THIRD DI VISI ON September 17, 2008

1-06-0558

THE PEOPL

E OF THE

STATE OFIL

LI NOI S, ) Appeal from the

) Circuit Court of Plaintiff-Appellee, ) Co ok Co un ty. ) v. ) ) EDWARD ISLAN

D, ) Honorab le ) John J. Moran, Defend ant-App ellant. ) Judge Presi ding.

JUSTICE QUI NN delive

red the o pinion of t

he court : Defend ant, Edward Island, was in dicte d by grand j ury with e igh t counts of first degree murder (720 IL CS 5/9-1 (a) (1) (West 2006)) for the shooting death of Anthony Darring, Jr. Following a jury

trial, de fendant

was foun

d guilty and sentenc ed to 60 y ears in the Ill inois Department

of Corrections. On appeal, defendant argues that: (1)the testimony of four St

ate witnesses should hav e been su ppresse d as the f

ruit of his i llega l arrest; and (2) he was not proven guilty bey ond a rea sonable d

oubt. For the follow

ing rea sons, we a

ffirm. I. BACKGROUND OnApril8, 1997, at approximately 12:43 a.m., Darring was shot in

the doorw ay

vestibule of a two-flat apartment located at 8125 South Peoria Street in Chicag o. He died fr om a single,1-06-0558

1 It should be noted that no written police reports a re included in the record on appeal and, therefore, any

information gleaned from the 1997 or 2002 police investig ation is provided by the deposition testimony of Chicago police detective Michael McDermott, a detective in the Ar ea Two cold case unit who was assigned to investiga te the murder in August 2002. 2 throu gh-and -thro ugh gunsho t woun d to t he head . The i niti al Chi cago polic e department investigation compiled the following information, as detailed below. 1

A. Information Gleaned From Initial Police I nvestigation The in itial in

vestigation in 1997 was assigned to Chicago police de tectives Rowan, Winistorfer

and Bernatek, w hich revealed that the shooting was ga ng-related. Based on the investigation, the caus e of the shooting was an apparent gang wa

r between the Blackstone and Vice Lords gangs. On the night of the murder, a Blackstone g ang member named Jermaine Covington hosted a party at hi s r es id en ce lo ca te d i n “ Bl ac ks to ne te rr it or y” at 8125 South Peoria Street. A rival Vice Lords gang

member attended t

he party, causing

protest by other B lackstone gang members standing outs ide of

the bu ildi ng. The detectives sought out persons who either witnessed or wer e involved in the murder. OnApril 9, 19 97, Chica

go polic e arre sted a B lackstone gang member n amed James

Spight, otherwis e known as “ CJ,” for thr eatenin g Rasha d Wells with ahandgu

n. Spight allege dly told Wells that if he had seen Wells the previous ni ght, he would have murdered him too. The police questioned

Spight regarding the shooting. Spight tol d the polic e that on t he nigh t of April 8, 1997, he was at his

house with

“Pooh Be ar,” oth erwise k nown as D

juan May s, a fellow Blackstone gang member. Spight was released from custody due to insufficient evidence.1-06-0558

3

OnApril 13, 1997, Detective Rowan interviewed Covington, who revealed that on the nig ht of the murder, Blackstone gang members stood outside of 8125 South Peoria an d threatene d individua ls arriving to the party

because a rival Vice L ords gan g m ember was in attendance. The building’s landlord asked Covington to intervene in order to disperse the “unruly teena gers” causing the disturba

nce. Covi

ngton dis persed t hose indiv

iduals an d returned to the p arty

upstairs. Approximat

ely 30 minutes later, Joy Williamson, the sister of Covington’s girlfriend, exited one of the bedrooms and asked the party goers if any

one had heard a gunshot. Covingtontold the detectives that Pooh Bear was at the murder scene approximately 30 or 45 minutes before the shooting occurred. De tective Rowan p resented to Covington a photograph of Pooh Bear. Detecti

ve Winistor

fer also questione d Covingt

on, who tol d

the detective that there were at least five people involved in the arg ument outside his building on the night of the murder. Covingtonprovided three gang na mes, including Pooh Bear, “L il Ed,” and “Q Ball”; however, the detectives did not learn the real names of those members dur ing the initial investigation. According

to Detective McDermott, who was as si gned to the inves tigation

in 2002, six individua ls placed PoohBear at the murder s cene 25 to 35 minute s prior to t he shootin

g. McDe rmott received this infor mation pri or to 2002 f

rom pers ons wishing

to remain anony mous. The detectives did notbring Pooh Bear, L il Ed, Q Ball, or any additional Bla

ckstone gang members to the police station for an interview regarding the April 8, 19 97, shootin g. Def endant a lso was no t include d in any of the detectives’ reports prior to 2002, although C ov ington id entified Lil Ed , which is defendant’s gang

nickname , as one o f the fiv e p eople outside of his apartment shortly before the shoot ing.1-06-0558

4

Insum, the initial investigation revealed that there were f ive Blackstone gang me

mbers causing a disturbance outside of 8125 So uth Peoria on the night of the murder because they were upset that a Vice Lords

gang member had enter

ed their territory . Approximately 30 minutes after they were dis persed by Co vington, th e sho oting occurred. Three of the f ive Blackstone gang members were identified as Pooh Bear, L il Ed, and Q Ball, but none of these pers ons were specifically ide

ntified by their forma

l names. B. Information Glea

ned From 2002 Investig ation InJuly 2002, Darring’s f

ather contacted Chicago police de tective Tom Ares, who renewed the police department’s interest in the case. Darr ing’s father publ icly com plained about the slow progre ss of the investigation. Detective Ares asked De tective McDermott to assist him in investigatingthe case further. I n addition, an anonymous call wa s made to the Area Two cold ca se unit immediate ly prior to defenda nt’s arr est that pr ovided the

names of those invo lved in

the murder. Detective McDermott learned from his brother, a Chicago police Area Two tactical officer, that Lil Ed was def endant. Detective McDermott also spoke to Darring’ s father, who told him that Kevin Harris may ha

ve been the person who shot and killedhis son. Detective McDermott then reinterviewed

Covington, who identified Lil Ed as defenda ntand provided information r egard ing his wherea bouts. In addition, the information gleaned from Covington’s reintervie w was corroborated by

an interviewwith

Ler on Harr is, which too k place a

pproximate ly one month pr ior to def endant’ s arres t. Leron Harris stated that another Blackstone gang member, Kevin Ha

rris, who is not related to Leron Harrisand is othe

rwise known by

his vario us gang names, Q Ball, “K

Ball,” a nd “Big Hands,” told1-06-0558

2 Neith er the e ntire conte nt of t he fiv e stat ement s that defend ant pr ovid ed to t he Chi cago police throughout the course of the investigation nor the times at which they wer

e given can be determined by

the rec ord on ap

peal. 5 him shortly after the murde r that “we killed the man over on I believe it was Peoria.” The detectives also interviewed Charles L evy, who stated that he attended Covington’s party and observed a few individuals arguing outside the site o f the m urder w ithi n min utes o f the s hoot ing. Levy also identified some of those individuals as Pooh Bear, L il Ed, and Q Ball. OnAugust 5, 2002, Detective McDermott, accompanie d by Bure au of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) Ag ent Canell, arrested defendant as he was exiting the Cook County circuit court inBridgeview. Defenda

nt was handcuffed, placed in a squad car and brought to the police station, where he later gave a statement descr ibing his and others’ involvement in the shooting of Darrin g. 2 Theseothers, Sp ight, May s, Greg Hill and K

evin Har ris, in tur n, provide d stateme

nts that implicated defenda nt as the s hooter after be ing con fronted by t he police with his sta

tement. Detective McDermott and his partner, Detective Rick L ombard, drove in the neighborhood of the shooting later on August 5 and observed Hill walking down the street. D etective McDermo tt “grabbed”

Hill and h e allege dly

agree d to come w

ith the detectives

to Area T

wo headq uarter s. Detective McDermott viewed Hill as a suspect and gave him a Miranda

warn ing. Hill

was first interviewed by D etective McDermott at approximately 5 p.m. on August 5, 2002. Detective McDermott also interviewed David Rouse, who provided information regarding Spight’s assault o f Wells. B ased on th is informa

tion, Dete ctiv e McD ermott sought Spight for an interview.1-06-0558

6

Detective McDermott first had contact with Spight and Mays on Aug

ust 6, 2002. Detective McDermott considered all of the individuals from the Blackstone gang on the night of the

murder

as “somewhat involved in that homicide even if they didn’t pull the trigger.” He observed Spight and Mays walking

on 80th Street and South Emerald Avenue. Spight and May s were b oth

brought to the police station for questioning. Detective McDermott considered Spight and May s as suspe cts and, therefore, they

were not free to leave. Acc ording to Detective McDermott, their initial interview took place sometime before 11 p.m. on August 6, 2002. After the Leron Harr

is interview , th e detectives also sought Kevin Harris, who provided additional names in his interview, including Levy and Covington. According to Detective McDermo tt, Kevin Harris’s initial interview occurr ed sometime prior to

11 p.m. on August 6, 2002. Fi na ll y, the detect ives located and picked up Russell McGee, otherwise known as “Pee Wee,” and interviewed him at the police station. McGee was interviewed sometime prior to 11 p.m. on August 6, 2002. The state ments of Sp ight, Hil l, Mays and Ha rris are detailed below

in chronological order. 1. Statement of James Spight (CJ) Spight gave h is stateme

nt at Are a Two hea

dquarte rs on Aug

ust 7, 2002 at 12:35 a .m. AssistantState’s Attorney (A SA) Erica Dillon summarized Spight’s statement after informing

him that she was an ASA and not his lawy er or defendant’s lawy

er. Spight stated that

in Apr il 1997, he

was 15 y

ears old . At that time, he live d with his grandmother

at 81st Street a nd South Eme

rald Ave nue. He w as a soldi er in

the Black P Stone street gang, meaning, he

was a low-level gang me mber.1-06-0558

7

OnAp ri l 7 , 1 99 7, an d t he ea rl y m orning of April 8, 199 7, Spight was “ha nging out” with

some of his friends who were also Black PStone gang members. He met up with L il Ed, “Skinny Mo,” Pooh, and Big

Hands. Spi ght iden

tified pho tographs of eac

h of these persons. Spight stated that at some point in the evening, after dark, the g roup of fiv e went to Covington’s house at 81st and South Peoria Streets. Covington resided at 8125 South Peoria in the first floor apartment. Spight identified Covington in a photograph. Spight stated that a whole group of Blackstone g ang members went to Covington’s residence to “holler at

him” because he was havi ng a pa rty and invite d a bunch

of Conser

vative Vi ce L ords. The Blackstones and Vice L ords were at war during that time and “ it was wrong f or [Coving

ton] to be bringing [Vice L ords] into the [Blackstone] Nation.” After arriving at Covington’s residence, Coving ton confronted the group, telling them “nobody was gon na tell him

who he ca

n bring i nto his hous e.” The

reafte r, th e group of five left Covington’s resid ence an d Lil Ed suggest ed tha t they go to Pee Wee’s house. Spight described Pee Wee as a “Muf

Tiff” in the Blac kstone g ang, wh

ich is one

step abov e bein g a soldier. Spight identified Pee Wee in a photograph. Spight stated that the Blac kstone gang kept guns at Pee Wee’s house and that the group s pecific ally

went to his

house to g et a gun . While wal king to Pee Wee’s house, Lil Ed

stated tha t “he oug hta just po

p one of th

ose mother fuckers.” Spight stated this meant that L il Ed wante d to shoot one of the V ice L ords. When the group arrived at Pee Wee’s house, Spight saw Lil Ed and Pee Wee talking on the porch. Then

Pee Wee went inside and came back out with a .45-caliber chrome handgun. Pee Wee gave the gun to Lil Ed, who said that the group should return to Covington’s residence.1-06-0558

8

As the group returned to 8125 South Peoria, Spight “hung back about a house” and Lil Ed and Pooh continued on to the building. Spight stated that “he did not see

the dude t

hat got shot walk into [Covington’s] building but he was talking to ‘Skinny Mo’ a nd ‘Big Hands’” when he he ard a gunshot coming from Covington’s residence. Spight saw Lil Ed running out of the hallway with a gun in his hand, and Pooh ran toward Spight with blood all over him. Thereafter, the group of five split up and Spight and Pooh went

to Spight’s grandmother’s house so Pooh could clean up. Pooh told Spight that

Lil Ed “shot this dude for being a Vice L ord.” Spight did not know what happened to the handgun

used in the murder. Spight agreed that his wr

itten stat ement wa s true an

d accur ate and that he was not threatened or coerc ed. 2. Statement of Greg Hill (Skinny Mo) Hill gave his statement at Area Two hea dquarters on August 7, 2002 at 1:55 a.m. ASA Dillon summarized

Hil l’s st atement after informing him that she was an ASA and not his lawy er or defendant’s lawy

er. Hill was 17 y

ears of age a nd a soldie

r in the B lackstone gang

at the time

of the sho oting. H ill stated that on the night of April 7, 1997, and early morning of April 8, 1997, he was hang ing out with Blackstone gang members Lil Ed, CJ, Big Hands, and Pooh. Hill stated that Lil Ed is Edward I sland, CJ is James Spig

ht, and tha

t Big Ha nds is Kevin Harri s. Hill did n ot know Pooh ’s real n

ame. Hill identified all four friends by photograph. Hill stated that on the night of the shooting, the group we nt to “Juju’s” house to “hol ler at him because he was having a pa rty and had

invited a group of [Vice Lords]." Hill did not know that Ju ju was Jermaine Covington. Hill stated that the Blackstones and Vice Lords were at wa r. Hil l1-06-0558

9

recalled that when

Juju confronted them outside his building, he got “into a tussle” with Pooh. The group le ft after

a screwdriver f

ell out of P ooh’s bac

k pocket. The group then went

to Pee Wee’s house to get a gun. Hill describe d Pee Wee as a Muf Tiff and that he knew Pee We e kept g uns in his house for the Blackstones. Hill stated that Pee Wee, Pooh and Lil Ed had a conversa tion on Pee Wee’s porch that he could not hear. Pee Wee went inside his house and

came back out with a silver handgun that he believed was a .45-caliber wea pon. Pee Wee gave the gun to Lil Ed. While walking back to Juju’s house, Lil Ed said “if one of the se [Vi ce Lords] come out woofin’ I’m gonna pop one of them,” which meant that if one of the Vice Lord s at Juju’s ho

use upsets them, then Lil Ed was going t o shoo t one o f them . Hil l stat ed tha t he “h ung back abou t a house” wit

h CJ, and Lil Ed and Pooh followed “some dude” into Juju’s hallway . A short time later, Hill heard a shot coming from thehallway. He then s aw L il Ed and Po oh Bear running out with L

il Ed stuffing the silver gun back into his pocke

t. Following the shooting, the gro up split ap art and H ill returned to his house with Big Hands. Hill did not know what happened to the handg un. Hill agreed that his written statement was true and accurate a nd that he was not threatened or coerce d. 3. Statemen t of Djuan M ays (P ooh Bear) Ma ys gave h

is stateme nt at Are a Two hea

dquarte rs on Aug

ust 7, 2002 at 3:1 6 a.m. ASA Dillon summarized Mays’s statement af ter informing him that she was an ASA and not his lawyer or defendant’s lawy

er. Ma ys stated that in April 1997, he was 15 ye ars old. On the ni gh t of the shooting, he was hanging out with a group of

friends who were all

Bla cks ton e g ang

mem ber s, i ncl uding L il E d, C J,1-06-0558

10

Skinny Mo, and Big Hands. May s provided the real names for each person and identified all of them by photogra

ph. Onthe nigh

t of April 7, 1997 an

d early morning of April 8, 1997, the group of five we ntto Juju’s house on 8 1st and Sou th Peoria Streets. Mays did not know Juju’s real name, but he identified him in a photograph. Juju would not let them into his apartment because they were Blackstones and Vice Lords had been invited to the party . Mays stated that the Blackstones and

Vice Lords were

at war at that time. Mays felt that Ju ju sh ou ld no t h av e i nv it ed Vi ce Lor ds in to Bl ac ks to ne te rr it or y. After the confrontation with Juju, the group went to Pee Wee’s house on 80th Street and Union Avenue. While on the way to Pee Wee ’s, Lil Ed and Big Ha nds were upset

because the Vice Lords

were at Juju’s party. Lil Ed had a conversation with Pee Wee on the por

ch. May s stated that beca

use Pee Wee was a Muf Tiff, he probably had a gun available. May

s did not know Pee Wee’s real name, but identified him in a photograph. May s knew that Lil Ed had rece ived a gun from Pee Wee. The group then retur

ned to Juju’s house and Mays and Lil Ed ap pr oa ch ed Ju

ju ’s do or . M ays stated that the entire group of five entered the front hallway

in Juju’s buil ding. Th ey

again t ried to get into Juju’ s house, but they were not let in because of the ongoing party . Big Hands, CJ, and Skinny Mo were first to walk out of the building, with Mays and Lil Ed following behind the m. When Mays and L

il Ed reached the fron

t d oor of the building, a “dude” walked into the hallway behind them. As Ma

ys w as going

to exit, Lil Ed asked Darring “what he was,” meaning, he wa nted to know Darring’s gang

affiliation. Darring told Lil Ed he was a Vice L

ord and “ that’s wh en Li l Ed pulled out a gun and blam fired one time hitting [the] dude in the head.”1-06-0558

11

Following the shooting, Mays r an out of the building and

went with

CJ to his grandmother’s house to wash

up . M ays stated that he never saw Darring with a weapon of any

kind. Mays did not know what hap

pened to t he gun b ecause

Lil Ed had run o ff with it. May s agre ed that his writte n statement was true and accurate a nd that he was not threatened or coerce d. 4. Statemen t of Kevin H

arris (B ig Hands, Q

Ball, or K Ba ll) Harrisgave his statement at Area Two hea dquarters on August 14, 200 2 at 2 :30 p.m. AssistantStat e’s Attorn ey Michae l Yoon summarized Harris's statement after informing him that he was an ASA and not his lawy er or defendant’s lawy

er. Harrisstate d that he has been a Bl ackst one ga ng memb er since he was 14 y ears old. He identified Lil Ed by

photograph, but did not kn ow Li l Ed ’s r eal nam e. H arr

is also identif

ied CJ, Pooh Bea r, Skinny Mo and Juju by

photogr aph, but st

ated tha t he did not

know thei

r real n ames. Onthe evening of April 7, 1997, and early morning of April 8, 1997, Harris was with L il Ed, CJ, Pooh Bear and Skinny Mo. The group was going to a ttend a party a t Juju’s house. When they arrived, Juju came o

ut and beg an arg

uing with Pooh, but Harris did not know what they we re arguing about. Harris stated that Juju and Pooh started to tussle. Har ris did not reme mber how

the tussle ended, but afterward, the gr oup left Juju’s house. Harrisstated tha

t the gr oup then w ent to a

house located at 79th Street and Emerald Avenue. Lil Ed enter ed the hou se and exit

ed with a . 45-cali

ber gu n in hand. Harrisobserved Lil Ed put the gun in his waistband. Harris recognized the gun a s the same weapon that Lil Ed had possessed on previous occasions. Harris stated that he knew the g un belonged to Lil Ed. The group then left to

return to Juju’s house . Harris

and CJ separated from

the group about1-06-0558

12

two houses before reaching Juju’s house. Harris stated that Pooh and Lil Ed went into Juju’s buil ding. Lil Ed had the gun as he walked into the building. A couple of minutes later, Harris heard

a gunshot and saw Pooh and Lil Ed run from the building. As soon as Harris saw them run, he ran back to his house. Harris stated that he was no t sure if

Lil Ed had the g un after the shooti

ng. He d id notknow wha

t happene d to the g

un. Harr is agreed that his written statement was true and acc urate and that he was not threatened or coerc ed. Following the inter

views of S pight, Ma

ys, Hill and H arris, Detective McDermott rein tervi ewed

defenda nt and confronted

him with the ir statem ents. De fendant then ga ve a four th statement, in which he allegedly inculpated himself in the murder. Defendant

was interviewed a final time by ASA Dillon, during whicha re quest was made for a bod y in spection . The insp ection r eveale d Black stone ga

ng tatto os. The cont inuing in vestiga tion in Aug

ust 20 02 co nf

ir me d t he mo ti ve of

th e m ur de r, na me ly, that the Blackstone gang me

mbers were upset that a rivalgang member w as attending a p arty in their neighborhood. C. Grand Jury Testimony Each of the me

n that pro vided the

above sta

tements all testified similarly before the grand jury in August 2002. Ea ch testif ie d t ha t t he y we re tr ea te d w el l b y th e p ol ic e a nd AS As . M ays test if ied that he was standing next to defendant when defenda nt shot Darring. Hill provided additional informationregardi ng a meeti ng he ha d wit h defen dant a nd Mays fo llow ing th e shoo ting. Hill asked defenda nt what ha ppened in Covington’s hallw ay . Defen dant told H ill that “h e shot a Vice Lord in the head be cause he threw Vice L ord up in his face so he shot him.”1-06-0558

13

F ollowing the grand jury

hearing, defendant was cha rged with eight counts of first deg re e murder. Harrisprovided a recantation statement to defendant’s attorney , dated Oct obe r 8, 200 2. In this stateme

nt, Harr is stated tha

t in Augu st 2002, he

heard th at the pol ice wer e looking for him regarding a murder. Harr is knew that the police had already picked up CJ, Pooh, Skinny Mo and defendant and questioned them about the murder. He also knew that defendant remained in custody and that the other three were relea sed. Harris stated that the only information he kn ew ab out the murder w as that it o ccurre d in a hall way at 81st an

d South Peor

ia Streets. Harrisstated that he was interviewed by two homicide detectives who told him that he would get locked up

for the mu

rder of Darring unless he signed a statemen t describ ing him

as a witness

. The detectives told Harris that he would be in jail for life. At first, H arris told the detectives that he didn’tknow anything

about the murder. He stated that he was lock e d in a room for hours. The police kept saying

that they did not

believe Harris a nd that oth er peopl e said tha t Harris was at the

scene of the mur

der. Ha rris fina lly a greed to sign the statemen

t becaus e the poli ce told hi m he would be released and, if he did not sign, he would be cha rged with firs t degr ee murde r. Once Harris signed the statement, the police started to treat him better. Harris stated that the p olice told

himto tell the gra

nd jury the same thing. H e stated

that the f irst state ment and h

is gran d ju ry testimony

were a lie. He was never at the party and never saw defendant with a g un. He stated that he did not know anything

about the murder. D. Motion to Quash Arrest and Suppress Evidence OnDecember 16, 2002, defendant moved to quash his arr est and suppress from introduction1-06-0558

14

into evidenc e the dir ect a nd indirect products of said arrest. Defendant a rgued that his arrest was made without authority of a valid search or arrest warra nt. Defendant also asserted that his conduct prior to the arrest was such as would not reasonably be interpre t ed by the ar resting officers as constituting probable

cause that defendant committed or was about to commit a crime. During the arrest and subsequent detention, the police and prosecution beca me aware o f the existence of physical evidenc e, witnesses and other evidence, all of which we

re the di rect an d indirect fruits of the arrest a

nd detent ion, conn ecting

defenda nt w ith the cr

im e. Defendant sought to suppress any phy si cal evidence discovered directly or indirectly as a

result of the detention and any statem ent s given during the detention. Defe ndant also sought to suppress any in-court or out of court identificationof him. In addition, defendant sought to suppress any witnesse s discove

red as a result of the ar rest. The State responded that defendant was not in custody at

the time he accompanied Detective McDermo tt

to Area Two headquarters. The State a rgued in the alternative that, if the circuit court

were to fi nd th at de fe nd an t w as in cu st od y, the police had probable cause to arrest def endant. The State also requested an attenuation hearing in the event the circuit court were to find that the police did not have probable cause. OnFebruary

10, 2002, the circuit court conducted a hearing on defendant’s motion

to quash his arrest a

nd suppre ss evidence. The hearing consisted of the testimony of defendant and Detective McDermo tt. Defendant

testified on direct

examination that on August 5, 2002, he was exiting the Cook County circuit c ourt in

Bridgeview when he wa s approached by anofficer in a blue suit. Defendant1-06-0558

15

was walking away

when he heard his name called. When he turned a round, the offic er placed defendant inhandcuffs and “threw [him] in a car.” The officer took defe ndant to a police station on 111th Street. On the way, the

officer told defendant that he wasbeing arrested for questioning a nd that he should “just say

what [the officer] wanted to hear,” and if not, “he wa s going to try to get me 15 years f or a gun case I

have.” The officer did not ask for def endant’s consent

and did not show him a warrant for his arrest. Defe ndant testified that he answered the officer’ s questions, after which he was charged with Darr ing’s murder. Oncross-examination, defendant testified that he cooperated with the police. He agr eed that he was helping the police with an investigation. Defe ndant stated that he wanted to cooperate so that he could go home. Detective McDermo tt

testified on direct examination that he is a detective employ ed by the Chica go police department for 25 y ears. Detective McDermott beg an investigating the Darring murder in the summer of 2002. Initially , he found that Darring was possibly a member of the Vice Lords and that he went to a party w hich was considered to be in Blackstone territory . He followed up on the Blac

kstone g ang mem

ber nick names pr ovided in the 1997 p olice re

ports, inc luding K

Ball, Lil Ed, and Pooh Bear. Detective McDer mott gathered additional information that allowed him to obtain the full names of these individuals. After Detective McDer mott obtained a third-part y admission that these individuals took credit for the murder, he sought each of them for a n interview. Detective McDermo tt

testified that, on August 5, 2002, he went with Detective Lombard and ATF Agent Canell to the Bridgeview c ourthouse to locate defendant. Defendant wa s in the Bridgeview

courthou se due toa pendin g state gun charg e. It had been dete rmined that based on1-06-0558

16

defendant’s criminal

record , he may

have be en elig ible to be charged with a federal offense relating to the state

charg e. Dete ctive Mc Dermott f irst observed defendant as he was exiting the courthouse. Detective McDermo tt then ide nti fi ed defendant at the hearing a s the person he saw exiting the courthouse on August 5, 2002. Detective McDermott stated that he approached defe ndant outside the courthouse and identified himself. H e did not recall whether he took his badge out. Dete ctive Mc Dermott to ld defendant that he wanted to speak to him in regard to a murder that had occurred several y ears ago. Detective McDermott stated that defendant told him he would cooperate and that he knew about the crime. Detective McDermott handcuffed d efenda nt, pl aced him in his unmarked squad car and drove him to Area Two headquarters. Detec tive McDerm ott testif

ied that h e handc

uffed de fendant

because of his “lengthy ba

ckground,” and because he felt that defendant was accounta ble for the murder. Detective McDermott stated that he also handcuffed defe ndant for safety

reas on s. At no time

did defendant tell Detective McDermott that he did not want to cooper ate with the investigation. Afte ra rriving

at the pol ice stati on at appr oximately noon, def

endant w as advise d of his Miranda rights by De

tective Lom

bard. Defendant freely answered questions regarding the investigation, but there

were dis crepan

cies in his story. Defe

ndant originally told the

detectives that he knewwho went t

o Covingto n’s house

and murde

red Dar ring, a nd which t

ype of gun w as used to commit the crime. Defendant provided the detectives w ith names, but said he was 11⁄2 blocks away when he heard the shot. Defendant told the detectives that, at the time of the shooting, he was selling drugs. Defendant

also told th

e detec tives that some indiv id uals wanted to go to the party and1-06-0558

17

confront the peopl e at 81st

and South Peoria Streets and that they were looking for a gun. De fendant said that he was working security for a different

spot, but he did not have a gun with him when he directed these individuals to get a gun from a locat ion whe re he knew guns were store d. The individua ls returned to defendant and showed him the gun. The individuals continued walking for another 11⁄2 blocks and then

defendan t heard g

unshots. D etective

McDermo tt stated t

hat this

con versation

with defendant took place within 30 to 45 minutes after his initial contact wit h defenda nt. Detective McDermott testified that, later that afternoon, he sought to bring Hill to the police station. Hill told the detectives that defendant told him he killed Darring. Detecti

ve McDe rmott then interviewed defendant a second time re garding the new developments in the investig ation. Oncross-examination, Detective McDermott testified that hebecame involved i

n the cas e after Detective Ares received

a telephone call from Darring’ s father. Detective McDermott stated that he also became involved

because seven or eight

murders occurr ed in that neighb orhood wi

thin the same week. Detective McDermott investig ated whether all of the murders were connected. Detective McDermott spoke to Darring’s father by telephone in July 2002. Darring ’s father had received information from L eron Harris that K evin Harris had killed his son. Detective McDermo tt

intervie wed L eron Ha

rris, who told the de

tective t hat Kevin Harrisbragged about the killing and bragged about ha ving gunshot powder on his hands the following day

. Detective McDermo tt

agreed that in 1997, the Chicago police only had the gang nicknames of persons w

ho were involved i

n the murd

er, incl uding de fendant , Q Ball and Pooh Bear. Detective McDermo tt

stated that he fou

nd ou t Lil Ed’s real name was Edwa rd Island because

his brother, a1-06-0558

18

tactical officer, had dealt with defendant previously and that defendant was the only person named Edward Island living in that

neighborhood and fitting thedescription of the person who was friends with Q Ball and Pooh Bear. Detective McDermo tt learne d from his reinterview with Covington that Darring was a Vice Lord gang member. Detec

tive McDermott testified that t here was a gang

war between the Blackstones and Vice L ords. Detective McDermott agree d that there were no ey ewitnesses to the shooting who were not gang -related. Regarding

defendant’s arrest, Detect ive McDe rmott testified that he did not search defendant because defendant already

had passed through a metal detector at the courthouse. He did not recall if he completed a pat-down search of de fendant. Detective McDermott’s purpose for arresting defendant was to see if defendant would “flip” and identify the shooter. Detecti

ve McDe rmott initially did not believe defendant was the shooter. Detective McDermott believed that def endant

was acc ounta

ble in some way

and t hat h e “di dn’t t

hink [d efen dant ] was free to go,” because he wanted to gain defendan

t’s confidence and cooperation. Acc ording to Detective McDermott, the issue of whether defendant was fre e to go “was never broug ht up.” Defendant never asked Detective McDermott if he was allowed to leave. Detective McDermott testified that defendant was placed in an interview room. Defendant told the detectives that he facilitated the murder by informing the shooters of the location where they could get a gun. After the initial intervie w, Detec tive L ombard c ompleted

a 14-pag e police

report, which is not included in the record on appeal. OnApril 28, 2003, the

circuit c ourt gr

anted de fendant ’s motion to quash ar rest and suppress1-06-0558

19

evidence. The court found that defenda nt was arrested without sufficient probable cause. E. Petition for Hearing on Attenuation OnJuly 17, 2003, the State filed a petition for hearing on attenuation, arg uing that there was

no evidence showing defendant’s stateme nt was involuntary. The S tate also argued that the statement of Gregory

Hill constituted an intervening circumstance sufficient to purge the taint of the ill egal arrest. The State pointed out that Hill was interviewed pursuant to a conversation that th e detectiv e had with

defenda nt, but Hill would have been located and interviewed inevitably during the course of the investigation based on statements of other witnesse s. The State also asserted that the Chicag o police w ere aw are tha t defend ant, Spig ht, May s and Har ris were present

at the murder

scene immediate ly prior to the sh ooting based on their interviews in April 1997 and August 2002 with Covington, Levy

and Wells. Pursuant to the detectives’ interviews with Spight and May s on August 6 , 2002, the

y be came aware

that Hill w as prese

nt at the ti

me of the murder and, thus, they would have interviewed Hill during the investigation independent of de fendant’s statements. The State argued that Hi ll’ s statement is admissible because it would have been obtained during the

course o f the polic e investigation eve n if defe ndant had chosen not to spea

k to the de

tectives

. Defendant

responded that the police h a d no knowle dge of any associa tion betwe en Hill, McGee and the Darring murder until they questioned

defendant. Defendant

argued that his illegal arrest irrevocably

tainted all the evidence receiv ed afte rward, including

the state ments of d

efenda nt, Hill, Spight, Mays and McG ee and photographs of defendant’s tattoos. Defendant asserted that the taintof the arrest was unattenuated by either the passage of time, the giving of Miranda warnings or interve ning ev ents.1-06-0558

3 Much of Detective McDermott’s testimony from the attenuation hearing in reg ard to the informat ion glea ned from the 1997 a

nd 2002 inv estiga

tions has b een set f

orth ear lier in thi s opinion and, therefore, will not be repeated here . Only new informa tion will be detailed. 20 The circuit c ourt did no t specify what evid

ence wo uld be suppressed at trial in its previous ruling on defen

dant’s mo tion to quash and suppress evidence. At theattenuation hearing on July 29, 2003 , the State and defendant sought a ruling re garding whether the stateme nts provided by witnesses following defendant’s illegal arr est were attenuated. T he State argued that defendant’s fourth and fifth statements were atten uated becau se they wer

e given after interviews of other witnesses who implicated defendant. Defendant argued that all the interviews and statements of the other wit nesses should be sup

pressed as fruits of the ille gal ar

rest. At the atten uation he aring, Dete ctive McDermott testified on direct examination that on August 5, 2002, he and an ATF agent we nt to the Bridgeview courthouse to arre st defendant o n federal gun charges. When Detec tive McDermott began investigating this ca se, he had a vailable to him prior police reports regarding individuals that had either been interviewed or were sought to be interviewed. McDermo tt again recounted the details surrounding the night of the murder and the 1997 and 2 002 invest

igation s. 3 Following defen dant’s ar rest and initial statement, the detectives spoke to Hill at approxima

tely 5 p.m. on the same day. H ill provided certain information to the detectives, following which, defendant was reintervi ewed. Detective McDermott also testified that defendant took a polygra ph examination, which he failed. Thereafter, defendant provided a third statement regarding his involvement in the murder. On August 6, 2002, after th e d et ec ti ve s i nt er vi ew ed Sp ig ht , M ays1-06-0558

21

and McGee, defendant

was reinterviewed

again a nd confr onted with

their sta tements, a t which time he inc ulpat ed him self i n the m urder o f Darri ng. Oncross-examination, Detective McDermott testified that he brought def en dant to the police station because he qualified to have his state gun c harges upgraded

to federal gun

charges and it was his inten t to l everage defendant to provide information regar ding the murder. Detective McDermo tt stated that he di d not know w

hether t he fede ral gun charg es were e ver discussed with defendant during the initial interview because “he came up with it so quick when we got to Area 2 that he was going to cooper

ate in this murder; s o I do n’t know how that w as presented to him by the a gent.” McDermo tt

testified that there was no warrant for def endant’s arrest. He stated that defenda nt was the first suspect he wanted to bring to the police station for questioning. Detective McDermott never wrote a report for this case. Onredirect exam ination, Detective McD ermott testified that Leron Harr is told police officers the day after th e murder

that Kevi n Harris told him he killed somebody who drove a Monte Carlo. Detecti ve McDe rmott also

testifie d that hisintervie

ws of Spig

ht and May

s would ha

ve resul ted in his search for Hill re gar dl ess of t he f act def end ant im pl ica ted Hil l d uri ng h is in it ial in ter vi ew. In addition, De te ctive Mc Dermott would have sought to

intervie w Spight, May s and Kev in Harri s independent of whether defendant was f ound. OnOctober 17, 2003, the circuit court ruled that all of defendant’s statements to the police

were inadmissible, photographs of his tattoos were admissible and all other witnesse s’ statements were admissible.1-06-0558

22 F. Tri al Pro ceedin gs Imme diately

prior to trial, the circuit court resolved preliminary issues, including the status of various witnesses. The attorney s representing Mays, Hill and Spight each told the c ourt that, because there had been no grant of immunit y, t hey advised t

heir clie nts to exerc ise their

fifth amendment

rights if called to testify . Each witness had recanted his earlier

grand jury

testimony and statement provided to the Chicago police. Thecourt found that each of these witnesses could invoke their fifth amendment rights not to testify

. The State then suggested that each witness be

grante d immunity

to testify consiste ntly with their grand jury testimony . Init

ially , May s agre ed to testi fy , but Hill, Spight an d Kevin Harris each refused to testify consistently

with their grand jury

testimony. The cou

rt informed counsel for the witnesses that two weeks prior, a circuit court judge ha d sentenced an

individua l to 10 years in prison for contempt of court for failure to testify after receiving a gra

ntof immunity . The cou

rt stated that, inthis case, “if the jury

finds you in contempt you will be subject to any penalty the cour

tfeels is f air and appropriate due to the circumstancesand considering the seriousness of the case in which y our testimony is req uired. ” Thereafter, each w itness agreed to testify

and the State agreed to gr ant the witnesses use immunity pursuant to section 106-2.5(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (725 IL CS 5/106-2.5(b) (West 2006)). C ovington

testifie d on direc

t examinati on that, in

April 1997 , he was a

member o f th e Blackstone gang. On April 7, 1997, he resided at 8125 Sou

th Peoria Street in a

first-f loor apa rtment. Onthat same

date, he hosted a b irthday

party for a fr iend, Cha rles L evy . The atte

ndees at the part y

were drinking and smoking marijuana. During the party, Covington’s la

ndlord told him that there1-06-0558

23

were a few men outside the building making noise. The landlord asked Covington to go outside and tell them to be qui et . Covington saw three to five people standing outside the building. H e

reco gni zed

them as B lackstone gang members. Covingto

n recog nized L il Ed, Pooh, and K Ba ll. Covingtonknew at that time Lil Ed was d efendant. Covington provided an in-court identification of defe ndant. Covingtontestified that he asked the group to move down the street or to c ome inside because they were making too much noise . The gr oup then le ft the pre

mises. Shor

tly a fter midn ight, Williamson said that she heard some gunshots. Le vy and Williamson found Darring ’s body in the ha ll wa y. Covington knew Darring through L evy. Covington testified that L evy was a member

of the Vice Lord s gang. Oncross-e

xaminati o n, Covington testified that, at the time of the shooting, there was no ga ng

war between the Blackston es and Vice Lords. Coving ton stated that he did not have an argument with Mays or any

of the o ther Bla

ckstone m embers s tanding outside hi s building

that nig ht. Covingtonstated that he went outside to talk to the group at 4 or 5 in the afternoon, which was before the party beg an. He stated that, at th e time, he

was frie nds with de fendant , May s and Kev in Harris. Harristestified on direct examination that he formerly was a member

of the Blackstone gang and that his nickname was Big Hands. Harris gr ew up with defendant. Harris provided an in-court identific ation of d

efenda nt. Harristestifie d that he a

lso gre w up with Spi ght, May

s and Hill and t hat all of them were Blackstone gang members. Harr is stated that he was not

with defendant, Spight, May s or Hill on the1-06-0558

24

night of the murder. Harris denied that he and the ot

hers we nt to 79th Str

eet and E merald Avenue to get a gun. He also denied that he saw defendant and

May s return

to 8125 Sout

h Peoria St

reet wit h the gun and that he heard a gunshot coming from that building. H arris agreed that he is a convicted felon. Harris also agreed that he wa s charg ed with contempt in this case for failure to appear af ter he was served with a subpoena. Harris stated tha t he did not want to testify in this case. Harristestified that, on August 14, 2002, he spoke to ASA Yoon and Chicago p olice detective Paladino. He stated that the ASA an

d detect ive alre ady

had prep ared a s tatement for him to si gn . H ar ri s r ep ea te dl y s t ated that he did not give a statement to the ASA or to the police. He agreed that he initialed and signed each of th e pages and corresponding exhibits included in the statemen t, but testif

ied that the ASA

and the police forced him to say certain things that he did not want to say . Harris

testifie d that he w as told tha t he would

be locke d up in jail a

nd charg ed with murder if he did not provide the statement. He stated that his grand jury

testimony also consisted of statemen ts that the p olice told

him to say . The State

then rea d porti ons of Harr is’s grand jury testimony out loud and asked him questions reg arding the testimony

. Oncross-e

xamination, Harris t

estified that he wa s grant

ed immunit

y for his testim ony

at trial. He stated tha

t he went t

o the polic e station i

n 2002 volu

nta ril y beca use he knew that the police wanted to talk to him about the murder. He also knew that the p oli ce had spoken to CJ, Pooh and Skinny Mo. Harr is knew that

they were re leased a

fter tal king to th e police . Harris

testifie d that his statemen t and gr and jury testimony

were lie s. Hill testified on direct examination that he was a member of the Vice Lords gang

at the time of the murde

r, but he “ was cool ” with

the Blackstone gang. H ill provided an in-court identification1-06-0558

25

of defendant. Hill stated

that he knew defendant “[j]ust by see ing him a lot.” He denied that he was in the same

gang as defe ndant. Hill testified that on the night of April 7, 19 97, and e arly

morning of April 8 , 1997, he

did notremember

wi th whom he was hanging out. He reme mbered that, at the time of the murder, he

was one house away

or at a friend’s house. He denied that he was with defendant, Spight, May s and Harrison th e night of the shoot ing. He also denied that he knew Covington. I n addition, he denied that he and his friends went to Pee Wee’s house to g et a gun. Hill testified that he was not present at any tim e when d efenda nt sh ot Dar ring. Hill also testified that he was charged with contempt in this case because he refused to appe ar incourt after he was served with a subpoena. Hill stated that he was testify ing because he was g iven immunity . He also

stated that he was a convicted felon. He ag reed that he signed each page

of the statement he provided to police, but he did not know what the p apers sa id. Hill tes tified tha

t he did notprovide the information that was included in the statement. He claimed that the ASA copied his statement from ano ther stat

ement pr eviously taken. Hill stated that if he did not agree to provide the statemen t, the police would charge him with murder. The conte nts of Hill’s statement were read out loud to the jury. Hill agr

eed to some of the statements that he made, but disagree d with others or stated that he di d not reme

mber gi ving thos e stateme

nts. Hill alsodenied reading the entire statement line by line. Inaddition, Hill testif

ied that h e was fo rced to t

estify before the gra ndjJury and was t old that if he “mess[ed] one word up on this statement we can charge y ou with a murder and

all of this.” The State then read Hill’s grand jur y testimony

to the jury . Hill testi fied tha t he lied w

hen giving his1-06-0558

26

gr an d j ur y te st im on y. Oncross-examination Hill testified that on August 5, 2002, he was picked up off the street by police offic ers, handcuffed and taken to Area Two headquarters for

questioning. He stated

that he was kept at the police station until August 7, when he provided the polic e with his s tatement . Hill stated that the police did not give him a Miranda warning. The police told Hill that he could be charged as an acc essory to murder. Ondirect examination, Spight denied that he was a street gang member in April 1997. He stated that he became a Blackstone g ang member in 2000 and not before. Spight pr eviously dated defenda nt’s siste r. Spigh t provide d an in-c ourt iden tification of defe

ndant. Spight testified that he did not know defendant’s real name. Spight attende d grammar school with Mays. Spight also knew Ha rris and Hill. He denied that he knew Pee Wee or Juju. Spight stated tha t he did not reme mber wha t he was d oing on the night o f April

7, 1997, and early morning of April 8 , 1997. He denied that he went to a party with defendant, Hill, Mays a nd Harrisat 81st and So

uth Peoria

Streets on those dates. He denied that he and the others went to Pee Wee’s house to get a g

un. He also deni ed returning to Juju’s” house afterward, that he he ard a gunshot and that he saw defendant running from the building still holding the gun. Spight testified that he was a convicted felon. He also stated that he had a pending case for contempt of court for failure to appear a fter he was served with a subpoena. Spight testified that he did not remember speaking to ASA Dillon on the night of Aug ust 2, 2002. He agreed that he provided a statement to ASA Dillon and Detective McDermott, and signed each page of that statement, including photogr aphs identifying

defendant, Hill, May s, Har ris and1-06-0558

27

Covington. The State

then rea d the cont ents of th e stateme

nt to Spigh

t, line by line. Eac h time Spight

was confronted with another part of the statement, he testified e ither that he did not remember

or that he denied providing the information. Spight stated that he did n ot read the statement as written because he cannot read. He testified that he was forced to sign the

statement because police officers beat him up and p

unched h im in the fa

ce. Spig ht stated t hat the po lice off

icers tol d him

that if he did notsign the statement, he would be charged with murder and access ory

to murder . When the St

ate confronted

Spight with the photograph of him taken after he g ave the statement, he agree d there were no bruise s on his fa

ce. Spig ht stated t hat he ha d knots on his head. Spight testified that he told the ASA he had been beat up by the police. He testified that his statement was a lie. Spight testified that he did not rem ember te stifying bef ore the grand jury . The State read Spigh t's grand jury

testimony aloud sentence by sentence, pausing

each time to confirm with Spight the accuracy

of the testimony. Spight answere d each time that he did not remember hi s t es ti mo ny. Spight ad mitted tha

t he was g

ranted i mmunity for his te stimony

at trial. Oncross-examination, Spight testified that he was testify ing at trial because he had bee n threatened

with a contempt charge. He stated that he was not questioned regarding Da rring’s murder until August 2002. Dr. John Scott Den ton, a forensic pathologist and deputy medical examiner at the Cook County medical examiner’s office, testified that it is his duty to determine the cause a nd manner of death. He has pe

rformed over 2,7 00 autopsi es in his career. He reviewe d a report of the post-mortem examination of Darring, which was completed by a former deputy

medical examiner. Dr. Denton described the gunshot wound

on the right side of

Darring’s head. He testified that Da rring was shot1-06-0558

28

at close range and that the g

unshot wound was through-and-through, meaning that it entered the body and thenleft the body. Dr. D enton testified that, in his opinion, Darring died from a gunshot wound to the head and that the manner of Darring ’s death was homicide. Ma ys testified on direct

examination that he was in custody for a pending case of agg

ravated domestic battery. He

agreed that he refuse d to testify in this case and

that he wa s offer

ed immunity by the State for his testimony. He also ag reed that he again refuse d to testify even af ter he was of fe re d i mm un it y. H e a gr ee d t ha t t he ci rc ui t c ou rt ju dg e a dm on is he d h im fo r h is re fu sa l t o t es ti fy. Ma ys testified that he knew defendant from the neig hborhood. Mays pr

ovi ded an in-court identific ation of d

efenda nt. Ma ys stated that he was a member of the Blackstone street gang. He stated that de fendant also was a Blackstone gang member. He also knew

that CJ, Skinn y Mo and Big Hands were Blackstone gang

members. Mays testified that on the nig ht of April 7, 1997, and the early morning of Ap ri l 8 , 1 99 7, he wa s a t h is gr an dm ot he r’ s h ou se wi th Sp ig ht pl ayi ng v ideo games. He did not

see defendant, Skinny Mo or B ig Hands that night. May s denied going to C ovington’ s house and denied going with defendant to pick up a g un at Pee Wee’s house on April 8, 1997. He denied that he was pre sent in the

hallway vestibule of Coving

ton’s hous e when defendant shot someone in the head. Ma ys testified that he signed each pag e of the statement he provided to ASA Dillon o n August 7, 2002. He also agreed that he signed each of the attached photog raphs of defendant and the other Blacks tone ga

ng membe

rs involve d in

the murde

r. May s testifie d that he d

id not agree to give the statement. The State cor robor ated the contents of the statement with May s. When questioned1-06-0558

29

about each portion of the statement, May s either agreed that he provided the particular statement as read or stated that he did not remember. Mays agreed he provided a statement that when Da rring t old defendant he wa s a Vi ce Lor ds ga ng me mb er , d ef en da nt pu ll ed ou t a gu n a nd sh ot hi m. Ma ys testified that the p olice told

him that if

he did not s i gn the statement, he and defendant would be charged wi th mu rd er . M ays agreed that he told theASA that he was not made any promises in return for his statement or thr

eatene d in any way. I n addition, as the State read May s’ grand jury testimony li ne by l in e, Ma ys a gr ee d t ha t h e p ro vi de d t he te st im on y. Oncross-e

xamination, May s denied t hat he sa w d efenda

nt shoot Da

rring a nd that a significant

part of his statement was made up. May s also testified that his grand jury

testimony was a lie. ASADillon testified that she has been a prosecutor for almost seven y ears. In Aug

ust 2002, she was assigned to the felony review unit. On

August 6, 2002, ASA Dillon took the statements of Hill, Spight and Mays, who ea ch agreed to have their stateme nts memorialized. At the time the statements were taken, ASA Dillon had crossed out the section of the statement detai ling Miranda

rights because non e of th e witnesses were being acc used of any wrongd oing. ASA Dillon reviewed each of the statements with the witnesses and they were allowed to ma ke an y co rr ec ti on s a s n ec es sa ry. At the conclusion of each statement, a photograph wa s taken of the witnesses and attached to the statement. Each of the witnesses, ASA Dillon and the detectives signed every page and photograph included in their respective statements. ASA Dillon testified that she never saw any

police officers beating Spight. I n addition, she observed no injurie s to Spight

w hen he provided his statement. None of the witnesses complained to ASA Dillon that they were1-06-0558

30

threatened

by the police. May

s’ statement was published t o the jur y and rea d aloud to the jury by ASA Dillon. Oncross-e

xamination, ASA Dil lon testified that she was not aware the three witnesses already had been given Miranda

warning s by

the dete ctives. ASAYoon testified that in August 2002, he was assigne d to the felony re view unit. He stated that he took Harris’s statement and that Harris had ag reed to give the statement. P rior to memorializing Harris’ s stateme nt, ASA Yoon met with H arris without an y po lice off

icers pr esent. ASAYoon asked Harris how he had been trea ted and if he had been threatened inany way . Harris told ASA Yoon that he had not bee n threatened. AS A Yoon then sat at a table with Harris and Detective Paladino and simply asked Harris what happened on the night of April 7, 1997, and early morning of April 8, 1997. ASA Yoon memorialized what Harris told him. Afterward, he reviewed the statement with Harris page by page. Harris, ASA Yoon and Detec tive Paladino signed

each pa ge of the state ment and t

he corr esponding

photogr aphs. The State the n publishe d Harris ’s statement to the jury, which ASA Yoon r ead aloud from beginning to end. Th e State nex t called ASA Nicole Morely , who testified that in August 2002, she was assigned to Branch 66, which presents witnesses to the gr and jury for indictment. AS A Morel y presented Hill, Mays and Spight to the g rand jury in this case . ASA Morely met with eac h of the witnes ses separa

te ly prior to the g

rand jury he aring. ASA Morely had reviewed each of the witnesse s’ statemen

ts befor e meeting with them. When ASA

Morely met

with Hill, h e at no time mentioned

that his sta

tement wa s a lie or t

hat he ha d been thr

eatene d by

the polic e. ASA Mor

ely testified that H ill w as very coo perati ve and forth comin g. In addition, Mays and Spight also did not1-06-0558

31

tell ASA Morel

y that they had bee

n threatened by

the police. Spight never told ASA Morely that he had been be aten by

the polic e. The Sta

te then p ublished the grand jury testimony of each of

the wi tn es se s, wh ic h A SA Mo re ly r ea d a lo ud to th e j ur y. Detective Lomba

rd te stifie d on direct examination that he has served as a Chicago police officer for 19 years. I

n August 2002, Detective L ombard served as a gang specialist. Detective Lombard previously testified in court as a gang expert. He w a s familiar with certain specifics pertaining to the Blackstone street gang. The circ uit court allowed Detective Lomba rd to testify as

anexpert in this case. The State and defendant then stipulated that defendant

was a Blackstone gang member in April 1997. Detective Lombard testified that he took defenda nt into custod

y on Aug ust 5, 2002. Detective Lomba rd provid ed an in- court ide

ntificat ion of def endant. Detective Lombard n ext testif ied regarding his interviews of H ill and Spight. Detective Lombard stated tha t he neve r threa tened Hil l or Spigh

t. He was present

with ASA Di llon when

Hill provided his statement. Dete ctive Lombard also denied that any police officer beat or punched Spight. Oncross-examination, Detective Lombard te stified that he had been

working on this case for

a few months prior to arresting defendant. B efore arresting def end ant, he considered Harris and Spig ht as murder suspects. Detective L ombard considered May s as a witness. Detective Lombar d stated that Hill agreed to go to the police station for questioning. Detective L ombard testified that none of the witnesses were being held against their will and that they were at the police station by their own agree ment.1-06-0558

32

Onredire ct examina

tion, Dete ctiv e Lom

b ard testified that, as he questioned each of the witnesse s, he confr

onted the m with dis crepanc ies, whic h was nor mal practice for

intervie ws with potentia l suspect s. A fter the State rested, defenda

nt prese nted no ev

idence. Followin

g closin g arg uments , th e jury found defendant guilty

of first-degree murder. Thereafter, defendant wa s sentenced to a 60-y ear prison te rm. II. AN ALYS IS Onappeal, defendant argue s that the testimony of Hill, Spight, Mays and Ha rris should have been suppressed because the State failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the taint of the primary illeg ality, namely , defendant’s illegal arrest, wa s attenuat ed. D efendant also contends that the State did not meet its burden of proving by a prep onderance of the evidence that the witnesse s’ statements and grand jury testimony would have be en inevi tably di scove red th rough lawful means. In addition, defendant a sserts that he was not proven guilty be

yond a rea sonable doubt consideringthe only evidence of guilt was the disavowed prior incon sistent stat ements and grand jury testimony of four alleg ed accomplices who received immunity before t estif

ying. De fendant argues that there was no corroborating evidence and tha t the witnesses statements were not made until five years a

fter the murder occurred. The State re sponds tha

t the witne sses’ sta

tements a nd Grand Jury testimony

were a dmissible because they

were attenuated and would have eventually bee

n discovered. The State

argue s that it proved by c lear and con vincing evidence that the witnesses’ statements wer e attenuated from the initial illega

lity . In a ddition, th e State a sserts tha t it proved by a pr

eponderance of the evidence that1-06-0558

33

the witnesse s’ statements would have ine vitably been disc over ed. Finally, the State c ontends that defendant was prov en guilt

y be yon d a reas onable do

ubt based on ey ewitness te stimony and other witnesses’ corroborating evidence

. A. Whether Corroborating Witness Statements and Testimony Were Attenuated Defendant

ar gu es th at Sp ig ht , H il l a nd Ma ys were e ach con fronted with his ille gally

obtained statemen ts before they provided their written statements and grand jury testimony implicating

him inthe murder, which

demonstr ates a lack of attenuation pursuant to United States v. Ceccolini , 435 U.S. 268, 55 L . Ed. 2d 268 , 98 S. Ct. 105 4 (1978). In a dditi on , defend

ant conte nds that th e State presented no evide nce of what

occurred when police questioned Harr is before he implicated defendant in a written statement and beforethe gra nd jury . Accor

ding to de fendant , the absence of such proof me ans that the State f ailed to e stablis h by clear a nd convincing evidence that Harris’s statemen t was not ta

inted by defenda nt’s illeg al arre st. The circuit court’s ruling on a motion to attenuate will not be overt urned un less manif

estly

errone ous. People v. Simmons , 372 Ill. App. 3d 735, 742 ( 2007); People v. Lekas , 155 Ill. App. 3d 391, 415 (1987). The circuit court’s decision regar ding a motion to suppress evidence is reviewed de novo ; however, great

defere nce is g iven to the

circuit c ourt’s fa

ctual fin dings, which will not be reversed unless they are

found to be against the manifest weight of the evidence. People v. Pitman , 211 Ill. 2d 502, 512 (2004). Notab ly, “a reviewing court remains fr ee to undertake its own assessment

of the facts in relation to the issues presented and may draw its own conclusions when deciding what relief should be gr anted.” Pitman , 211 Ill. 2d at 512. Ini ti al ly, this case is distinguishable on its facts from many attenuation ca se s because the1-06-0558

34

circuit court suppressed defendant’s incriminating st atements due to his illegal arrest. The court allowed the admission of

inculpatory statements and testimony provided by

certain witnesses at trial because they were sufficien

tly a ttenuate d from the

illega l arrest , which de fendant s pecif ically challenges here. A ccordin gly , we must de

termine w hether t he conte sted witne sses’ statemen ts and grand ju ry t es ti mo ny w er e o bt ai ne d b y the e xploitation of the illegal arrest and not by means sufficie ntly distingu ishable to be purg ed of the

primary taint of th e ill ega lity. See Wong Sun v. United States , 371 U.S. 471, 488, 9 L. Ed. 2d 441, 455, 83 S. Ct. 407, 417 (1963). The State has the burden of proving attenuation. People v. Foskey , 136 I ll. 2d 66, 86 (1990). The State must establish by clear a nd convincing evidence that the challenged evidence

was obtained by means suffic iently distinguishable to be purg ed of the primary ta

int. People v. Watson , 315 I ll. App. 3d 866, 881 (2000). Under certain circumstances, live testimony should be excluded when knowledg e of the witness arose f

rom a fourth a me ndment violation. In Ceccolini , the Supre me Court c larifie d its holding in Wong Sung that oral evidence, as well as phy sical evidence, m ay

be subjec t t o the exclusionary

rule. The Court reasoned that, since the cost of excluding live-te stimony is often greater thanthe exclusion of documentary e vidence, “a more direct link betwee n the illeg ality

and that kind of testimon y is required.” Ceccolini , 435 U.S. at 278, 55 L. Ed. 2d at 278, 98 S. Ct. at 1061. Th e Court further explained:

"The proffer of a living witness is not to be mechanically equated with the prof fer of in animate e videntia ry objectsillegally seized. The fact that the name of a

potential witness is disclosed to police is of no1-06-0558

35 eviden tiary

significance, per se , since the living witness is an individual human per

sonality whose at t ribute s of will, perception, memory and volition inte ract to deter mine what

testimony

he will give." Ceccolini , 435 U.S. at 27 7, 55 L. Ed. 2d at 277, 98 S. Ct. at 1060. In Ceccolini , a police officer (Biro), while taking a break in the defendant’s flower shop and conversingwith an employee of the shop (Hennessey

), noticed an envelope with money protruding therefrom lying on the c ash register. Upon further examination , he f ound it con

tained no t only

mo ne y, but also betting slips. Biro then placed the envelope back on the register and, without telling Hennessey

what he had found, asked her to whom the envelope be longed. Hennessey told Biro that it belonged to the defendant. Biro’s f inding was reported to local detectives and the F ederal Bureau of Investigation, who inter

viewed H ennesse

y a pproximate ly

four mont

hs later w ithout ref erring to the incident involving Biro. Six months after the incident, the defen dant was summoned before a federal grand jury

wher e he testifie d that he had never taken policy bets at his flower shop. He nn es se y, however, testified to the contrary and, shortly thereaf

ter, the defendant

was indicted for pe rj ur y. Hennessey

testified against the defendant at his trial, but after a finding of guilt , the district court granted his motion to suppress Hennessey ’s testimony and set aside that finding . The court of appeals affirm ed, notin g that the “road” to that testimony from the unconstitutional search was uninterrupted. The Suprem e Court held that the court of appeals erred in concluding the degree of attenuationbetwee

n Biro’s search of the en

velope a nd Henne ssey ’s te st im on y a t trial was not1-06-0558

36

s ufficient to dissipate the connection bet ween the illega

lity of the search and the challenged testimony

. The Ceccolini Court focused on several factors in determ ining whe ther the testimonial evidence should be excluded: (1) whether the t estimony given by

the witness was an act of free will or coercion or induce d by

officia l authorit y a s a resul

t of the ini

tial illeg ality ; (2) whe

ther the illega lity was used in questioning the witness; (3) how much time passed between the illegality and c ontact with the witness and between

the contact and the testimony; ( 4) whether

the ident ity o f the witness

was known to the police before the illegal conduct; and (5)whether the illegality was made with the intention of finding a witness to testify against the defendant. Ceccolini , 435 U.S. 275-78, 55 L. Ed. 2d at 276-279, 98 S. Ct. at 1059-61. Foremos t, the Court said the degree of free will exercised

by t he witnes s in decid

ing to ta lk to police is notirrelevant. The Court also noted that even putative defenda nts should be permitted to testify at trial if there

is no exploit ation of their statements to compel the testimony. See a lso, People v. Williams , 138 Ill. 2d 377, 397 (1990). Indetermining whether thedecisionto provide a statement is an exercise of free will a court should consider the time, place and manner of the initial questioning of the witne ss. Another importantconsideration which differentiates live witness testimony from typical doc

um entary evidence is that to exclude the testimony of a witness “would per petually disable a witness f rom testifying about relevant and material facts, reg ardless of how unrelated such testimony mig htbe to the purpose of the originally illegal search

or the evidence discovered thereby .” Ceccolini , 435 U.S. at 277, 55 L. Ed. 2d at 278, 98 S. Ct. at 1061. Inthis case, defendant

argues that

application of the Ceccolini factors demonstrates that there1-06-0558

37

was a close and direct link between the illegally obta

ined statements of defendant and the st atements and grand jury

testimony of

Hill, Spight, Mays and

Harris, which resulting taint was not attenuated. Defendant

asserts t hat h is illeg al arrest was motivated by a desire to locate witnesses. Detective McDermo tt

had learned

that defendant, May s and Harris were allege dly involved in a gang-related distur banc e in front of the building where the shooting occur red 30 to 45 minutes later. Detective McDermo tt

testified that he decided to pick up defen dant firs t to induce

him to “flip” and name the shooter. Detective McDermott stated that he used the possibility

of a fed eral g un charg e aga

inst defendant to “leverage” him to provide information. Defendant argues, ther efore, that his arrest was

a “classic fishi ng e xpedition” to establish probable cause to charge someone with the unsolved murder. Inaddition, defenda

nt conten ds that it is

unclear whether

the conte sted witne sses’ sta tements and grand jury

testimony were the pr

oduct of free will and the result of a “detached reflection and

a desire to be cooperative.” Ceccolini , 435 U.S. a t 277. Def

endant a rgues t h at the pur

pose of the police illegality wa s to locate witnesses, as each witness was “g rabbed” off the s tr eet by police, whichalerted them to the fact that they were po tential su spects in this case. Defendant points out that the conteste d witnesse s were p utative d efenda nts who we

re not like ly

to have c ome forward voluntarily because

it would have been against their own penal intere st to do so. Defendant

acknowledges that police were aware of Spight, Mays and Harris before he was arrested; however, the polic e did not ob tain Hill’s name until they interrog ated defendant. Also, the police were only

aware of the witnesses’ ga ng names and not their real names. Furthermore, defendant notes the length of time between the illegality and the police contact1-06-0558

38

with the wit nesses – the police a

rrested Hill within

five hours of defe

ndant’s i llegal

arrest, while Spight and Mays we

re ar rested the following day . Defendant argues that, contra sted with the four months between the illegal search in Ceccolini and th e contact with the witness, this factor demonstrates a lack of attenuation in this case. Fi na ll y, defenda

nt argu es that the fact ea ch witnes s was con fronted with his ille gally

obtained statemen ts implicating them in the shooting demonstrates a nexus between the primary illegality and the witnesses’ statements in violation of the fourth amendment. In People v. Daniels , 287 Ill . App. 3d 477 , 482- 83 (19 97), q uoti ng Wong Sun , 371 U.S. at 487, 9 L. Ed. 2d at 455 , 83 S . Ct. at 417 , quot ing Nardone v. United States , 308 U.S. 338, 341, 84 L. Ed. 307, 312, 60 S. Ct. 266, 268 (1939), the court noted, “[a]s in a ll exclusionary issues, the question is whether

‘the connection between the lawless conduct of the police and the discovery

of the challen

ged evidence has “bec ome so atte nuated a s to dissipate the taint.” ’ ” “The to uchstone in these cases is ‘discovery ’ of the evidence.” Daniels , 287 Ill. App. 3d at 483. In People v. Rassmussen , 143 Ill. App. 3d 11, 17 (1986), the court found that the discovery of the witne ss’ identi

ty a nd his subse quent tes timony were no t the frui

tof the illegal search. There, the court noted that the fru it of the poisonous tree doctrine is not applicable to all evidence discovered

inan illegal search. The court stated tha tthe fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine does not apply to “(1) evidence discovered from an independent source, (2) evidence sufficiently

distantin causal connection from the controverted searc h and seizure [or arrest as in thi s case] so that any connection has becom e so atte nuated a s to dissipa

te any taint, or ( 3) evide

nce whic h inevita bly would have been found without an illegal searc h.” Rassmussen , 143 Ill. App. 3d at 16. “Satisfaction1-06-0558

39

of any of the f

oregoing removes the evidenc e in question from the purview of the doctrine.” Rassmussen , 143 Ill. App. 3d at 16; see also United States ex rel. Owens v. Twomey , 508 F.2d 858, 865 (7th Cir. 1974). The case of People v. Kluppelberg , 2 57 Ill. App . 3d 516 (1993), is particularly instructive here. The Kluppelberg

case involved a March 24, 1984, arson at 4448 South Her

mitage Avenue i n Chicag o that cla

imed the li

ves of six L

uperico family members. OnDecember 24, 1987, C hica go police detectives investigated two ca r fires that had occurred at 820 West Belle Plaine Avenue in Chicago. The fire s had been reported by

the defe ndant, who worked

at that loc ation as a

security guard . On Januar

y 12 , 1988, the

defenda nt was bro

ught to the Chicago police’s bomb and arson office to b e interviewed about those fires and to view photographs of arson

suspects to identify the individual he claimed to have seen running from the

scene. During

the inter view, the defenda nt admitt ed to s etti ng fire to the cars himself, as well as starting severa

l other fi res. Fu rther, the defen

dant admi tte d to starting

the fata l fire at 4448 South Hermi tage Avenue. An ASA was called, and the defe ndant provided a brief oral statement admitting that he set tha

t fire. O n January

27, 1988, t

he defe ndant wa s in dicted for the s ix killings and the arson tha t caused them. Prior to trial, the defendant filed a motion in limine to exclude th e testimo ny o f certa

in witnesse s. The reasoning behind the motion was that, but for an illegally obtained confession, the police would not have known of thesewit nesses, and they w ould not have been questioned and presented to the gr and jury . The cou

rt ruled t hat two of

the witne sses, Dawn Gramont and Dwayne Glassco, had been previously known to the police, and denied the defendant’s motion as to them, but1-06-0558

40

granted it as to a third witness, Michelle Briton. The defendant was found guilty by jury and sentenced to life imprisonment. On appeal, the defendant argue d that the

testimony

of Gramont and Gla ssco was improper

ly admitted and that withouttheir testimony he could not have be en convicted. He asserted that the 19 84 fire investigation

was reopene d only

because of his ille gally

obtained statement and that the challenged evidenc e was

no t a tt en ua te d f

ro m t ha t i ll eg al it y. The Klupp elberg

court held that the circuit court properly ruled that the testimony of Gramont and Glassco did not violate the fruit of the poisonous tree do ctrine based upon the follo wing: "Gramont

and Glassco were both named in1984 police reports. [The] defendant had been a suspect in the Hermitage a rson b ecause of an anonymous tip. When he again came to police attention because of a 1987 arson which

he reported, that fact alone was enoug h for the police to reopen the earlier investigation and conta ct poten t ial witnesses ." Kluppelberg , 257 Ill. App. 3d at 529. Inthis case, the police ob tained th e names o f pertine nt witness es, inclu

ding Spig ht, Mays and Harris, prior to defendant’s arrest. De fendant concedes this point, as noted abo ve. In1997, Spight

was arreste d due to an

independ ent inves tigation

regar ding his a ssault of Rashard Wel ls. See Daniels , 287 Ill. App. 3d at 483 (“(t)he e xclusionary rule need not apply if knowledg e of the facts that were illega lly obtained is gained from an independent source or independent investigation”). Spight was questioned

at that time about the shooting, but was released due to insufficient evidence. He stated1-06-0558

41

that he was with Pooh Bear on the night of the murder . The 1997 interview of Covington revealed that Po oh B ear , Lil Ed a nd Q Bal l we re i nvo lv ed i n t he s hoo ti ng. Inaddition, prior to defendant’s arrest, six anonymous individuals placed Pooh Be ar at the scene of the murder 25 to 35 minutes prior to the shoot ing . In 2002, Covington was interviewe d again and provided information reg arding defendant’s whereabouts. Covington’s reinterview was c o rrobo rated by L eron Harris, who provided the police with incriminating information against Kevin Harris. The interviews of Coving ton, Leron Harrisand Charles Levy

also occurred before defe ndant’s arrest. Darring’s fa ther also provided

the police with a tip prior to defendant’s arrest that Kevin Harr is may have bee

n the person that shot and killed his son. Finally, the police dete rmined that the real name of Lil Ed wa s Edward Island, Pooh Bear was Djuan May s and

Q Ball was Kevin Harris before de fendant was picked up and questioned. Insum, the information gleaned from the independent investiga tion of Spight, the interviews of Covingto n, Le

ron Har ris and L evy , anony

mous tips an

d the tip provided by Dar

ring’s father have

no nexus to defendant’s illegal arrest since all occur red prior to his arrest. The information provided by these sources inc luded the d iscovery of thr ee witnesses, Spight, May s and Harris, before the illegal arrest. Satisfaction of one of the exceptions to the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine, in t his case, evidence discovered from an independent source, removes the evidence in question, i.e. , the statemen ts and gr and jury testimony

of these witnes ses, from the purview of the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine. Accordingly , we find the contested statements and grand jury testimony

of Spig ht, Mays and Ha

rris were not obtained by the exploitation of the illegal arrest and by means sufficie ntly distinguishable to be purged of the primary taint o f the illegality. See Wong Sun , 371 U.S. at 488, 9 L . Ed. 2d at 455, 83 S. Ct. at 417; Kluppelberg , 257 I ll. App. 3d at 529; Rassmussen ,1-06-0558

42

143 Ill. App. 3d at 16. The next determination invol ves th e statement and grand jury testimony of Hill and the applicationof the inevitable discovery doctrine. “The inevitable discovery exception provides that where th e r ec or d s ho ws by a preponderance of the evidence that the challenged evidence would ha ve inevitab ly been discovered by

lawful means, the evidence is admissible.” People v. Harris , 297 I ll. App. 3d 1073, 1085 (1998). The State must estab lish three

criteri a for the exception to apply: “(1) the condition of the evide nce must be the same when found illegally as it would have been when fo un d legally ; (2) the evidence would have been found by an independent line of investigation untai nted by the illega

l conduct; and (3) the independent line of investigation must have alre ady begun when the evidence wa s discovered illegally .” Harris , 297 Ill. App. 3d at 1085. Inthis case, the discovery of Hill occurred after defenda n t’s illeg al arrest. Nevertheless, applying the criteria for the inevitable discovery doctrine in the i nstant case, t he fact that Hill’s statement and grand jury

testimony

mirror th e stateme

nts and te stimony

of Spigh t, May s and Har

ris, shows that the c ondition of th e evide nce presented by Hill would have been the same whether obtained legally or illegally. N ext, as discussed above, indepe ndent s ources provided information leading to Spight, Mays and Ha rris, all of which occurred before the illegal action. Hill’s statement and grand jury

testimony would have

inevitably been discove

red through the intervie

ws with Spig

ht, Ma ys and Harris, each of

whom name d Hill in the ir statements as a fellow Blackstone ga ng member who was involved in the murder. Ac co rd in gl y, ano ther e xception to the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine applies to Hill’s statement and grand jury

testimony. We find that, as a result, the contested statement and grand jury1-06-0558

43

testimony of Hill was not obtained by the exploitation of the ille gal ar rest and by means suf

ficientl y distinguishable to be purged of the primary taint of the illegality. See Wong Sun , 371 U.S. at 488, 9 L. Ed. 2d at

455, 83 S. Ct. at 417; Kluppelberg , 257 Ill. App. 3d at 529; Rassmussen , 143 Ill. App. 3d at 16. Based on the foregoing, we find that the State established by cle ar and convincing evidence that the contested statements and grand jury

testimony of Spight, May s and Harris were attenuated fromthe initial illegality beca use those witnes ses w ere di sco ver ed f rom in dep end ent sou rce s. In addition, the State showed by a pr eponderance of the evidence that Hill’s statement and grand jury testimony would have inevitably be endiscovered without an illegal arrest. According ly, we find that the contested witnesses’ statements and grand jury testimony were prope

rly admitted. B. Whether Defendant Was Proven Guilty Beyond A

Reasonable Doubt Defendant

argues that his conviction for first degr ee murd er was bas ed solely on the prior inconsistentstatemen

ts and gr and jJury testimony

of four a ccompli ce-wi tnesses w

ho gave their statements five yea

rs after the murder. Defendant notes that these witnesses testified under a grant of immunity and that each w itness recanted his statement. Defendant also pointed out each of the inconsistencies in the evidence from these witnesses. Defe ndant contends that the totality of these circumst ances r enders t he evide nce ag ainst him a s inhere ntly suspect a nd insuff icient. The State re sponds t

hat d efendant was proven guilty beyond a re asonable doubt based on ey ewitness

testimony and other witnesses’ c orroborating evidence. The State spec ifically notes the testimony of May s, an ey ewitness to the shooting, proves that defendant committed the murder. The State also points out that the other witnesses’ statements and grand jury testimony corr

oborat ed1-06-0558

44

Mays’ evidenc e. “Whena court reviews a challenge to the sufficiency

of the evidence, the relevant question is whether, after viewing theevidence in a light most favorable to the State, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of thecrime beyond a reasonable doubt.” People v. Lee , 376 Ill. App. 3d 951, 954 (2007). “A criminal conviction will not be set aside on appeal unless the evidenc e is so impr

obable or unsatisfa ctory that it create s a reas onabl e doub t as to the de fendan t's guilt.” Lee , 376 I ll. App. 3d at 955. I n review ing the e vidence , the cour

t will not su

bstit ute its judgment for that of the trier of fact. People v. Sutherland , 223 Ill. 2d 187, 242 (2006). The testimony

of a sing le witnes s is suffic ient to convict i f the test imony is positive and the witness i s credible. People v. Smith , 185 Ill. 2d 532, 541 (1999). Where the finding of th e defendant’s guilt depends on ey ewitness testimony, a revie wing court mus t deci de whether a fact finder could r easonab ly acce

pt the testimony as true bey ond a reasonable doubt. People v. Cunningham , 212 Ill. 2d 274, 279 (2004). Under this standard, the ey ewit ness testimony may

be found in su ff ic ie nt “o nl y w here t

he record evidence compels the conc lusion that no reasonable person could accept it bey

ond a reasonable doubt.” Cunningham , 212 Ill. 2d at 280. Although “the testimony of an accomplice wi

tness has i nherent weaknesses and should be accepted only with caution and suspicion,” such testimony, “whether corroborated or uncorroborated, is suff icient to sustain a criminal conviction if i t convi nces the [trier of fact] of t he defe ndant’s g uilt bey ond a rea sonable doubt.” People v. Tenney , 205 Ill. 2d 411, 429 (2002). Inthis case, the direct evidence against defe ndant consisted primarily of the sta tements and grand jury testimony

of Spight, Mays, Ha

rris and Hill, which were pu bli shed to the jury. The1-06-0558

45

statemen ts and gr

and jury testimo ny provided

evidenc e of def

endant’ s and the w

itnesses’ involvement

in the murder of Darring. The evide nce also showed that the motivation behind the murder of Darring was the

presence of

Vice L ords in B lackstone territ ory . Darrin

g was be lieved to be a member of the Vice Lor

ds street gang. Evidence f rom the witnesses each described the series of events th at culmina

ted in the shooting , which e xplicitly related the manner in which the group of five Blackstone gang members ga thered outside 8125 South Peoria Street to challenge the invitation of a Vice Lord to a pa

rty hosted by

a Blackstone . The evidenc e related the manner in which defendant retrieved a weapon from a neig hboring Blackstone “muf tiff” and returned with the other witnesses to 8125 South Peoria Street. Mays was an e yewitness to the shooting a nd provided evide nce th at he w as sta ndin g next to def endan t as he shot Darrin g. May s’ statement and g

rand jur y te stimony

are suf ficient t o sustain defendant’s first degree murder conviction. In addition, key aspects of

the evidence provided by Mays were

corroborated

by the state ments and

grand jury testimony

of Spigh t, Harri s and Hill. “It is the function of the trier of fact to resolve any conflicts in the evidence and to assess the credibi lity

of the witnesses.” P eople v. Jo ya , 319 Ill. App. 3d 370, 381 (2001). Any alleged inconsistencies were min

or in natu re, fully explored a

t trial, a nd do not create

a reasonable doubt of defendant’s guilt. This court repeatedly has held that a recan

ted prio r inconsistent statement admitted under section 115-10.1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (725 I LCS 5/115-10.1 (West 2006)) can support a conviction even in the absence of othe r corroborative evidence. See Peoplev. Craig , 334 Ill . App. 3d 426 , 438 ( 2002) , citi ng People v. Morrow , 303 Ill . App. 3d 671, 677 (1999); see also People v. Curtis , 296 Ill. App. 3d 99 1, 999 (1998); Peopl e v. Z izzo , 301 I ll.1-06-0558

46

App. 3d 481, 489-90 (1998). Inreviewi

ng all of the evide nce in ac cord with

the stand ard set f orth abov e, we fin

d that a rational trier of fact could have found defe ndant’s gu il t b eyo nd a r ea so na bl e d ou bt . A cc or di ng ly, defendant’s assertion that the State fa iled to prove him guilty bey ond a reasonable doubt is rejected. III. CONCL

USION For the foregoing r

easons, we affirm defendant’s conviction and sentence. Affirmed. GREIMAN and THEI S, JJ., concur.