Illinois Official Reports 

Appellate Court

People v. Goods, 2016 IL App (1st) 140511

Appellate Court 

Caption

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. 

THADIEUS GOODS, Defendant-Appellant.

District & No. First District, First Division

Docket No. 1-14-0511

Filed

Rehearing denied

September 12, 2016

October 7, 2016

Decision Under 

Review

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County, No. 07-CR-15601-03; 

the Hon. Frank G. Zelezinski, Judge, presiding.

Judgment Reversed and remanded.

Counsel on

Appeal

Michael J. Pelletier, Alan D. Goldberg, and S. Amanda Ingram, all of 

State Appellate Defender’s Office, of Chicago, for appellant.

Anita M. Alvarez, State’s Attorney, of Chicago (Alan J. Spellberg, 

Christine Cook, and Iris G. Ferosie, Assistant State’s Attorneys, of 

counsel), for the People.

Panel PRESIDING JUSTICE CONNORS delivered the judgment of the 

court, with opinion.

Justices Cunningham and Harris concurred in the judgment and 

opinion.
- 2 - 

 OPINION 

¶ 1 After a jury trial, defendant, Thadieus Goods, was found guilty of first degree murder (720 

ILCS 5/9-1(a)(2) (West 2010)) and of personally discharging a firearm that proximately 

caused the victim’s death. Prior to trial, defendant’s attorney asserted compulsion as an 

affirmative defense, but the court granted the State’s motion to bar this defense because 

compulsion is not available as a defense to first degree murder in Illinois. In mitigation at 

sentencing, due to a fear for his safety being threatened if he was known to be a “snitch,” 

defendant requested to present in camera the testimony of an assistant State’s Attorney to 

whom defendant had provided information while in prison regarding an alleged solicitation of 

murder of an 11-year-old victim in an unrelated criminal sexual abuse case. The court denied 

his request and sentenced defendant to 65 years in prison. On appeal, defendant argues that his 

trial counsel was ineffective for failing to assert self-defense and ask for the corresponding jury 

instructions, the court failed to properly exercise its discretion in refusing to allow defendant’s 

mitigation witness to testify in camera, and his 65-year sentence was excessive. For the 

following reasons, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand for a new trial. 

¶ 2 I. BACKGROUND 

¶ 3 Pierre Jordan was found shot to death in the parking lot of an apartment complex located at 

3700 174th Court in Lansing on June 30, 2007. Defendant, along with Ronnell Hansbrough, 

Torrey Hansbrough, and Tina Robinson, was charged with eight counts of first degree murder 

for Jordan’s death.

¶ 4 A. Pretrial Motions 

¶ 5 On July 2, 2007, defendant was arrested by Chicago police on an unrelated misdemeanor 

offense. He remained in custody until July 4, 2007, when he was brought before a judge for a 

bond hearing and the misdemeanor charge was dismissed. Immediately after the dismissal, 

defendant was rearrested by Lansing police in connection with Jordan’s murder. While in 

custody, defendant was interrogated and provided a videotaped statement. Subsequently, 

defendant was indicted by a grand jury. On July 23, 2009, defendant filed a motion to quash 

arrest and suppress evidence, arguing that his arrest was made without a valid search or arrest 

warrant and that his conduct prior to arrest did not give rise to probable cause. Defendant also 

argued that the statement he gave while in custody should be suppressed due to the lack of 

probable cause. Defendant filed another motion to suppress the statement on April 21, 2011.1

The second motion to suppress asserted that prior to interrogation, defendant stated that he 

knew nothing of Jordan’s murder and had nothing to say, but that “due to the physical, 

physiological, mental, educational, emotional and/or psychological state, capacity and 

condition of the [d]efendant, he was incapable and unable to appreciate and understand the full 

meaning of his Miranda rights [(Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966))] and any statement 

was therefore not *** made voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently.” Defendant also argued 

 

1

It appears from the record that the filing of two motions to suppress was due to the fact that 

defendant was initially represented by the public defender’s office and later by a private attorney. 

Specifically, the public defender was given leave to withdraw and private counsel was given leave to 

file his appearance on July 16, 2010, which was in between the filing of the two motions to suppress. 
- 3 - 

that he had been told that his wife had been arrested and that if he did not cooperate she would 

be charged with murder, rendering the statement defendant ultimately made a product of 

coercion. On August 24, 2011, after hearing argument, the court denied defendant’s motion to 

suppress, stating that “the State has met their burden at this juncture.” The court further stated 

that it “[felt] that the defendant was appropriately advised of his rights and waived his rights at 

the appropriate times” and that “there was no right in any way [defendant] be allowed to speak 

to anybody, be it [his] mother, girlfriend, or whoever.”

¶ 6 On April 21, 2011, defendant also filed a motion to dismiss the indictment, which was later 

amended on September 8, 2011. The motion to dismiss asserted that an officer gave false 

testimony to the grand jury, which resulted in the true bill directed against defendant. The court 

conducted a hearing on the amended motion to dismiss the indictment on October 18, 2011. At 

the hearing, the defense argued that at the grand jury, an officer falsely testified that the police 

had learned defendant and the three other defendants had planned to kill Jordan, as there was 

no evidence of a plan in any of the defendants’ statements. Also, the defense pointed to the 

officer’s grand jury testimony that made it seem as though defendant was the sole person 

involved in the murder because it was not made clear that codefendant Ronnell Hansbrough 

was the person who shot Jordan first. The court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss, finding 

that there was not a willing falsity or willingness to deceive the grand jury and, thus, not 

enough to overturn the indictment. 

¶ 7 B. Trial 

¶ 8 Prior to the commencement of defendant’s jury trial, the State filed a motion in limine

seeking to admit the inculpatory portion of defendant’s videotaped statement from July 4 and 

July 5, 2007, and exclude the other portions of defendant’s statement that dealt with how he 

knew Jordan and mentioned the prior time defendant served in prison. The State’s motion 

in limine also sought to preclude defendant from offering any evidence of Jordan’s prior bad 

acts because defense counsel “failed to allege self-defense and/or file a Lynch motion.” On 

March 26, 2007, the day before defendant’s trial began, the court heard argument on the State’s 

motion in limine. Regarding the admission of defendant’s videotaped statement, the State 

asserted that it only intended to introduce the inculpatory portion of defendant’s statement and 

the portion showing defendant received Miranda warnings. It would not be showing the 

portions where defendant talked about how he knew Jordan and their imprisonment together, 

where defendant denied any involvement in Jordan’s murder, or where defendant asked for an 

attorney. In response, the defense argued that including only the inculpatory portions would be 

extremely prejudicial to defendant, especially since defendant spent so much time at the 

beginning of his interrogation denying any involvement. The defense argued that it was not 

until the police mentioned defendant’s girlfriend and her health problems that defendant stated 

he was involved. The defense conceded that it was amenable to having the portions of the 

statement that referenced defendant’s previous criminal background redacted from the video. 

The court ruled that it would not allow the jury to hear all of defendant’s statement. However, 

it allowed cross-examination on the issue of what occurred prior to defendant admitting his 

involvement, how long the interrogation went on, and the fact that defendant initially denied 

his involvement. 

¶ 9 The court next addressed the State’s motion in limine regarding the use of the victim’s prior 

bad acts. The State asserted that because defense counsel had not alleged self-defense or filed a 
- 4 - 

Lynch motion, any prior bad acts by Jordan should be barred. The defense objected to the 

State’s motion “because we are introducing [an] affirmative defense which may indeed get into 

prior bad acts which would be why the person felt compelled to do what he did.” Defense 

counsel then confirmed that he was, in fact, alleging the defense of compulsion, not 

self-defense. The court replied that “[prior bad acts] would not come in for [compulsion] 

anyway. So that’s where we stand. Unless you’re alleging self-defense, this is not even an 

issue. So they’re not allowed anyway.” Defense counsel then argued that if defendant testified 

as to why he felt compelled to do what he did, it would be because he knew Jordan had 

committed prior acts and because of his personal knowledge of Jordan “being in a situation 

where he has [had] to use a gun in the past.” The court ultimately determined that it could not 

rule on this matter at the time and reserved its rulings for defendant’s testimony. The parties 

then engaged in jury selection. 

¶ 10 On the following day, March 27, 2012, prior to opening statements, the State raised the 

argument that the defense of compulsion was not available to defendant in this case because he 

was charged with murder. Primarily relying on the cases of People v. Anderson, 2011 IL App 

(1st) 071768, and People v. Gleckler, 82 Ill. 2d 145 (1980), the State asserted that “there is 185 

years of case law that says that compulsion is not a defense for first degree murder.” Defense 

counsel responded that he was aware of death penalty cases where compulsion was allowed to 

be asserted and that even though this was not a death penalty case, “it is still a murder case.” 

The court then read directly from section 7-11 of the Criminal Code of 2012 (Code), titled 

“compulsion,” which reads:

“A person is not guilty of an offense other than an offense, punishable with death, by 

reason of conduct that he or she performs under compulsion of threat or menace of the 

imminent infliction of death or great bodily harm, if he or she reasonably believes death 

or great bodily harm will be inflicted upon him or her, or upon his or her spouse or 

child, if he or she does not perform that conduct.” 720 ILCS 5/7-11(a) (West 2012). 

The court further noted that the statute had not been amended to explicitly include first degree 

murder, rather than “an offense punishable with death,” even though Illinois no longer 

recognized the death penalty, thus, requiring the court to look to case law, which made clear 

that compulsion was a prohibited defense in a first degree murder case. Recognizing this as 

“black letter law,” the court granted the State’s request and barred defendant from asserting 

compulsion as a defense. 

¶ 11 Thereafter, the trial began with the parties presenting their opening statements. In its 

case-in-chief, the State first called Edward Jordan, the father of the victim, to testify. Edward 

testified that he saw Jordan on June 29, 2007, the evening prior to the murder, and that Jordan 

appeared “fine” and “healthy.” The State next called Juanita Seals, a woman who lived in the 

apartment complex where Jordan was killed. Seals testified that on June 30, 2007, at 

approximately 3 a.m., she was asleep in her bedroom in her apartment at 3700 174th Court in 

Lansing and was awakened by “popping sounds” that were coming from outside her bedroom 

in the parking lot. Seals testified she originally thought the sounds were firecrackers but then 

realized they sounded like gunshots, so she “got up and got down on [her] knees and looked out 

of [her] window,” which looked out on the parking lot. She stated that when she looked out the 

window, she saw two males standing over another man who was laying flat on his face and that 

one of the two males who was standing was shooting the man on the ground. Seals testified that 

she could not see the two men’s faces, but she saw that one was heavyset and the other was 
- 5 - 

shorter than the heavier man. The heavyset man was the one she observed shooting downward 

at the third man, and she could see fire coming from the gun. Seals also testified that she could 

“hear the sounds of the bullets coming from the gun, the actual shooting, pow, pow, pow, 

pow.” Seals estimated that she observed four to five shots. Then, she crawled back to her bed 

and called 911. She testified that while on the phone, she was asked to look back out the 

window, which she did, and saw the two men were gone. The man who was shot was still 

laying “flat on his face” in the parking lot. Seals testified that she heard additional shots while 

she was on the phone with 911 but could not see who was shooting. Seals stated that 

“anywhere from four to six minutes total” elapsed from the time she first heard the popping 

sounds until she saw the men were gone. Seals also stated that the area in the parking lot was 

well-lit enough for her to see that there were two male shooters but not well-lit enough for her 

to see the actual gun, only the fire coming from it. 

¶ 12 The State then called Officer Todd Yonker, the Lansing police officer who was first on the 

scene, to testify. Officer Yonker testified that on June 30, 2007, at approximately 3:10 a.m., he 

was alone on patrol when he received a dispatch regarding gunshots and “a man down in the 

parking lot” at 3700 174th Court. When he arrived at that location, he saw a man lying face 

down with his hands tucked underneath his body. He believed the man had been shot because 

he also saw shell casings and a lot of blood. Officer Yonker testified that he did not touch or 

move the body and did not allow anyone else to touch or move the body until the evidence 

technician or photographer arrived. 

¶ 13 Sergeant Robert Deel of the state police was called next. Sergeant Deel testified that at the 

time of Jordan’s murder, he was working as a crime scene investigator. He arrived at the scene 

at approximately 7:30 a.m. on June 30, 2007, where he met with Detective Smith of the 

Lansing police department and conducted a walk-through of the area. He testified that he saw a 

blue tarp, which he later learned was covering the body of the victim. He took photographs of 

the scene, including the tarp over the body, as well as the body after the tarp was removed. 

Sergeant Deel testified that when the tarp was removed, he observed the victim laying face 

down with his hands underneath his torso in the pockets of his jacket. He also stated that 

Jordan’s vehicle was parked in the parking lot where his body was found and that he recovered 

18 cartridge casings and some spent projectiles that were found once the victim’s body was 

rolled over. 

¶ 14 The State next called Sergeant John Daley of the Burnham police department to testify on 

its behalf. Sergeant Daley testified that in July 2007, he was working with the south suburban 

major crimes task force in the investigation of the shooting death of Jordan. On July 5, 2007, he 

had a conversation with codefendant Ronnell Hansbrough2 at the Lansing police station. 

Through his conversation with Ronnell, Sergeant Daley was directed to a Dumpster behind an 

apartment building in Calumet City, where he saw a black plastic bag in the corner of the 

Dumpster that was otherwise empty at the time. Inside the bag was a black Glock 

semiautomatic handgun and an extended, 30-round clip. He stated that he did not recall the 

exact number of rounds that were in it, but there were “quite a few.” There was also one loose 

 

2

Sergeant Daley testified that Ronnell Hansbrough went by the name of “Endo.” However, in 

defendant’s videotaped statement, he referred to Ronnell and Endo as two different people. Also, in 

Sergeant Bailey’s testimony, which is set forth later in this opinion, he stated that Ronnell and Endo 

were brothers. For purposes of this opinion, we presume that Ronnell and Endo are not the same person. 
- 6 - 

round in the bag. An evidence technician from Lansing police department recovered the items, 

photographed them, and placed the gun into an evidence box separate from the rounds. Next, 

the State called Officer Dana Tatgenhorst of the Lansing police. Officer Tatgenhorst testified 

that she was present for Jordan’s autopsy on July 1, 2007. She stated the autopsy was 

performed by Dr. Michelle Jordan. At the autopsy, Officer Tatgenhorst observed Dr. Jordan 

remove 13 copper bullet jackets from Jordan’s body. 

¶ 15 On the second day of trial, the State called Jeffrey Parise, a forensic scientist of the Illinois 

State Police forensic science command who specialized in firearms identification. Upon 

request of the State and with no objection from the defense, Parise was declared an expert in 

the field of firearms and firearms identification. Parise testified that he received nine exhibits 

from the Lansing police department that included the gun recovered from the Dumpster, 18 

cartridge cases, and a number of projectiles. Parise stated that he examined a Glock 

semiautomatic pistol with an extended magazine that held 31 cartridge cases. Parise testified 

that 5 of the 18 recovered cartridge cases were .45 caliber and were fired by the same firearm 

but not the Glock semiautomatic pistol that was recovered from the Dumpster. Rather, Parise 

stated that six of the recovered cartridge cases were, in fact, fired from the recovered Glock and 

that those cases were 9-millimeter caliber. The remaining seven cases were .380 caliber and 

were not fired from the recovered Glock semiautomatic pistol. Parise testified that these seven 

.380-caliber cases were fired from a 9-millimeter Makarov, which is a Russian gun, or possibly 

a 9-millimeter Luger. Parise stated that there were “at least three guns” used here. 

¶ 16 The next witness called by the State was Dr. Ariel Goldschmidt, an employee of the Cook 

County Medical Examiner’s Office. Upon request from the State and with no objection from 

the defense, the court declared Dr. Goldschmidt an expert in the field of forensic pathology. 

Dr. Goldschmidt testified that he reviewed the autopsy report of Dr. Jordan, the doctor who 

actually performed Jordan’s autopsy. Dr. Goldschmidt stated that Jordan had multiple gunshot 

wounds, including, inter alia, three to the back of the head, one to the back of the neck, three to 

the back, one to the shoulder, three to the armpits, two to the left arm, and one to the left chest. 

There were 13 projectiles recovered from Jordan’s body. Dr. Goldschmidt testified that he 

could not say whether Jordan was deceased before the last gunshot wound was received. 

However, he testified that there was blood in Jordan’s upper chest around his lungs, which 

meant that although he could have been brain dead, his heart was still pumping after he was 

shot. Dr. Goldschmidt testified that the cause of Jordan’s death was multiple gunshot wounds 

and the manner of death was homicide. 

¶ 17 Sergeant Scott Bailey, a member of the investigation division of the Lansing police 

department and south suburban major crime task force, was called next by the State. Sergeant 

Bailey testified that shortly after 3 a.m. on June 30, 2007, he responded to the scene at 3700 

174th Court, where he saw a deceased male who had been shot. He testified that pursuant to his 

investigation, he learned that the names of the people who were involved with Jordan’s death 

were Ronnell Hansbrough, a/k/a “Little Bro,” and Torrey Hansbrough. Regarding the physical 

build of defendant and Ronnell, Sergeant Bailey stated that defendant “is a lot bigger and 

heavy, thicker,” and that Ronnell was “thinner, shorter.” He also stated that Ronnell, Endo, and 

Torrey were all brothers. Sergeant Bailey testified that he and Sergeant Daley spoke with 

defendant on July 5, 2007, at about 4 p.m. in the Lansing police department criminal 

investigation interview room. He stated that he had spoken with defendant on two previous 
- 7 - 

occasions, where defendant had denied any involvement with Jordan’s death. He also testified 

that the second conversation ended when defendant asked for an attorney. 

¶ 18 Sergeant Bailey further testified that the conversation with defendant at approximately 

4 p.m. began with him “reminding [defendant] of his Miranda [w]arnings.” Defendant was 

also made aware that audio and visual recordings of the conversation were being made. 

Sergeant Bailey testified that Endo, Ronnell, and Torrey were all brothers and that defendant’s 

girlfriend, Tina Robinson, was also known as “Baby Cakes.” On cross-examination, Sergeant 

Bailey agreed with defense counsel that defendant had concerns for Robinson and kept trying 

to get the police to put them in the same room so he could talk to her. Sergeant Bailey testified 

that Robinson became so ill while in custody that she had to be taken to the hospital, and the 

officers made a point of telling that to defendant. 

¶ 19 The DVD of defendant’s statement from July 5, 2007, was published to the jury. In his 

statement, defendant stated that Jordan, who defendant knew to be a cocaine dealer, told him 

that he was “fitting to go in on them,” referring to robbing Endo and Ronnell, because they had 

“balls of money wrapped up *** in plastic.” Jordan asked defendant to get him in the 

apartment complex, but defendant would not because there were cameras on every door and he 

did not want to be seen with Jordan. Defendant stated that a couple days to a week before 

Jordan’s murder, he told Endo that Jordan “want to run in your momma house, and he not 

playing,” to which Endo replied “ ‘let him run his a*** in there, we gonna off his a*** in 

there.’ ” Sometime thereafter, defendant spoke with Jordan and again told him, “I ain’t going 

nowhere to be in front of no camera.” Defendant told the officers he knew that “if I got 

knowledge of [Jordan] running in they crib, he getting down on me when he get through with 

them.” 

¶ 20 The following day Jordan pulled up to the apartment complex with his girlfriend in the 

front seat, his daughter in the backseat, and a gun on his lap. Jordan asked defendant if he did 

his “homework,” and defendant replied that he had after seeing the gun on Jordan’s lap. 

Defendant stated he was thinking “we gotta get this motherf*** out the way, straight up.” After 

seeing Jordan, defendant called Endo and told him that Jordan was at the building. Defendant 

stated that Endo said, “ ‘I’m fitting to shoot the s*** out this n***,’ ” referring to Jordan. 

Defendant told the officers that when talking to Endo, he said, “ ‘My momma live here just like 

your momma. You know, come on let’s—I’m ready to get it over with.’ ” On Friday, the day 

before Jordan was killed, defendant was with Robinson over at defendant’s mom’s apartment. 

After defendant received a call from Jordan, who said that he was “ready to get it cracking,” he 

then called Endo and told him to give defendant a gun. Endo was not nearby, so he told Ronnell 

to get defendant a gun, which he did. Defendant stated that Ronnell gave him a “Russian 

[9-]millimeter.” 

¶ 21 That night, Jordan picked up defendant, drove around the back of apartment complex, and 

backed into a parking spot. Defendant stated that at this point, he did not know that Ronnell 

was already there. Defendant and Jordan both got out of the car, and Jordan went to the trunk 

and “did something, put on a black jacket.” Defendant also said he saw Jordan “fumbling in his 

waist.” Defendant watched Jordan, thinking “you ain’t fitting to just pop me and try and run in 

and they crib because he’ll get down like this.” Defendant and Jordan walked through the 

parking lot, then Ronnell “come out of nowhere, boom, hit his a***” and Jordan fell. 

Defendant stated that Ronnell had “scared the s*** out of me” and when Jordan fell, defendant 

also fell to the ground. Defendant said he then got up and “[b]oom, boom, boom, I get to giving 
- 8 - 

it to him.” Defendant further stated that Ronnell hit Jordan first, then he shot Jordan, and then 

Ronnell shot Jordan again with Jordan’s own gun.

¶ 22 Defendant told the officers that after the shooting, he ran to the building. Endo, Ronnell, 

and “B” came to pick him up and Endo said, “ ‘I love you, bro, man that was love ***. You 

didn’t have to tell us s***. You could have let that n*** come in on me.’ ” Defendant told 

Endo that “[w]hen you can’t trust somebody you gotta get them out of the way.” Defendant 

said that he feared for his mother’s life like Endo feared for his mother’s life. Defendant told 

the officers, “[w]e was fitting to be gone,” and “had bus tickets and everything.” Defendant 

and the others then went to a Holiday Inn Express where they cleaned the guns. On Sunday, 

Endo took the guns in a bag and “took them whenever he wanted to take them.” Near the end of 

his interview, defendant stated that “if any motherf*** go down for this case, it gotta be me, 

Ronnell and Endo. Cause Endo said kill the motherf***, me and Ronnell run up on the n***. 

Bottom line.”

¶ 23 Thereafter, the State rested its case-in-chief and the defense moved for a directed verdict, 

which was denied. On the final day of trial, March 29, 2012, the defense rested without 

presenting any evidence. Prior to deliberation, the court heard argument on jury instructions. 

The State proposed that the jury should be given an accountability instruction. The defense 

objected, arguing that the evidence did not show that defendant was responsible for Ronnell’s 

conduct because he did not know that Ronnell was already at the apartment or that he was 

going to shoot Jordan at that time. According to defense counsel, defendant did not do anything 

to promote or facilitate this crime. Rather, he merely told Endo that someone may be coming to 

the apartment complex to rob or kill him. In response, the State asserted that the evidence had 

shown that defendant worked in conjunction with Ronnell, planning the murder in advance. 

The State pointed to the defendant’s statement where he admitted he asked Endo to give him a 

gun. The court overruled the defense’s objection and allowed the accountability instruction, 

which stated: 

“A person is legally responsible for the conduct of another person when, either 

before or during the commission of the offense, and with the intent to promote or 

facilitate the commission of the offense, he knowingly solicits, aids, abets, agrees to 

aid, or attempts to aid the other person in the planning or commission of the offense.” 

Illinois Pattern Jury Instructions, Criminal, No. 5.03 (4th ed. 2000). 

Defendant’s counsel did not ask for an instruction regarding self-defense or second degree 

murder. 

¶ 24 Then, the parties presented their closing arguments. In his closing, defense counsel argued 

that there was no plot to murder Jordan. He also stated that defendant did not have a gun “until 

he was scared to death and got one” after seeing Jordan in his car with a weapon on his lap. 

Defense counsel reminded the jury that defendant told Endo: “Look, this guy is crazy. He is 

coming to rip you off. You better be prepared.” The defense argued that when defendant went 

to the apartment complex on the night of the murder, he was afraid of Jordan. Later in the 

closing argument, defense counsel again stated that defendant was scared, because he had just 

seen Ronnell shoot Jordan and then Ronnell looked at him like he was going to kill him. The 

State objected to this statement, but the court overruled the objection and reminded the jury 

that this was argument, not evidence. At the conclusion of his closing, defense counsel stated: 

“The [d]efendant did not act with Ronnell Hansbrough. He acted alone. He acted by himself, 

and he was in fear of not only the Hansbroughs, he was in fear of the victim.” 
- 9 - 

¶ 25 After just over an hour of deliberation, the jury returned a verdict, finding defendant guilty 

of first degree murder and guilty of personally discharging a firearm that proximately caused 

death to another person. 

¶ 26 C. Posttrial Motions and Sentencing 

¶ 27 On May 2, 2012, defendant, through counsel, filed a motion for acquittal notwithstanding 

the verdict or, in the alternative, for a new trial. The motion argued that the totality of the 

evidence could not lead a reasonable trier of fact to the conclusion that the State proved its case 

beyond a reasonable doubt; thus, acquittal was proper. On June 29, 2012, defendant, acting 

pro se, filed an amended motion for acquittal notwithstanding the verdict or, in the alternative, 

for a new trial that was substantially similar to the original motion except that the amended 

motion raised the additional argument that defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel 

and that defendant did not understand what was taking place at trial because he had not been 

given his psychotropic medication. Upon request of the defense, on June 1, 2012, the court 

ordered that an examination of defendant’s fitness for sentencing take place. In a report dated 

September 20, 2012, Dr. Nishad Nadkarni, a staff psychiatrist, stated that he found defendant 

fit for sentencing as there was no evidence that defendant suffered from a bona fide major 

mental illness or cognitive impairment that would preclude him from understanding the charge 

for which he was convicted. 

¶ 28 On November 6, 2012, when this matter was before the court for a status hearing, 

defendant addressed the court and asked that he be allowed to proceed pro se because he 

believed that his private counsel had a conflict due to defendant’s assertion of ineffective 

assistance of counsel in his amended posttrial motion. Also on that date, defendant’s counsel 

requested a contested hearing regarding defendant’s fitness for sentencing, which ultimately 

took place on November 27, 2012. Dr. Nadkarni testified at the hearing, and the court 

ultimately found defendant fit for sentencing. 

¶ 29 On December 7, 2012, defendant’s private attorney was granted leave to withdraw as 

counsel, and the public defender’s office was appointed. Through his appointed counsel, 

defendant filed a motion for a new trial on June 4, 2013, arguing that defendant was deprived 

of his right to due process and his right not to testify against himself when the court denied his 

motion to suppress his statement and allowed his statement to be published to the jury. 

Defendant argued that his statement was not given voluntarily and was the result of prolonged 

custody at the Lansing police station and the information regarding his girlfriend, Tina 

Robinson. Defendant also argued that he was denied due process and a fair trial when the court 

did not allow him to assert the defense of compulsion at trial. Further, defendant asserted that 

the court erred in denying defendant’s motion for a directed verdict because there was no 

physical evidence or conclusive eyewitness evidence tying defendant to Jordan’s murder. 

Likewise, defendant argued the jury denied him due process through their finding of guilty 

when the only direct evidence of defendant’s involvement was his own statement. Defendant 

claimed the jury also denied him due process when they returned a verdict of guilty when Dr. 

Goldschmidt testified that a shot by a large caliber bullet, such as the ones fired from 

codefendant Hansbrough’s gun, would probably cause “brain death,” rendering Jordan dead 

before defendant even shot him. 

¶ 30 Defendant, through his appointed public defender, filed an amended motion for a new trial 

on August 27, 2013, that contained substantially the same arguments as the original motion, 
- 10 - 

but added the allegation that his trial counsel was ineffective when counsel “strongly advised” 

defendant against testifying despite the fact that defendant wanted to testify to give his side of 

the story. Also, defendant argued his counsel was ineffective when he failed to present the 

defense of self-defense and instead relied on the defense of compulsion, which was not 

available in a murder prosecution. Further, defendant, through appointed counsel, filed an 

addendum to his amended motion for new trial on August 30, 2013, that asserted that 

defendant also received ineffective assistance of counsel when his trial counsel failed to object 

to the testimony of Dr. Goldschmidt, as he was not the doctor who had performed Jordan’s 

autopsy. Also, the addendum stated that defendant’s trial counsel failed to object to the 

admission of the certified copy of the autopsy into evidence, which contained testimonial 

hearsay. 

¶ 31 Also on August 30, 2013, the court conducted a hearing on defendant’s motion for a new 

trial. Prior to the hearing, at defense counsel’s request, the court allowed the amended motion 

for a new trial and the addendum to the amended motion to be incorporated into the original 

motion for new trial. At the hearing, defendant’s counsel emphasized that reasonable doubt as 

to defendant’s guilt existed where Dr. Goldschmidt testified that a person shot in the head with 

a large caliber gun would probably be severely incapacitated, if not brain dead. Also, defense 

counsel argued ineffective assistance by defendant’s trial counsel, stressing that counsel was 

ineffective when he failed to object to Dr. Goldschmidt’s testimony because Dr. Goldschmidt 

was not the medical examiner who performed Jordan’s autopsy, which meant defendant was 

not able to cross-examine the doctor who had, in fact, performed the autopsy, a violation of 

defendant’s rights under the confrontation clause. In response to defendant’s motions and 

addendum, the State argued in part that defendant’s trial counsel was not ineffective for failing 

to assert the theory of self-defense because the facts of this case did not support such a theory. 

The State asserted that there was no evidence that defendant was afraid of Jordan. Also, the 

State argued that counsel was not ineffective because “[h]e presented a defense for defendant 

that was very effective but the evidence bore out that the defendant was in fact guilty.” Finally, 

the State asserted that there was no ineffective assistance for failure to object to Dr. 

Goldschmidt’s testimony where there was a statute that allowed him to testify as to another 

medical examiner’s findings.

¶ 32 In its oral ruling, the court noted that it had presided over the case since its inception and 

that it relied on its previous, “extensive” rulings on the issue regarding suppression of 

defendant’s statement. Additionally, the court stated that there was identification of 

defendant’s participation evidence other than his statement. Regarding the issue of defendant’s 

theory of defense, the court stated, “[t]he defense initially wanted to consider a compulsion 

defense however by [s]tatute and case law that was unavailable on a murder case.” The court 

did not mention the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to assert the theory of 

self-defense. As to Dr. Goldschmidt’s testimony, the court stated that his testimony was not 

improper and testimony of that kind “has been allowed consistently through case law 

throughout as well as by [s]tatute.” Ultimately, the court denied defendant’s motion for a new 

trial. The court stated that it believed its previous rulings were appropriate and the jury’s 

decision was appropriate and supported by the evidence. Also, the court found the conduct of 

the attorneys was appropriate, specifically, the court noted that defendant’s trial counsel “gave 

the best representation and defense that he could under the circumstances of what he had.” 
- 11 - 

¶ 33 A presentence investigative (PSI) report was filed with the court on January 27, 2014. The 

report stated that it was based on a November 15, 2013, interview with defendant, juvenile 

court records, defendant’s adult criminal history, and criminal court records. It also stated that 

a probation officer spoke via telephone with defendant’s mother. The PSI report reflected that 

the juvenile court records showed numerous charges against defendant, some violent and some 

nonviolent, beginning at age 12. Similarly, defendant’s adult criminal history showed 

numerous offenses, beginning when defendant was 17 years old. In 1995, he was charged with 

possession of a stolen motor vehicle, pled guilty, and received two years probation, which was 

later terminated due to his imprisonment on another offense in 1997. In 1996, defendant was 

arrested twice: once in June in Chicago for aggravated possession of a stolen motor vehicle, for 

which he pled guilty and received four years’ imprisonment, and once in July in Lee County 

for possession of a stolen motor vehicle, for which he received five years’ imprisonment.3 In 

October 2002, approximately five months after he was released from prison, defendant was 

arrested for felony possession/use of a firearm, a Class 3 offense, pled guilty, and was 

sentenced to two years’ imprisonment. In December 2003, two months after he was released, 

defendant was arrested for unlawful use of a weapon by a felon, a Class 2 offense, for which he 

pled guilty and was sentenced to four years’ imprisonment. 

¶ 34 The PSI report also reflected that defendant had never been married but was in a 

relationship and lived with codefendant, Tina Robinson, with whom he had two children, ages 

14 and 15. Regarding defendant’s level of education and employment, the PSI report stated 

that he attended school through eighth grade and had taken classes from time to time while in 

prison. Also, defendant worked in 2006 and 2007 by maintaining vehicles for his brother’s 

transportation service. Regarding defendant’s physical condition, the PSI report stated that 

“[h]e was injured in 2012 in the jail when he was beaten and stabbed by a bunch of men, and 

his nose was broken.” The PSI report also stated that defendant told the probation officer that 

he had been treated since age 14 for bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, and depression. At the 

time of the PSI interview, defendant was medicated with Seroquel and Wellbutrin. Defendant 

also told the probation officer that he began smoking marijuana and drinking at the age of 11, 

and began using cocaine at the age of 13. 

¶ 35 Defendant’s sentencing hearing took place on February 10, 2014. The court began by 

stating that it had the PSI report and asked if either side had any additions, deletions, or 

modifications, which neither did. The State then presented aggravation testimony in the form 

of a victim impact statement from Brenda Jordan, the victim’s mother. Thereafter, the court 

asked the defense if it had any mitigation witnesses to call. The defense responded that it 

wished to call Assistant State’s Attorney Dan Weiss in mitigation and requested that his 

testimony be taken in camera. The court then asked the attorneys to come to his chambers to 

address this issue, and the following exchange took place: 

“THE COURT: At this time, we are outside the presence of all parties in a 

side-[b]ar. Tell me what we’re doing.

 MR. TYSON [Assistant Public Defender]: Your Honor, my client has worked with 

Mr. Weiss to provide information regarding there was an inmate in the Cook County 

Jail who was trying to solicit the murder of an 11-year-old victim in a criminal sexual 

 

3

It is unclear from the PSI report whether defendant’s five-year sentence was as a result of a guilty 

plea or trial. 
- 12 - 

abuse case, a predatory criminal sexual abuse case, and my client was helpful to the 

State’s Attorney’s [o]ffice with respect to that. He testified at the [g]rand [j]ury, et 

cetera. 

And he’s been attacked in the jail and we’re concerned about this matter being in 

open court that the information will get out and further jeopardize his safety while he’s 

still in the custody of the Cook County [s]heriff, so we’re asking to do this in camera

and if the [c]ourt would consider the mitigation presented in camera for the purpose of 

sentencing. 

 THE COURT: Ms. Morrissey? 

MS. MORRISSEY [Assistant State’s Attorney]: Judge, as long as Mr. Goods—this 

is his request and he is not going to bring up some later appellate issue about this, I’m 

fine so that the State—the information about him being a snitch and possibly 

information regarding the investigation regarding this other case does not come out in 

open court, I’m fine with it as long as he’s waiving his right to having it heard in open 

court. 

MR. TYSON: Judge, I did ask him about that and he said he’s fine with it. So if the 

[c]ourt wants to inquire as to, you know, if this is his request, that’s fine. He said he 

would prefer it this way as well. 

 MS. MORRISSEY: And he waives his presence, obviously? 

 MR. TYSON: Yes. 

 MS. MORRISSEY: I would just ask that [Y]our Honor confirm that with him, so he 

doesn’t later claim this to be an appellate issue.

THE COURT: I know what you’re agreeing upon is fine and well, but I don’t know 

what the appellate court is going to agree on in the future. I’m not favorable to this. We 

are in an open forum. Unless by statute it allows me to hold such procedures in camera

regardless of who agrees to it, I will not allow it. 

 You can rethink what you wish to question or present in mitigation, but anything 

that goes will be in open court at this stage.” 

The parties then reconvened in the courtroom and the following exchange occurred: 

“THE COURT: Once again, we are in open court with all the parties present in the 

matter of the People vs. Thadieus Goods. 

 Again, on behalf of the defense, do you wish to present mitigation testimony? 

MR. TYSON: Your Honor, we do have present [a]ssistant State’s Attorney Dan 

Weiss, who was prepared to offer mitigation testimony on behalf of Thadieus Goods, 

but I think upon further consideration Mr. Goods does not wish to have that witness 

called in his favor. Is that correct, Mr. Goods? 

 THE DEFENDANT: Yeah. 

 MR. TYSON: He does not wish to have Mr. Weiss called at this time. 

 THE COURT: Is that your decision, Mr. Goods? 

THE DEFENDANT: Yeah, that’s my decision.

THE COURT: The record is clear. That’s his decision.”

¶ 36 The defense then stated that there were no other mitigation witnesses to be called. In 

aggravation, the State argued that defendant’s conduct caused serious bodily harm when he 
- 13 - 

ambushed and executed Jordan. Also, the State emphasized that defendant had a history of 

criminal activity and has been in the criminal justice system since the age of 12. The State went 

through defendant’s juvenile and adult criminal history and then asked that the court sentence 

defendant to life in prison. 

¶ 37 In mitigation, the defense began by pointing out that the sentencing range for first degree 

murder is 20 to 60 years’ imprisonment plus a 25-year enhancement where the jury found 

defendant personally discharged a firearm causing Jordan’s death. Defense counsel asked that 

the court sentence defendant to the minimum, which was 45 years’ imprisonment to be served 

at 100%, because the purpose of the sentence is punishment and even if he received the 

minimum, defendant would have 45 years to think about the reason why he is in prison. Also, 

the defense stated that a 45-year sentence would adequately deter others from engaging in this 

conduct, protect society, and provide enough time for defendant, who would be in his seventies 

when released, to rehabilitate. The defense went on to explain that the facts of this case showed 

that there was a possibility of a robbery being committed by Jordan, who was armed, and that 

sometimes people get killed in violent situations such as this. The defense concluded by asking 

for the court to strongly consider a range of 45 to 50 years, if the court was not inclined to 

impose the minimum sentence. 

¶ 38 Defendant spoke in allocution. He apologized to the Jordan family and asked forgiveness. 

Defendant stated that he has had years to reflect on his entire life, stating, “I’ve learned my 

lesson and I will forever live a righteous, law abiding life.” He concluded by apologizing to his 

brother and family for putting them though this situation and begged the court to show him 

mercy. 

¶ 39 In delivering its sentencing decision, the court explained that it reviewed all matters in 

aggravation and mitigation. The court referred to defendant’s criminal background as 

“extreme,” stating that there “appears to be about five prior adult felony convictions that just 

seem to be happening over and over again. There’s an extensive juvenile background as well.” 

The court also stated that the killing here “was very heinous in nature, with the victim laying on 

the ground, being in a helpless form, being riddled by bullets by the defendant, as an 

independent witness who observed indicated, and that certainly is an aggravating factor to the 

nature of what occurred here.” The court considered defendant’s statement of remorse as 

mitigating but noted that based on defendant’s track record, it did not believe defendant could 

be rehabilitated. Ultimately, the court sentenced defendant to 65 years’ imprisonment, with 3 

years’ mandatory supervised release. Defense counsel then filed a motion to reconsider 

sentence instanter, which the court denied, finding there was “extensive aggravation to 

warrant the sentence.” That same day, defendant filed his notice of appeal.

¶ 40 II. ANALYSIS 

¶ 41 On appeal, defendant argues (1) he received ineffective assistance of counsel where his 

attorney mistakenly believed that he was “not allowed” to present a self-defense theory to the 

jury and thus never requested that the jury be instructed on self-defense or second degree 

murder, (2) the trial court erred when it refused to hear Assistant State’s Attorney Weiss’s 

testimony in camera because it deprived defendant of a fair sentencing hearing, and (3) 

defendant’s 65-year sentence is excessive where the trial court attributed unreasonable weight 

to defendant’s juvenile history and mischaracterized his adult criminal history as “extreme.” 

We agree with defendant that he was denied ineffective assistance of counsel. We also address 
- 14 - 

defendant’s arguments regarding his sentencing hearing because if defendant is convicted after 

retrial, the same issues may arise. 

¶ 42 A. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel 

¶ 43 The right to counsel guaranteed by both the United States and Illinois Constitutions 

includes the right to effective assistance of counsel. U.S. Const., amends. VI, XIV; Ill. Const. 

1970, art. I, § 8; Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). Whether a defendant was 

denied effective assistance of counsel is evaluated according to the two-prong test set forth in 

Strickland v. Washington, which requires that a defendant show both that the representation 

provided at trial was deficient and that such deficiency prejudiced the defendant. Id. at 687-88. 

¶ 44 On appeal, defendant argues that his trial counsel was deficient because although the trial 

court only barred the defense of compulsion, his trial counsel apparently and mistakenly 

believed that this meant he was also barred from asserting the defense of self-defense. 

Defendant further contends that although perhaps unreasonable, a belief in self-defense was 

consistent with the defense’s trial strategy and his counsel’s failure to request such a jury 

instruction was objectively unreasonable and prejudicial. The State responds that trial 

counsel’s decision not to ask for self-defense and accompanying second degree murder 

instructions was a reasonable strategy because no evidence existed to support a self-defense 

theory where the evidence showed that Jordan was already face down on the ground with his 

hands in his pockets when defendant began shooting him. The State also argues that a 

self-defense instruction would have contradicted the strategy presented by the defense. 

¶ 45 In order to satisfy the first prong under Strickland, defendant must overcome a strong 

presumption that, under the circumstances, the challenged action or inaction of counsel was a 

valid trial strategy. People v. Bloomingburg, 346 Ill. App. 3d 308, 317 (2004). “The 

reasonableness of counsel’s actions must be evaluated from counsel’s perspective at the time 

of the alleged error, and without hindsight, in light of the totality of the circumstances, and not 

just on the basis of isolated acts.” People v. Nowicki, 385 Ill. App. 3d 53, 82 (2008). It is 

important to note that effective assistance refers to competent representation, not perfect 

representation. Id. Further, “mistakes in trial strategy or judgment will not, of themselves, 

render the representation incompetent.” Id. 

¶ 46 To meet his burden for the second prong under Strickland, defendant must show that the 

probability that counsel’s errors changed the outcome of the case is “sufficient to undermine 

confidence in the outcome.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694. In order to satisfy the prejudice prong, 

defendant need not show that he would have been acquitted, only that a different outcome 

would be reasonable, as prejudice may be found “even when the chance that minimally 

competent counsel would have won acquittal is ‘significantly less than 50 percent’ as long as a 

verdict of not guilty would be reasonable.” People v. McCarter, 385 Ill. App. 3d 919, 935 

(2008) (quoting Miller v. Anderson, 255 F.3d 455, 459 (7th Cir. 2001)). 

¶ 47 We must first decide if a self-defense theory was justified in this case. “ ‘A defendant in a 

criminal case is entitled to have the jury instructed on any legally recognized defense theory 

which has some foundation in the evidence, however tenuous.’ ” People v. Lewis, 2015 IL App 

(1st) 122411, ¶ 56 (quoting People v. Looney, 46 Ill. App. 3d 404, 410 (1977)). A defendant is 

entitled to an instruction on self-defense if very slight or some evidence exists to support the 

theory of self-defense. Id. “ ‘In order to instruct the jury on self-defense, the defendant must 

establish some evidence of each of the following elements: (1) force is threatened against a 
- 15 - 

person; (2) the person threatened is not the aggressor; (3) the danger of harm was imminent; (4) 

the threatened force was unlawful; (5) he actually and subjectively believed a danger existed 

which required the use of the force applied; and (6) his beliefs were objectively reasonable.’ ” 

(Emphasis in original.) Id. (quoting People v. Jeffries, 164 Ill. 2d 104, 127-28 (1995)). The 

Illinois Supreme Court has made clear that “when the evidence supports the giving of a jury 

instruction on self-defense, an instruction on second degree murder must be given as a 

mandatory counterpart.” People v. Washington, 2012 IL 110283, ¶ 56. 

¶ 48 At trial, the State presented as evidence the defendant’s statement via a videotaped 

interview that took place at the Lansing police department on July 4 and July 5, 2007. During 

that statement, defendant said that Jordan had approached him and asked him to go with him to 

the apartment complex where defendant’s and Endo’s mothers lived so that Jordan could rob 

Endo and Ronnell, whom he knew had “balls of money wrapped up *** in plastic.” Defendant 

told the officers that he knew that “if I got knowledge of [Jordan] running in they crib, he 

getting down on me when he get through with them.” Defendant also told the officers that the 

following day, Jordan pulled up to the apartment complex with his girlfriend in the front seat 

and his daughter in the backseat to ask defendant if he had done his “homework.” At the time 

Jordan pulled up, he had a “big a***” gun on his lap, which was revealed to defendant when 

Jordan lifted his shirt. On the night of the murder, defendant stated that when he and Jordan got 

to the apartment complex, he saw Jordan “fumbling in his waist” and was thinking that Jordan 

may just “pop” him, then try to commit the robbery. Then, “Ronnell come out of nowhere, 

boom, hit his a***” and Jordan fell. At this point, defendant stated he also fell to the ground. 

Then he got up and started shooting Jordan. After that, Ronnell shot Jordan again with Jordan’s 

own gun. At another point in his statement, defendant stated that he feared for his mother’s life.

¶ 49 In his closing, defense counsel argued that there was no plot to kill Jordan as the State 

suggested. In fact, he stated that defendant did not even know Ronnell was hiding in the bushes 

when he arrived at the apartment complex with Jordan. Defendant’s counsel further stated that 

defendant “didn’t have a gun at all until he was scared to death and got one, and he got that 

because *** [Jordan] was sitting in his car with a .40 caliber weapon in his lap. At that point, 

defendant knew that he had to go out there because he was afraid for his life, from the victim in 

this case, startled.” Later in his closing, defendant’s counsel again stated, “[Jordan] gets out a 

long jacket, and he gets out a gun that has thirty-one possible bullets in it. The defendant is 

afraid of this individual.” Defendant’s counsel also argued that defendant was scared after 

seeing Ronnell shoot Jordan and that Ronnell looked at him like he was going to kill him. The 

State objected to this statement and the court overruled the objection. Finally, near the end of 

his closing, defendant’s counsel again asserted that defendant “was in fear not only of the 

Hansbroughs, he was in fear of the victim.” 

¶ 50 Defendant has shown that he established some evidence of each of the factors mentioned 

above. Looking at defendant’s statement and the arguments made in his counsel’s closing, it is 

clear that defendant’s feeling of “fear” was recurrent throughout the trial. According to his own 

statement, defendant believed he was in danger. He also believed his mother was possibly in 

danger. We emphasize that in order for a defendant to earn a self-defense instruction, he or she 

need only show that very slight or some evidence supports that theory. See Lewis, 2015 IL App 

(1st) 122411, ¶ 56. Here, we believe that defendant has shown that force was threatened 

against him when Jordan came to see defendant with a gun on his lap, asking if defendant had 

done his “homework,” because Jordan’s actions amounted to a threat or at least could have 
- 16 - 

reasonably been interpreted as one. Additionally, by showing defendant the gun, Jordan 

became the initial aggressor. On the night Jordan was killed, he had a gun with him again. 

Although defendant did not see the gun, he saw defendant “fumbling in his waistband” and 

knew Jordan was at the apartment complex in order to commit a robbery. Also, after defendant 

shot Jordan, Ronnell shot Jordan with his own gun, showing that Jordan was, in fact, armed 

and the danger of harm to defendant was imminent. 

¶ 51 Whether the aforementioned interpretations and beliefs by defendant are reasonable or 

unreasonable is of no consequence to the trial court’s evaluation, thus we need not address that 

issue here, as it is the role of the trier of fact, not the trial judge, to weigh the evidence and 

decide whether that belief was reasonable or unreasonable. Washington, 2012 IL 110283, ¶ 43 

(citing People v. Lockett, 82 Ill. 2d 546, 553 (1980)). For example, in Washington, the 

defendant testified he saw the victim pull a gun, however, no weapon was found at the scene. 

Id. ¶ 42. Thus, the court stated that, “the trier of fact in this case, if instructed properly, could 

determine from the evidence that defendant was mistaken and that his belief in the need for 

self-defense was unreasonable.” Id. Here, although the jury may ultimately determine that 

defendant’s beliefs were unreasonable, we do not consider such a possibility when making our 

decision. 

¶ 52 We find People v. Serrano, 286 Ill. App. 3d 485 (1997), to be helpful to our analysis. In 

Serrano, the defendant argued he was denied effective assistance of counsel where compulsion 

was his theory of defense, but his counsel never asked for an instruction regarding the defense 

of compulsion. Id. at 490. The defendant did not dispute that he was present for the armed 

robbery at issue; rather, both he and his accomplice testified that he was forced to perform the 

criminal acts at gunpoint. Id. at 492. The defendant also stated that he did not inform the police 

afterwards because he was told that he and his family would be harmed if he did. Id. The court 

found that he was denied effective assistance because “it cannot be said that the jury, not 

having been instructed on the defense of compulsion, knew that the defendant’s testimony 

concerning his fears of immediate harm and being forced by the other two men to do the armed 

robbery could provide a defense to the acts.” Id. The court opined that where counsel sets forth 

a defense, he should have requested an instruction on the same and failure to do so “cannot be 

called trial strategy and is evidence of ineffective assistance of counsel.” Id. (citing People v. 

Lewis, 240 Ill. App. 3d 463, 467 (1992)). 

¶ 53 Defendant argues that Serrano supports his position because it acknowledges that where 

trial counsel failed to ask for an instruction that was supported by the evidence and argued in 

closing, it amounted to ineffective assistance. In its response, the State fails to address this 

case. Rather, the State argues that the evidence did not support a self-defense instruction, and 

even if it did, the theory of self-defense or second degree murder would directly contradict the 

defense’s strategy presented at trial. We find that in this case, like Serrano, there was evidence, 

albeit slight, that warranted a jury instruction that was not given. 

¶ 54 Defendant’s counsel initially attempted to assert compulsion as an affirmative defense but 

was not allowed to, as such a defense has not been available in a murder case in Illinois for 

quite some time (see People v. Gleckler, 82 Ill. 2d 145, 156 (1980)), which we believe is 

further evidence of his deficient performance. Only after the court denied trial counsel’s 

request to assert compulsion did he present the theory that Jordan was already dead at the time 

defendant shot him. However, as defendant points out in his brief, the assertion that Jordan was 
- 17 - 

already dead is of no help in a case in which the jury was to be given an accountability 

instruction. Further, the motion for a new trial filed by defendant’s trial counsel states: 

“That with all due respect the [c]ourt erred in allowing the [j]ury to be instructed 

with the accountability instruction when [defendant] was totally unaware that the 

co-defendant was going to kill the victim. Additionally, since the [c]ourt allowed the 

defendant to be responsible for the co-defendant’s actions he should have also been 

cloaked with the co-defendant’s defense of self-defense which he was not allowed thus 

depriving him of his due process.” 

The language used by defendant’s counsel is significant. He wrote in the motion that defendant 

was not allowed the use of the defense of self-defense, which is simply not accurate. Rather, 

defendant’s counsel could have asserted self-defense as an affirmative defense or asked for a 

jury instruction regarding the same. He did neither. Instead, he set forth the defense that Jordan 

was already dead, which is not objectively reasonable when the jury was to be given an 

instruction regarding accountability. It also is not consistent with the original defense of 

compulsion. In his statement, defendant said numerous times that he was afraid for his safety 

and for the safety of his and Ronnell’s mothers, both of whom lived in the apartment complex. 

Further, in his closing argument, defendant’s counsel mentioned that defendant was scared at 

least four times, specifically stating that defendant only got the gun he used to shoot Jordan 

after Jordan visited defendant with a gun in his lap. After a review of the evidence presented at 

trial and the applicable law, we believe that defendant has sufficiently shown that his trial 

counsel’s failure to ask for a self-defense instruction fell below an objective standard of 

reasonableness and amounted to deficient representation. 

¶ 55 Next, we find that defendant has sufficiently shown that he did, in fact, suffer prejudice due 

to his trial counsel’s deficiency, satisfying the second prong of Strickland, which requires that 

a defendant “must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s 

unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” Strickland, 466 

U.S. at 694. “A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in 

the outcome.” Id. Defendant asserts that he was prejudiced by trial counsel’s misunderstanding 

of the applicable law. The State responds that defendant’s argument is based on “utter 

speculation” and cannot support a Strickland claim. The State also argues that even if a 

self-defense instruction would have been given, no reasonable jury would have exonerated 

defendant or found him guilty of the lesser included offense of second degree murder. We 

disagree. 

¶ 56 Additionally, defendant argues that the conviction and sentence of his codefendant is 

relevant in determining whether he suffered prejudice. A court may take judicial notice of 

information that the Illinois Department of Corrections provides on its website. People v. 

Young, 355 Ill. App. 3d 317, 321 (2005). In defendant’s brief, he provides a citation to the 

IDOC website, which shows that his codefendant, Ronnell, was convicted of second degree 

murder approximately 1 year prior to defendant’s trial and received a sentence of 15 years’ 

imprisonment; thus, we recognize and take judicial notice of this fact. That Ronnell was 

convicted of second degree murder necessarily implies that the jury received an instruction as 

to the same. It also provides evidence that a “reasonable probability” exists that defendant may 

have benefitted from a self-defense and second degree murder instruction because, based on 

the totality of the evidence, the outcome is undermined by the fact that we cannot definitively 

know what the jury would have decided if presented with a self-defense instruction. 
- 18 - 

¶ 57 Where a defendant shows that his counsel argues a theory of the case, such as an 

affirmative defense, but then fails to ensure that the jury is properly instructed on that theory, 

his counsel’s failure cannot be deemed trial strategy and defendant has satisfied the first prong 

under Strickland. See People v. Gonzalez, 385 Ill. App. 3d 15, 21 (2008). Additionally, 

defendant has satisfied the second prong of Strickland because he has shown that his trial 

counsel’s deficiency resulted in prejudice. Therefore, based on the foregoing, we find 

defendant was denied effective assistance of counsel; thus his conviction must be reversed and 

a new trial ordered. 

¶ 58 B. Denial of a Fair Sentencing Hearing 

¶ 59 Although we need not address defendant’s second argument on appeal, as we have 

reversed his conviction and thus also his sentence, we choose to address it because if defendant 

is convicted after retrial, this sentencing hearing issue may reoccur. See People v. Richee, 355 

Ill. App. 3d 43, 61 (2005) (recognizing that although it need not address the defendant’s 

remaining claims after finding the trial court committed reversible error, the appellate court 

opted to address an issue anyway as it was “likely to reoccur on retrial”). Thus, we feel it 

necessary to address defendant’s claim that he was denied a fair sentencing hearing. 

¶ 60 Defendant argues that he was denied a fair sentencing hearing where the trial court denied 

his request to present his mitigating evidence in camera. Assistant State’s Attorney Dan Weiss 

was present in court on the date of defendant’s sentencing hearing in order to testify on behalf 

of defendant, who had previously testified before a grand jury and provided information in 

order to assist the State in an unrelated case involving the alleged solicitation for the murder of 

an 11-year-old victim of criminal sexual abuse. The State does not dispute that defendant 

provided valuable information. Prior to sentencing, defendant had been beaten up and stabbed 

while in jail and feared for his safety if he were to be labeled a “snitch” as a result of Weiss’s 

testimony in open court. His counsel requested that the mitigation portion of the sentencing 

hearing be held in camera to prevent possible harm to defendant. The State did not object but 

merely requested that defendant’s counsel confirm that defendant waived his right to be 

present at that portion of the hearing, which he did on behalf of defendant. The State also 

requested that the court confirm with defendant that he waived his right in order to avoid any 

future appellate issues, which his counsel said he would. The court nonetheless denied 

defendant’s request.

¶ 61 The sixth amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees a public trial “as a 

safeguard against any attempt to employ the courts as instruments of persecution,” and acts as 

“an effective restraint on possible abuse of judicial power.” In re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257, 270 

(1948); U.S. Const., amend. VI. “The central aim of a criminal proceeding must be to try the 

accused fairly, and ‘[o]ur cases have uniformly recognized the public-trial guarantee as one 

created for the benefit of the defendant.’ ” Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39, 46 (1984) (quoting 

Gannett Co. v. DePasquale, 443 U.S. 368, 380 (1979)). “ ‘The presumption of openness may 

be overcome only by an overriding interest based on findings that closure is essential to 

preserve higher values and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest. The interest is to be 

articulated along with findings specific enough that a reviewing court can determine whether 

the closure order was properly entered.’ ” Id. at 45 (quoting Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior 

Court, 464 U.S. 501, 510 (1984)).

¶ 62 Here, in denying defendant’s request for in camera proceedings, the trial court stated: 
- 19 - 

“I know what you’re agreeing upon is fine and well, but I don’t know what the 

appellate court is going to agree on in the future. I’m not favorable to this. We are in an 

open forum. Unless by statute it allows me to hold such procedures in camera

regardless of who agrees to it, I will not allow it. 

 You can rethink what you wish to question or present in mitigation, but anything 

that goes will be in open court at this stage.” 

We find the trial court’s assertion that it would not hold proceedings in camera unless 

presented with statutory authority allowing it to do so to be problematic. 

¶ 63 We recognize that Illinois does not have a statute that sets forth the framework that courts 

are to use in determining if in camera proceedings are warranted. We believe that a statute or 

rule that expressly allows a party or victim to present evidence in camera during sentencing 

when good cause is shown may help avoid allegedly unfair sentencing hearings, like the one 

presented in this case. Currently, section 5-4-1 of the Unified Code of Corrections, the Illinois 

statute regarding sentencing, merely states that “a hearing shall be held to impose the 

sentence,” and at the hearing, the court shall “consider evidence and information offered by the 

parties in aggravation and mitigation.” 730 ILCS 5/5-4-1(a), (a)(4) (West 2014). The statute is 

silent regarding a request from any party regarding in camera proceedings. We rely on a “good 

cause” standard based on subsection (i)(4)(C) of Rule 32 of the Federal Rules of Criminal 

Procedure, which reads: 

“(C) In Camera Proceedings. Upon a party’s motion and for good cause, the court 

may hear in camera any statement made under Rule 32(i)(4).”4 Fed. R. Crim. P. 

32(i)(4)(C). 

¶ 64 Because we have not found an Illinois case in which a defendant sought to present 

mitigation evidence in camera, we look to federal case law for support. In United States v. 

Biagon, 510 F.3d 844, 846 (9th Cir. 2007), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals addressed the 

issue of whether the district court violated the defendant’s right of allocution when it denied a 

motion to close the courtroom. At the beginning of the defendant’s sentencing hearing, his 

attorney made a general, oral motion to close the courtroom, which the court denied. Id. at 

846-47. The defendant wanted the courtroom closed due to his cooperation with the 

government, in which he offered “valuable information against his co-defendants and about 

the conspiracy in general.” Id. at 846. However, neither defense counsel nor the court ever 

stated in open court during sentencing that the defendant had cooperated and provided 

information to the government. Id. at 847. In fact, the court went so far as to call the issue the 

“sort of elephant in the room” that “we’re not going to discuss.” (Internal quotation marks 

omitted.) Id. The defendant provided a statement in allocution wherein he sought forgiveness 

from the court. Id. 

¶ 65 On appeal, the Ninth Circuit determined that the district court did not violate the 

defendant’s right of allocution. Id. The court pointed to Rule 32, which allows a statement to 

be made in camera for good cause shown. Id. at 848 (quoting Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(i)(4)(C)). 

The court stated that the defense did not make a motion pursuant to Rule 32 but merely made a 

 

4Rule 32(i)(4) references a party or victim’s “opportunity to speak” at sentencing. “Opportunity to 

speak” includes the requirement that, inter alia, “[b]efore imposing sentence, the court must *** 

address the defendant personally in order to permit the defendant to speak or present any information to 

mitigate the sentence.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(i)(4)(A)(ii). 
- 20 - 

general, oral request for closure of the courtroom at the beginning of the sentencing hearing 

without prior notice to the public, which is required before a court may close proceedings to 

which a qualified right of access exists. Id. This failure to follow proper procedures was fatal to 

the defense’s request. Id. However, in his concurrence, Judge Kleinfeld disagreed with this 

reasoning by the majority. Id. at 849 (Kleinfeld, J., concurring). Judge Kleinfeld stated that 

there was no requirement that a written motion be filed and the defense’s oral motion should 

have invoked the court’s discretion under Rule 32. Id. Further, he wrote that, at times, there is 

a “good reason” for holding sentencing hearings, at least partially, in camera. Id. at 850. 

Specifically, Judge Kleinfeld recognized: 

“The most common reason for in camera proceedings during sentencing arises 

when a defendant has cooperated with the government. The purpose is to protect him or 

her from being murdered by individuals not sharing the defendant’s interest, or fellow 

prisoners who find out that he was a ‘snitch.’ Many criminals have strong feelings 

about people they call ‘snitches,’ even where their own cases were not affected. It is 

one thing to send a defendant to jail or prison and quite another to set him up to be hurt 

or killed there.” Id.

¶ 66 The case before us is nearly identical to the situation Judge Kleinfeld discussed in his 

concurrence in Biagon. Defendant cooperated with the State in an unrelated case involving 

solicitation of the murder of an 11-year-old criminal sexual abuse victim. Defendant provided 

valuable information and testified before the grand jury. Assistant State’s Attorney Weiss was 

in court on the date of defendant’s sentencing hearing and ready to testify in mitigation on 

defendant’s behalf. Defendant had previously been beaten and stabbed in prison and feared for 

his safety should it become known that he acted as a “snitch” in the unrelated case. As Judge 

Kleinfeld noted, “[m]any criminals have strong feelings about people they call ‘snitches.’ ” 

Defendant’s attorney presented the trial court with this reasoning for his request to proceed 

with mitigation in camera. However, the court, without any consideration of defendant’s 

interest in proceeding in camera, denied his request because there was no statutory authority 

for proceeding in that manner. 

¶ 67 We believe defendant’s concerns for his safety amounted to good cause. We also believe 

that creating a mechanism that would protect the safety of defendants who cooperate with the 

government may encourage defendants to provide the State with information they acquire 

while in jail or prison. This could ultimately help prevent violence or death to innocent victims, 

as was allegedly prevented here. We recognize that the court below did not deny defendant the 

opportunity to present mitigating evidence, it merely denied him the opportunity to do it in 

camera. However, defendant had previously been injured by other inmates in the jail; thus, the 

court was essentially asking defendant to choose between his safety and presenting mitigating 

evidence, which we do not believe permits a fair hearing, especially where defendant did not 

have any other mitigating evidence to present. As Judge Kleinfeld recognized, “[i]t is one thing 

to send a defendant to jail or prison and quite another to set him up to be hurt or killed there.” 

Given the dearth of case law in Illinois on this issue, and the fact that this issue may arise again 

after defendant’s retrial if he is convicted, we found it imperative to address defendant’s 

second argument on appeal. 
- 21 - 

¶ 68 C. Excessive Sentence 

¶ 69 Based on our determinations in subsection I of this opinion, we need not address 

defendant’s claims of an excessive sentence, as defendant is to receive a new trial that 

necessarily also reverses his sentence of 65 years’ imprisonment.

¶ 70 III. CONCLUSION 

¶ 71 Based on the foregoing, we reverse and remand this matter for a new trial. 

¶ 72 Reversed and remanded.