c o mmi t t e d a s i g n i fi c a n te r r o r a s t o th e t i mi ng of M onroe’ s a rr est, the appell ate co urt’ s a nal ysi s di d not r epe atthe e r r o r . I ts ana lysi s was c o ns i st en t wi ththe par ti es ’ s ti pul at i o n tha t M o nr o e was ha ndcu ffed ( an d th u s a r r e s t e d ) a t h i s h o me ; a n d th e c o u r t c i t e d a nd re l i ed up on evi dence w hi ch, i n i ts vi ew , e stabl i shed pr o b ab l e c a us e t o b e l i e v e Mo nro e h a d c o mm i t t e d a c r i me a n d w h i c h w a s kn o wnto th e p o l i c e a tth e t i me of M on ro e’s arr es t. St onet h er ef or e pr ecl ud es us fro m r e a c h i n g th e me r i t s o fMo n r o e ’ s F o u r th A me n d me n tc l a i m.

B. A tto rneyIneffecti venes s M onr oe conte nd s that he w as d ep rived ofhi s S i xth Am en dm en t r i g htt o th e effec ti ve a ss i st an ce o ft r i alc o unse l. Se eSt r i ck l and v. Was hi ngt on , 46 6 U.S
. 66 8, 10 4 S. Ct. 20 52 (19 84 ). Th is c laim , as w e h a v e s a i d , i s b as ed on h is cou ns el’ s om issi on to p resen t the test im ony of M onroe ’s bro therand si ste r- i n-l aw , bo th i n supp or t o fhi s m oti on to s u pp re ss hi s pos t- ar re st sta tem ents and at t ri al. I sabe l la nd Chr i s Est av i a l i ve d o n the fi r stfl o o r o fthe sa m e two
- fl atb ui l di ng w he r e M o nr o e r es i ded, a nd they w er e pr ese nt wh en the p olic e t oo k M onr oe i ntoN o. 10

- 3407 21 custo dy. They woul d have t estified thatthe pol i ce rushed i nto the b uil ding, har ass ed the Estavi as, threa tened to har m the f am ily’s d og, then f or ced thei r w ay up sta i rs to the seco nd fl oo r, wh er e M onr oe l i ved w i th hi s m other, and i gnor ed M onr oe w hen he a ske d to conta ct a l aw yer . N otabl y, the E st avi as w er e no t wit

nesse s t o the e vents cul m in at ing in M onr oe’ s pos t- ar re st state m en ts at th e po li ce stat ion, o r to the even ts un d erl yi ng the cr i m i nalchar ges ag ai nst M on ro e. Even so , M o nr o e c o nt e nd s tha tthe i r t e s t i mon y wo uld h a v e s up port ed hi s e ff or t t o supp re ss hi s post-a rr estst ate m ents as wel la s hi s tr ial de fen se , b y s i m ul ta ne o us l y c as ting do ubto n the v eracity o fpo l i ce wi tn es se s an d b o l st er i ng hi s o w n cr edibi l i ty as to the e vents sur ro und i ng h is postar re st sta tem ents. To pre vai lo n the c laim , M onr oe w as re quir ed to show b o th tha t hi s a t t o r ne y ’ s pe r f o r man c e fe l l b e l o w an obj ective stan d ard of re ason ablen ess an d that there was a re as o nabl e pr o babi l i tytha t th e o ut co m e o fthe re l evantpro ceedi ngs ( here , the m oti on t o supp re ss h is p os t- a r r e s t st at em en ts as w ell as th e t ria l) w ou ld have been differ ent b ut f orhis c ou nsel ’ s f ai l i ngs. St r i ck l and, 46 6 U .S. at 68 7, 10 4 S. C t . a t 2 0 6 4; e . g. , G utierrez v. A nglin , 2013 W L 46607 4, at *3 ( 7th Cir. F eb. 8, 2013). A s we note d ear l i er, the I l l i noi s Ap pel l ate Court susta i ne d th e su m m ar y di smi ss al o f th i s cl aim , f i ndi ng th at M onroe had satisfi ed neith er of St r ick l and ’ s t wo cr i t e r i a . At th e o u t s e t, th e c o u r t p o i n t e d o u t th att he Estavi as’ r epres entat i on that the pol i ce had bur st i nto th ei r ho m e was c o nt r adi cte d b y the pa r ti es ’ s ti pul at i o n, inco nj u n c tio n w ith M on ro e’s m ot i o n t o qu as h h is22 N o. 10

- 3407

ar re st, thatthe pol i ce had r em ai ne d in t h e v est ibul e o f the ho m e whil e wai ti ng f orM onr oe. R. 20 at24 6- 47. The Estavi as’ addit i onalco n tenti on that the pol i ce ha d ha r as se d the m a nd thr ea te ne d the i r d og w as i nc o nsis te n t w ith th e a r g u m en t o f M on ro e’s co u n se l, ag ain i n conne cti on with the m oti on t o quash, thatpol i ce had used “tr i ckery” to getM onr oe to acco m pany them to the pol i ce s tat i on. R. 2 0 at 247. In vi ew o fthes e confl i cts, the cour t s aw no re aso n to doubt that co unsel m ade a r ea so nabl e st r at eg i c dec i si o n n o t to ha ve the Est a v i a s t e s t i fy i n s u p p o r to fth e mo t i o n s t o qu a s h a nd to s uppr es s; nor c o ul d M o nr o e sh o w tha t he was pr ej udi ce d i n th e s en se th att he t r i al c o ur t m i g ht have cre dit ed M onr oe’ s co ntenti on that his post
ar re st sta tem ents w er e the pro du ct o fco er ci on. R. 20 at 24 7- 48
. As fo r the t r i al, the c o ur t no te d tha t th e Est av i as’ test i m o ny woul d ha ve c ar r i ed l i tt l e wei g ht w i th the j ury gi ven th eir fam i l i alco nnecti on with M onr oe a n d al so gi ven that M onr oe hi m sel fdi d not t e s t i fy ab o u ta n y mi s c o n d u c tth a to c c u r r e d a tth e t i me of his arrest; i t w as th erefore reasona ble f or M onroe ’s counselto excl ud e them fro m the w i tness l ist. R. 20 at 248. M or eov er, gi ven what the cour t deem ed to be th e o ve r whel m i nge vi den ce o fM o nr oe’ s g ui l t, the cour t co uld di scern no pr ej ud i ce s tem m i ng fro m that deci si on. R. 20 at24 8- 49. Bec au se the s ta te a ppel l at e co ur t co ns i der ed an d rej ecte d the ineffectiven ess claim on its m erits, and corre ctl y l oo ked to St r i ck l anda s th e g o ve r ni ngpr ec ede nt i n d oin g s o, see R. 2 0 a t 2 4 5 , M o nr o e must showN o. 10

- 3407 23 th at th e c ou rt ’s re so lu tio n co n st itu te d an u n re as on ab le ap p li cation of St r i ck l and

. 28 U
. S. C. § 2 254( d)( 1) ; see, e . g. , M cNaryv. Le m ke, 2013 W L 67365 3, at *7 ( 7th Cir. F eb

. 2 6, 2 01 3)
. He c anno t sa ti sfy thi s bur den

. The outco m e o fM onr oe’s m oti on t o supp re ss hi s pos tar r es t st at ement s tu r ne d o n wha t ha ppen ed atthe pol i ce s tat i on r athe r than any thi ng tha t o ccurr ed at M onr oe’ s ho m e. M onr oe tes ti fi ed that pol i ce l ock ed hi m al one i n an inte rv i ew r oo m , i gnor ed hi s r equests for an atto rney, and pun ched hi m wh en he re fused their demands t o t el lthe m whatha p p en ed. In de ny i ng the m oti on t o supp re ss, the sta te tr i alcourt cre dit ed the S tat e’ s witnesse s o verM onr oe. R
. 31

- 2 a t 2 32- 33. The Es ta vi as , o fc o ur se w er e no t pr es en t an d ha d no k no wl edg e o fwhato cc ur r ed atthe p ol i ce s ta ti o n; th eyc o ul d o nl y ha ve t es ti fi ed to what o cc ur r ed atM o nr o e’ s ho m e, b efo r e he was t ak ent o the po l i ce s ta ti o n. M onr oe theo ri zes thatthei r tes ti m ony that the pol i ce b u rs t in to th e h o m e an d th re at en ed to kill th e fa m ily d og, an d i gn ored his requ est to t e lep hon e a l aw yer, w oul d have bolst ered M onr oe’ s cr edibi l i ty w i th r espect to w hat o ccurr ed at the pol i ce stati on. A l though no t who l l y w i th o u tf o r c e , Mo n r o e ’ s th e o r y i s f a r fr o m c o mpel l i ng g i ven the Estav i as’ l ack ofknow l edge a s t o w h at h ap p en ed aft er M on ro e w as ta k e n from h is h o me , a n d i tf a l l s f a r s h o r to fs h o win gth a tth e o u t c o me o fthe s u p p r e s s i o n h e a r i n gmi g h th a v e b e e n d i ffe r e nt ha d the Es t a v i a s t e s t i fi e d. M oreover, as the a p p ell ate cou rt point ed out, there w er e ce rt ai n cr ed ibili ty i ssues with the Estav i as, gi ven24 N o. 10

- 3407

Co u n sel’ s theory m ay hav e been that the polic e decei ved 4 M onr oe i nt o l ea vi ng h i s r es i denc e vol unt ar i l y, on l y t o fi nd hi m s e l fpl a c e d i n ha nd c uff s o nc e the po l i c e h a d h i m o ut s i de on the fro ntpor c h. th e co nfl i ctb etwee n the ir pr o spe ct i ve t es ti m o ny a nd ( a) the ar gu m ent o fM onr oe’ s co unselatthe m oti on to quash that the pol i ce ha d persuaded M onr oe to accom pany them thr ough “ tr i ckery, ” a nd (b) the parti es’ sti pu l ati on a t the m oti on t o qu as h t h at the pol i ce, up on thei r ar ri valatM onr oe’ s r esi dence, had wait ed f o r hi m i n the b ui l di ng ’ s ve stibule. M o nr o e ha s a po i nt w hen he su gge sts thatthe cour t m ay have m ade to o m uch ofthe pu rp orted co nfl i ct b etween the Estavi as’ ver si on ofthe ar re st and his co unsel ’ s r epres entat i on t o the t ri alco u rt t hat the pol i ce had per suaded M onr oe to ac c om p an y th em to th e po lice st at ion b y “ t ric ke ry .” A s M onr o e ’s b riefpoint s out, cou ns el uttered the w ord “t r i ck ery ” o nc e, j us t b efo r e th e co ur t r ul ed o n the m o ti o n t o qua sha nd a s th e par ti es wer e su m m ar i zing thei r posi ti ons. R. 31

- 2 a t 1 84. H i s cou n se l w ent t o on sa y tha t M o nr o e ha d n ot a cc o m pan i ed th e po l i ce v o l untaril y, bu t in s t e ad had “yiel d ed to their f orce.” R. 31-2 at1 84

- 85
. And, a s we ha ve di sc us se d, the r e i s no d i s p u t e th a tth e p o l i c e p l a c e d Mo n r o e i n h a n d c uf f s i mm edi ate l y o utsi de ofhi s r esi de n c e, w hatev erm ay have occur re d i nsi de. S o the Esta via s’ ve rs i on o fev ents 4 w ou ld n otn ec es sa rily h a v e u n d er m in ed th e b as ic prem i se ofM onr oe’ s m oti on t o quas h , wh i ch w as that M o nr o e wa s a r r e s t e d a th i s h o me . B u tth e i r t e s t i mo ny w oul d have confl i cted hea d-o n w i th the part i es’ st i pu l a-N o. 10

- 3407 25 ti on that the pol i ce, u p on a rr i vi ng atthe re si dence, had w ai ted f orM onr oe i n the vest ibul e. R. 31

- 2 a t 1 34. T h e St at e c er ta in ly w ou ld h av e ra ise d th e c on flictin opposi ng the m oti on t o supp re ss, and that w ou l d have been a s i gni fi cant b l ot on the Estav i as’ cr edibi l i ty. U nd er th es e ci r cumst an ce s, i t was no t unr ea so nable f o r the sta te cour t t o chara cter i ze the f ai l ure to cal lthe Estavi as as w i tness es i n supp or t o fthe supp re ssion m oti on a s a l egi ti m ate st ra teg i c decision ratherthan as a l apse i n profess i on al j ud gm ent that weakene d M onr oe’ s m oti on t o supp re ss. As t o the t r i al, i t i s even m or e di ffi cul t to s ee ho w the Est av i as ’ t es ti m o ny mightha ve made an y mean i ng ful co nt r ibut i o n t o the d efens e ca se . Aga i n, the i r t es ti m o ny woul d o nl y ha ve r el at ed to M o nr o e’ s ar r es t. But the c irc u m st an c es of h is a rre st, bey on d w h en an d w h e r e it too k pl ace, were not eve n m en tio n ed at the t ri al, not
w ithsta nd ing the f act th at M onro e testifi ed and the circ u m st an c es of h i s a rre st ce rt ain ly w er e w ith inh is kn ow ledge. M onr oe re new s hi s a sse rtion t hat hi s br othe r and s ister- i n-l aw would have bol ste re d the cr edibi l i ty of h is ow n te st im on y t h a t t h e p olic e h ad p u n c h ed h im re peatedl y a t the st ati on, gi vi ng the j ury re aso n to cre dithi s co ntenti on that hi s pos t- ar re st sta tem ents, i nc l udi ngi n pa r ti cul arhi s wri tt en st ate m en t, wer e th e pr od uct o fco er ci on. But, ag ai n, the Estavi as w er e no t wi tn es se s to whatoc cur r ed atthe po l i ce s ta ti o n a t th e hand s o fthe detect ive s who i nter vi ew ed M onr oe; they w ou l d onl y hav e t est i fi ed as to the a l l ege d m i sbehav i or o fa l t o gethe r di ffe r e nto ffi c e r s i n a r r e s t i ngMo nr o e . And ,26 N o. 10

- 3407

as th e Illino is A p p ella te C ou r t r e c og n ize d , give n th eir fam ilial co n n ec tio n to M on ro e, th eir cr ed ibili t y w ou ld have been subj ect to d ou b t. I n sum , the supp or t that thei r tes ti m ony m igh t hav e pr ovi ded to the defe nse case w as t o o w eak to ha ve req uired a com p eten t attorney t o cal l them as tr i al w i tness es and t o show that M onr oe w as prej ud i ced by hi s a tto rney ’ s o m i ssi on t o do so

.
C. Suffi ci ency ofthe evi dence Fi nal l y, M onr oe chal l enges the suffi ci ency ofev i dence to supp or t hi s co nvi cti on f orm urder on a n acco unta b ility th eo ry . Jackson v. Virgini a , 44 3 U.S
. 30 7, 31 9, 99 S
. Ct
. 2 78 1, 2 78 9 ( 19 79 ), id ent i fi es the pe r tine nt( an d f ami l i ar ) s ta ndard : the e vi den ce , c o ns true d i n the l i g ht m o stf av o r ab l e to the S ta te , i s su ffi ci en t to s uppo r t th e c on vic t ion so lon g a s a n y ra tio n al t rie r of fa c t c ou ld fi nd the ess enti alel em ents ofthe offense to h av e be en pr o ve d b ey o nd a r ea so nabl e do ubt

. As w e ar e co nsi deri ng thi s cl ai m o n col l at er alr evi ew r atherthan on di r ec t appe alo fthe c o nv i ct i o n, the A nt i te r r o r i sm an d Effecti ve Death Penal ty A ct e ngra fts an addit i onall aye r ofdefer ence onto thi s inquir y: we m ay gr ant r el i ef o n thi s c l a i m o nly i fthe I l l i no i s App e l l a t e C ourta ppli ed the Ja c ks on s tand ar d unreaso nabl y t o the f acts o f M on ro e’s ca se . § 22 54 (d )(1) ; see, e . g. , Tre jo v. H ulick, 38 0 F.3 d 10 31 , 103 2 (7 th C ir. 20 04 ); C a brera v . H insley, sup ra , 324 F. 3d at 533- 34. (T h e Illinoi s Ap pel l ate Courtdi d not ci te Jac ks on , bu t itrec ite d th e s am e s ta n d ar d . R. 20 at91 .) T h e s t a t e a p p e l l a t e c o u r t n o t e d th a t u n d e r I l l i n o i s l aw , M onr o e c o ul d b e h e l d a c c o un t ab l e f o r S t a l k e r ’ s mur derN o. 10

- 3407 27

so l o nga s Mo nr o e h a d e ng a g e d in a c o mm o n desi gn to com m i t a batt er y on St al ker and S tal ker w as st ab bed in furth eran c e o f t h at d esign. R. 20 at 93-94. Th e cou rt wento n t o c o nc l ude tha t th e ev i den ce was s uffi ci en t t o s u p p o r t a fi n d i n g th a t M o n r o e e n g a g e d i n a c o mm on p lan w ith Th om as an d Cu rry to severely harm St al ker

. The co urt note d tha t M onr oe and fe l l ow m em ber s o fthe gang cre w had re aso n to be up set wi th S t a l k e r g i v e n tha t memb e r s o f S t a l k e r ’ s g a ng had sto l en co cai n e fro m them ; M onr oe hi m sel fhad adm i tte d bo th in h is w rit te n s ta te m en t a n d in h is t ria l te st im on y t h at h e w a s a n gr y w ith Sta lke r. Fro m th e w h ist le that sum m oned Thom as and Ja ckso n to the str eet, to g ethe r wi ththe f ac t th atM o nr o e punc he d S ta l k era nd k no c k e d h i m t o the g r o un d a s soo n a s T ho mas a pp e a r e d, i t wa s r e a s o n ab l e t o i n fe r th a tMo n r o e wa s i n i t i a ti ng a co l l ec ti ve pl ant o r et al i at e ag ainst St al k erf o r the sa l e g o ne a wry, a nd tha t M o nr o e’ s co ho r ts , i nc l udi ng Thom as, would be expected t o j oi n hi m . R. 20 at94

- 95. Th e c o ur ta c k no wl e dg e d tha tT ho mas h a d a c t e d s ud

denly i n stabbi ng S tal ker, such that M onr oe did not have ti m e t o disa sso ci ate hi m sel ffro m thatact
. N onethel ess , the j ury, i n the cour t’ s v i ew , was enti tl ed to fi n d th a tMo n r o e wa s p r e s e n twh e n th e s t abb i ng occur re d (a nd nota hal fbl ocko r m or e a w ay, as M onr oe had test i fi ed); and M onr oe’ s o w n tes tim ony re veal ed th athe no t o nl y fl ed th e s cene wi thTho m as a nd th e o th e r s , b u tr e ma i n e d wi th T h o ma s f o r a d a y o r t wo afterw ard s. U nd er those circum stan ces, M onroe ’s assertion t h a t he d id n ot know that Th om as ha d a knife and did n ot share hi s intent to stab S tal ker, al though r e l e v a nt t o the j ur y ’ s a s s e s s men t o f M o nr o e ’ s cu l p-28 N o. 10

- 3407 abi l i ty, di d not pre cl ud e th e j ury fro m hol ding M onr oe acco untabl e forS tal ker ’ s m urder pu rs uant to an a ccoun tabi l i ty theo ry . R. 20 at92 , 95

- 96. M onr oe m ake s thre e argum ents i n hi s e ff or t t o show that the I l l i noi s Ap pel l ate Courtunrea sonab l y a pp lied the Jac ks on s ta nda r d i n fi ndi ngthe e vi den ce unde r l y i ng h is c onvi cti on t o be s uffi ci ent. H e a rgues fi rs t that ther e i s no ev i dence that he ha d advance know l edge o f an y p l a n t o h a r m S t a l k e r : h e a r g u e s th a tth e i nc i den t w as ess enti al l y a fi ght that o ccurr ed sp on ta neousl y, w ith ou t p rior d isc u ss ion, an d th at h e h ad n o kn ow ledge Thom as m i ght b e a rm ed. S eco nd , h e n otes that gang m em ber shi p i s byi tse l fi nsuffic i ent t o supp or t a n i nfe r e nc e tha t S t a l k e r ’ s a s s a i l a nt s a c t e d pu r s ua nt t o a com m on desi gn: ther e was no or d er g iven t o att ack S ta l k er, a nd M o nr o e, a l th o ug h h e hel ped i ni ti at e th e be at i ng, d id no t ho l d a po si ti o n o fpo werwi th i n the g an g . Thi r d, M o nr o e co nt en ds th at his ac t o ffl ee i ng w i th Thom as and the o ther s, wh ich t he A pp el l ate C ou rt cited i n su p p ort of his c onv iction, w as insu ffi cientto sup p ort an i n feren ce th at he share d Th om as’s i nt en t to f at al l y ha r m S ta l ker. I n Monr o e’ s vi ew, the ev i dence es tabl i shes onl y that he had an al ter cati on wi th S t a l k e r, s tepped a wa y wh e n he s a w Th o mas a pp ro ac h, an d su b se q u en tly fled th e s c en e w ith T h om as . I n ass essing th e reaso na blene ss of the State cou rt’s hold ing as to the suffi cienc y of th e evide nc e u n d e rl yi ng M onr oe’ s co nvict ion , we m ust o fco urse l oo k t o w hats t a t e l a w r e qu i r e s i n o r de r t o c o nv i c ta n i nd i vi du al p u rs u an t t o a n a c c o u n t ab ility th eo ry . Se eJac ks on , 443 U
. S.N o. 10

- 3407 29

The l angu age of the st atute has been m od ifie d i n only m inor, 5 no n-sub stan t i v e r esp ects since th e offense at issue in this app eal took place i n 1996. at 324 n. 16, 99 S
. Ct. at27 92 n. 16; B a tes v. M cC a ug htry, 934 F. 2d 99 , 1 02- 03 ( 7th Ci r. 19 91)
. The I l l i noi s Cri m i nal Code re nd er s o ne per son acco untabl e for a cri m i nal offense com m i tte d b y anothe r perso n w hen “[ e] i ther bef or e o r du ring the co m m i ssi on o fan o ffense, and w i th th e i nt en t to prom ote o r f ac i l i ta te tha t co m m i ss i o n, he orshe sol i ci ts, a id s, abe ts, ag re es orat tem pts to ai d, that oth er pe rson i n th e plan nin g o r com m issi on of the offen se .” 72 0 IL C S 5 /5 -2(c ) (20 12 ). A s t h e Illin ois A p p el- 5 l ate Courtr eco gni zed, thati ntent i s the “co rner sto ne” ofl i abi l i ty under the acc ountabi l i ty sta tute. R. 20 at92 ( ci ti ng Peop le v. Sh aw , 713 N
. E
. 2d 1161, 1173 (I ll

. 1998)); see P eop le v. P erez , 725 N
. E
. 2d 1258, 126 5 -6 6 ( I ll

. 2000); Peop l ev. Tayl or, 7 12 N. E. 2d 32 6, 3 29

- 30 ( I l l

. 1 99 9)
. But t h e de fend an t nee d not n eces saril y sha re the p rincipa l’ s i ntent to com m i t a part icu lar cr i m i nalacti n or der t o b e h eld liab le f o r t h a t ac t. See P erez , 72 5 N
. E.2 d at 1 265. As r e l e v a n th e r e , a d e f e nd a nt ’ s i n t e n tt o a i d i n th e c o mmi s s i o n o fa c r i m e by a n o th e r p e r s o n ma y b e s h o wn b y e vid en c e o f a c om m on cr im in al p lan or d e s i gn in w h ich th e d efe n d an t join e d

. P erez , 72 5 N
. E.2 d at 1 265; Peop l ev. Thom ps on , 730 N
. E
. 2d 118, 123 (I ll

. A p p . Ct
. 2000). A defendant’s l i abi l i ty und erI l l i noi s’ co m m on- desi gn r ul e ex te nds no t o nl y t o the pa r ti cula r c r i m e th atthe defe nd an t intends to ai d, but al so to anothe r offense that the pr i nci pal co m m i ts w i thi n the sa m e co urse o f c on d u c t. P eoplev. M cClain , 6 4 5 N. E. 2 d 5 8 5 , 5 8 9 ( I l l

. App
.30 N o. 10

- 3407 C t. 19 95 ); s e eal s o Henn on v. C o o per, 10 9 F
. 3d 330, 33 4 (7t h C ir. 19 97 ) (Ill in ois law ); B rum ley v. D eTell a , 83 F. 3d 856, 865 (7th C ir. 1996) (I ll inois l aw ); Pe opl ev. Te rry , 46 0 N
. E. 2d 74 6, 749 ( I l l

. 1 98 4)
. Thu s, whena de fen dan t in te nds t o a i d i n the c o m m i ss i o n o fa b at te r y, a nd th at bat tery cu lm inates i n a m urd er, the d efend an t ’s i ntent to ai d the ba tte rym ay re nd erhi m l i abl e for th e m urd er, even i f he did not sh are the princ ip al’s i nt en t to kil l th e vi ct i m ; the de fen dan t’ s sh ar ed i nt en t to com m it the batt ery, an d thu s to i nfli ct serious harm o n th e vi ct i m , i s en o ug h to m ak e hi m cul pab l e for th e m u rd er a s w ell. Terry, 4 60 N. E. 2d at749 ( ag r ee i ng that com m on- desi gn r ule “does i m pose l i abi l i ty f or m ur dere ven th o ug h a mis demea no r was o nl y inte n d ed ”); see also B rum ley, 83 F. 3d at 864

- 65; Br e nna n v . P eople, 185 4 W L 47 28 , at *3 (Ill . 185 4); Peop l ev. D unc an , 69 8 N .E .2d 10 78 , 108 3 ( Ill. A p p . C t. 19 98 ); M cClain , 64 5 N .E .2d at58 9; s e eal s o Pe opl ev. Bat ch e l or, 6 65 N .E .2d 7 77, 78 1 ( I l l

. 19 96) ( m urder com m i tte d i n cour se ofr o b b e ry ); P eop le v. Kessler, 31 5 N
. E.2 d 29, 33 ( I l l

. 19 74) (attem p ted m urd er com m itted i n cou rse of bu rglary)

. So t h e cr i ti calquesti on in thi s ca se, as the I l l i nois A pp el l ate Courtr eco gni zed , i s whether the e vi dence su ppo r ts a fi ndi ngtha t M o nr o e i nt en ded to a i d i n the com m issi on of a battery on Stalker. G ran ting th e State th e b e ne fi t of allf avorab le inferences, the evid en c e was suffi ci ent t o supp or t a r easonab le i nfe re nce that there was a c om m on desi gn to beat Stalk e r , i n w hich M onroe j oined

. Ga ng m em bers w er e a ngryo vert h e s tol en co cai ne, as ev i denced bothN o. 10

- 3407 31

A lthoug h the Illi nois Ap pell ate Co urt i nd ic ated that 6 M onr oe a t tri al s i m i l ar l y a c knowl edge d hi s an ge r ove r the drug the ft, i n f ac tM onr oe den i ed thathe wa s a ngry o verthe th eft . R . 3 1 -3 at 23 0 ; seeal so R . 3 1 -3 a t2 6 2 -2 6 3 (“ I ’m

— t o t el l you the tr uth , I

— it didn’ t m att er. The ei ght-ball, i t got st olen. It g ot to ok

. W e g ot ro b b ed

. O h , w ell, y ou lose som e, you w in so m e . I n o r d e r to m a k e m o n e y , y o u g o n e lo se m o n e y ; th a t ’s w hat I w as alway s taught. Y ou gone los e som e to m a k e so m e. So thatl it tl e $150 worth o f c o ca ine w as not a f act or t o m e at tha t tim e.”). M on ro e also d en ied the tru th o f his w r i t t e n p osttr ial s tat em ent, i n w hich he s tat ed that he b eg a n t o beat Stal ker because he was angry abo ut the drug the ft. R. 31- 3 at 229. The only anger that M onroe acknow le dg ed at t ri a l w as hi s a nger atSt al ke r when St al ke r t ook an unpr ovoke d s wing athi m with the tw o-by- f our . R. 31

- 3 a t22 8. Ofc our s e, the j ur y was no tr equi re d t o be l i eve M onr oe ’ s t ri al t es t i m ony a nd wa s fr e e t o c r e di th i s wr i t t e n s t a t e m e nti ns t e a d. by M onr oe’ s o w n w ri tte n post
- ar re st sta tem ent and by 6 th e f ac t th atTho m as punc he d J ac k so n in the f ace. The f ac t th atCur r y whi st led to s um m o n Th o m as a nd J acks on out to the str eet supp or ts an i nfe re nc e that ga n g m em ber s were bei ng ca l l ed to act i on; and the f act that M onr oe and C urr y, wh o w er e e sco rt i ng S tal ker shoul der t o shoul der, beg an to pun c h h im as so on a s Tho m as a ppea r ed su ppo r ts a n infer en ce tha t the g r o up w as going to bea t S tal keri n re tal i ati on f orthe conduct ofS tal ker ’ s fel l ow gang m em ber s. I t r equi re s no add itio n al lea p to infe r th at M on ro e in te n d ed to aid in th e co m m i ss i o n o fa b atte r y upo n S ta l k er : c r edi tingthe St ate ’ s e vi denc e, M onroe thre w the fi rs t punch, and then as Cu rr y j oi ned i n, M onr oe w al ked to th e n earby32 N o. 10

- 3407 du m pster, r etr i eve d the di scar ded bo ar d, and str uck Stalker at l east tw ice w ith it. M onroe ’s action s w ere thus co nsi ste nt w ith a n i ntent to i nfl i ct s er i ous har m o n S t a l k e r . I ti s n o t e wo r th y i n tha t r eg a r d th a tth e b l o ws St a l k e r r e c e i v e d t o the h e a d we r e a c o nt r ib ut i ngf acto r i n hi s death. Jack son, o fco urse , te sti fi ed that M onr oe a nd C urr y t o g e the r s t r uc kS t a l k e r wi th the b o a r d a to ta l of fiv e t o s ev en tim es ; an d alt h ou gh Jac ks on d id not se e what par t o f S ta l k er ’ s bo dy th ey st r uck, the j ury w as not re quire d to bel i eve M onr oe’ s t est i m ony that he o nl y s tr uck S tal ker in the l eg ( al though S tal ker ’ s l eg d id sh ow inju r i e s) o r th at h e w alk ed aw ay im m ed iat ely aft er h e s tr u c k t h os e b low s a n d w a s n otp re se n t w h ile C urry h im self stru ck Stalker w ith th e board

. Th e j ury was l i k ewi se no t o bl i g ed to cred i t M o nr o e’ s te st i m o ny th athe a nd Curry ha d c ea se d s tr i k i ngS ta l k er, a nd w er e ha lf a bloc k aw ay w h en T h om as st ab b ed h i m ; it coul d have cr edi ted J ackson ’s test i m ony that M onr oe r emai ne d s ta nd in gne xtt o S ta l k er, a nd o nl y b ac k ed up a fo otor s o a s T h om as ap p ro ac h e d . A n d alt h ou gh it w as T ho m as a nd Th o m as a l o ne who wi th o utwar ni ng produced a kni fe a nd st abbed S tal ker, t h e e vi dence no ne th el es s per m i tt ed th e j ur y to i nfertha t th e st ab bing w as th e c u lm i n at ion of th e join t d es ign to co m m it a b a t t e r y up o n S t a l k e r i n r e t a l i a t i o n f o r the a c t i ons of St al ker ’ s fel l ow gang m em ber s. That was eno ugh und er I l l i no i s l aw t o fi nd M o nr o e g ui l tyo fm urd er pur su an t t o a n ac c ou n ta b ility th eo ry . See Terry, 46 0 N
. E.2 d at 749; Bre nna n , 18 54 W L 4728, at* 3. T h e Illino is A p p ella te C ou rtd id n otrely im p ro p er ly on M on roe’ s g ang m em ber shi p orhi s fl i ght t oge therN o. 10

- 3407 33

w i th Thom as i n affi rm i ng hi s co nvi cti on. Gang affi l i ati o n was a c i r cumst an ce hi g hl y r el ev an t to e xplaining w hy Mo nr o e a nd the o the r s we r e a ng r y wi th S t a l k er an d why th eywoul d wantt o ha rm hi m . Tha t was the l i m i te d s en se i n whic h the a ppel l at e co ur t ci te d a nd re lied u p on ga n g m em b er sh ip
. S e ePe o p l ev . K n ox , 6 08 N
. E. 2d 65 9, 6 63 ( I l l

. App. C t. 1993 ) ( “Ev i den ce r el at i ng to the defendant’s ga ng m em ber shi p o r gang- re l ate d acti vi ti es i s a dm i ssibl e t o show com m on purpose o r des i g n, o r t o pr o vi d e a mot i ve f o r a n o th er wi se i ne xp lica b le a c t. ” ); U nited Sta tes v. B utler, 71 F. 3d 243, 25 1 ( 7th C i r . 1 9 9 5 ) ( c o l l

. c a s e s e xe mpl i fy i ngp r o pe r c o ns i deration of gang m em bersh ip). N o wher e i n the c o ur t’s deci si on i s there any i nd i cati on that t h e courtat tached i napp ro pri ate signi fi cance to M onr oe’ s g ang a ffi l i ati on; the cour t, f or exam ple , did not ass um e th at be c ause M on ro e a nd Thom as w er e m em ber s o fthe sam e g ang, M onr oe necess ar i l y intended to ai d Th om as’ s a cti ons. The cour t l i kewis e g ave appropri ate co nsi derat i on t o M o nr o e’ s fl i g htfr o m the a tt ac kwith T hom as a nd the othe rs , al ong w i th the fac t that he re m ai ned w i th Thom as f oratl eas t a notherday, as ci rcum sta nces whi ch, n ot bythe m se l ve s buti n c o nj unc ti o n wi ththe ot h er facts, su p p orted the inferen ce th at T hom as’s acti ons w er e co m m i tte d pu rs uant t o a co m m on desi gn to com m i t a b atter y o n St al kerand that M onr oe had an int en t t o a id in t h e c om m iss ion o ft h at ba tt er y. See P erez , 72 5 N
. E.2 d at 1 265 ( f act that defe nd ant fl ed sc en e an d m aint aine d c l o se a ff i l i at i o n wi thc o m pan i o ns afterco m m iss i on o fcr i m e a re am ong f acto rs co urt m ay co ns i der i n as se ss i ng defen dan t’ s ac co unt ab i l i ty) ( ci ting Peop l ev. Tayl or, 646 N
. E
. 2d 567, 571 (I ll

. 1995)).34 N o. 10

- 3407 A s M onr oe poi nts o ut, the app ellat e co urt m ay have erred i n su ggestin g tha t it w as he rather th an Cu rry w h o s u m m on ed T h om as an d Jac ks on by w h ist lin g, see R . 20 a t 9 4 (in d ica tin g t h at “d e f e n d a n t an d C u rry , w h ile sta nd i ng with the v i c tim , s um m oned Thom as . . . with a signal used by t h e m t o sum m on an oth er m em ber’s p re se n c e,” an d su b se q u en tly s t a tin g t h at “[a ] rea so n ab le i nfe re nce ca n be draw n fro m the circ u m sta nces that defe nd ant s um m oned Thom as f orthe pu rpos e o f initi ating a bat tery on Stalker .

. . ”). A lt h ou gh J acks on’s trialtestim ony d id not sp ecify w he th er i t w as C urry orM onr oe w ho wh i stled , s ee R. 31

- 3 a t 3 1- 32, the St ate s e e m s t o a gr ee th at it w as C u rry , seeS t a t e Br
. 1 2 ( “ Th en th e m enhe ar d Cur r y whi st l e f o r th em t o a ppea r . ”)
. But th at er r o r was no t m at er i alt o the r es ul t o fthe c o urt’s anal ysi s. The wh i stl e, as w e hav e s ai d, re prese nted a ca l lt o a ct i o n. M o nr o e was wi thCur r y whenCurry w hi stl ed. M or e t o the point, wh en J acks on a nd Thom as ap p ea r ed in re sp on se to th e w h ist le, M on ro e im m ed ia t e l y i n i t i a t e d th e a t t a c ko n S t a l k e r b y s t r i k i n gh i m. M onr oe is al so cor re ct in em phasi zi ng tha t there was no e vi dence ofa disc ussi on a m ong the m en t hat r esul ted i n an e xpress pla n to i nfl i c t a be ating o n St al keri n re tal i ati on f orwh at St al ker ’ s co h or ts h ad done. But gi ven th e sequ ence ofev ents, and the acti ons that M onr oe, Cu rr y, Thom as, and ( to a l ess erexte nt) J acks on t oo k, the j ury coul d perm i ssibl y infer that the m en bat ter ed St al kerpursuant to a com m on desi gn, and that M onr oe i ntended t o aid i n that batt er y a nd thathe di d i n f act p articipate i n th e b a t t e r y . A nd as w e hav e said, M onroe ’s i nt e nt t o a s s i s t i n the c o mm i s s i o n o f a b a t t e r y uponN o. 10

- 3407 35 St alk er is su fficie n t, u n d er Il lin o i s l a w , to re n d er h im re sp on sibl e forthe stabbi ng and m urder that Thom as com m i tte d i n the cour se ofthatbat ter y.

III. As no const i tu ti o na le r r o r o cc ur r ed i n the pr o se cuti on ofM onr oe, the dist ri ct c ourtpro perl y deni ed M o nr o e’ s pet i ti o n fo r a wri t o fhabe as co r pus . W e th an k M onr oe’ s a pp oi nted counself orthei r vigoro us eff or ts on h is behalf. A FFI RMED .

4- 4- 13