Source: https://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2006/01/simon_says.html?cid=12658584
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 16:59:02+00:00

Document:
In 1999 the Defendant was charged by indictment with four (4) counts of First Degree Murder. It was alleged in the indictment that the Defendant shot and killed Jerry Hillard and Marilyn Green. On September 7, 1999 the Defendant entered a plea of guilty to one count of Murder and one count of Voluntary Manslaughter. Pursuant to an agreement with the prosecution and the concurrence of Judge Thomas Fitzgerald, the Defendant was sentenced to thirty-seven (37) years in the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC) for the murder of Marilyn Green and fifteen (15) years in the IDOC for the Voluntary Manslaughter of Jerry Hillard.
The Defendant did not file a motion to vacate his plea of guilty and did not file a direct appeal from his convictions. On July 18, 2001 the Defendant filed a Pro Se Petition for Post Conviction Relief. ( A copy is attached as Exhibit 1).
On October 5, 2001 the Honorable Evelyn B. Clay issued an order dismissing this petition without a hearing and without appointment of counsel. (A copy of this order is attached as Exhibit 2). The Defendant filed an appeal of Judge Clay’s order of dismissal which was denied by the Appellate Court for the First Judicial District.
1. On August 15, 1982 at approximately 1:00 a.m. Jerry Hillard and Marilyn Green were shot and killed while in the bleachers of the swimming pool area of Washington Park located on the southeast side of Chicago.
2. Jerry Hillard was found by members of the Chicago Police Department, alive, but unconscious in the bleachers of Washington Park at the location where he had been shot. Marilyn Green staggered out of the bleacher area after she had been shot and was found in critical condition approximately one block from the bleachers.
3. A subsequent autopsy performed by the Cook County Medical examiner revealed that Jerry Hillard had been shot twice in the head at close range. (Dr. Joann Richmond’s Report of Postmortem Examination performed on Jerry Hillard is attached as Exhibit 3).
4. The autopsy performed on Marilyn Green revealed that she had been shot three (3) times, twice in the neck and once in the hand. The entrance wounds to the neck indicated that she had been shot at close range. (Dr. Joann Richmond’s Report of Postmortem Examination performed on Marilyn Green is attached as Exhibit 4).
5. Officers from the Chicago Police Department initially located two witnesses to the shooting, Henry Williams and William Taylor.
6. During his initial interview by the police, Henry Williams told the police that he had gone swimming in the pool at Washington Park. When he exited the pool, he was confronted by a man he knew from the neighborhood to be Anthony Porter. Porter pointed a handgun to his head and demanded his money. Porter then walked into the bleachers where the two victims were located and a short time later Williams heard several gunshots.
7. Henry Williams told the police that the man who robbed him at gunpoint, who then went into the bleachers where the murders occurred, was Anthony Porter.
8. When initially interviewed by the police, William Taylor stated that he was in the swimming pool at the time of the shooting in the bleachers and that he heard the shots. He did not identify anyone as the shooter.
9. Later the night of the murders, Taylor admitted to the police that he had seen the man who had shot the two victims in the bleachers and that he knew the man to be Anthony Porter. Mr. Taylor told the police that he did not want to identify Porter in his initial interview because he was afraid of Anthony Porter and his brothers.
10. The investigating officers contacted the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office Felony Review Division, and Assistant State’s Attorney David Kerstein responded to Area 1 to participate in additional interviews of Henry Williams and William Taylor.
11. Assistant State’s Attorney Kerstein accompanied Henry Williams, William Taylor and investigators from the Chicago Police Department to the scene of the shooting at Washington Park.
12. While in the presence of Assistant State’s Attorney Kerstein, Henry Williams repeated that Anthony Porter robbed him at gunpoint before moving into the bleachers where the murders occurred minutes later. William Taylor explained that the man he knew to be Anthony Porter shot the two victims in the bleachers of Washington Park.
13. While at the park with Williams and Taylor, Assistant State’s Attorney Kerstein and the police detectives located two additional witnesses, Kenneth Edwards and Michael Woodfork, who were in the swimming pool area at the time of the shooting.
14. Kenneth Edwards told the police and Assistant State’s Attorney Kerstein that he had been in the pool area at the time of the shooting with Michael Woodfork, Mark Senior and Eugene Beckwith.
15. Kenneth Edwards identified Anthony Porter, an individual he knew from the neighborhood, as the man who shot the two victims in the bleachers. Neither Michael Woodfork nor Eugene Beckwith made an identification of the shooter at that time. Mark Senior was not located and interviewed by the detectives.
16. Assistant State’s Attorney Kerstein subsequently approved an arrest warrant for Anthony Porter for the murders of Jerry Hillard and Marilyn Green.
17. At the time of the murders of Hillard and Green, Porter was on parole for a robbery he had pleaded guilty to which occurred in the same area of the bleachers adjacent to the swimming pool of Washington Park. .
18. On August 17, 1982 Anthony Porter surrendered to members of the Chicago Police Department. Porter made a statement claiming to have been with several friends, Luke, Tobar and Tyrone Horton at the time of the murders.
19. Members of the Chicago Police Department interviewed Kenneth Doyle on August 17, 1982, who told the police he was with Anthony Porter until 10:00-11:00 p.m., the night of the shooting of Green and Hillard.
20. On August 18, 1982 William Taylor identified Anthony Porter in a line-up as the person he had seen shoot Hillard and Green in the bleachers of the swimming pool area of Washington Park on August 15, 1982.
21. On September 9, 1982 Anthony Porter was arraigned on an Indictment charging him with the murders of Jerry Hillard and Marilyn Green and the Armed Robbery of Henry Williams as well as other lesser charges. The cases were assigned to Judge Robert Skoldowski.
23. On September 7, 1983 Porter was found guilty by a jury of the murders of Jerry Hillard and Marilyn Green, Unlawful Use of Weapons, Unlawful Restraint and the Armed Robbery of Williams.
25. On September 21, 1983 Anthony Porter was sentenced to death by Judge Skolowski.
26. Porter was sentenced to thirty (30) years in the Illinois Department of Corrections for the Armed Robbery of Henry Williams and to a lesser term in the IDOC for other offenses.
27. On April 24, 1987 attorney Kenneth Flaxman filed a Post Conviction Petition on behalf of Anthony Porter wherein he contended that Alstory Simon was a suspect in the murders of Hillard and Green.
28. On May 8, 1987 Inez Jackson Simon, Alstory Simon’s wife, provided an oral statement to Willis Ridley, an investigator working for Porter, denying any knowledge of who killed Hillard and Green and acknowledging that she and her husband, Alstory Simon, were at the park earlier in the evening with Hillard and Green. (The Investigative Report of Willis Ridley is attached as Exhibit 7).
29. On August 26, 1998 William Taylor provided an affidavit to Appolin Beaudouin, an investigator working for Porter. In this statement Taylor made no mention of having lied at the Porter trial when he testified that Porter killed Hillard and Green. (A copy of the statement is attached as Exhibit 8 ).
30. In late 1998 Northwestern University Journalism Professor David Protess, Private Investigator Paul Ciolino and several journalism students began to investigate the case against Anthony Porter with the goal of establishing that Porter was innocent of the murders of Hillard and Green.
31. It has been widely acclaimed that this team from Northwestern was responsible for developing evidence which conclusively proved the innocence of Anthony Porter as well as the guilt of Alstory Simon for the murders of Hillard and Green.
32. On December 11, 1998 Ciolino obtained a written statement from William Taylor (attached as Exhibit 9) wherein Taylor claimed that he did not observe Porter actually fire the gun which killed Hillard and Green. Taylor provided a similar statement to Professor Protess on December 14, 1998 (a copy of the statement is attached as Exhibit 10).
36. That same day Ciolino arranged for attorney Jack Rimland to represent Simon pro-bono.
37. On February 5, 1999 Porter was released from custody.
38. On February 6, 1999 Simon was charged with the First Degree Murders of Hillard and Green.
39. No physical evidence has ever existed which connected Alstory Simon to the murders of Hillard and Green.
42. On February 11, 1999 Mark Senior testified before the Grand Jury that he saw Porter, who he knew from the neighborhood, in the bleachers where the murders occurred immediately before the shooting of Hillard and Green. (A transcript of Senior’s Grand Jury testimony is attached as Exhibit 17,see pages 4 and 8).
43. On February 17, 1999 Kenneth Edwards testified before the Grand Jury that he also saw Porter in the bleachers where the murders occurred immediately before the shooting of Hillard and Green and that he saw Porter shoot the victims. ( A copy of Edward’s Grand Jury testimony is attached as Exhibit 18, pages 5, 6, 9 and 15).
45. On February 17, 1999 Paul Ciolino testified before the Grand Jury. (The transcript of his testimony is attached as Exhibit 20).
46. On February 22, 1999 Professor Protess and students Thomas McCann, Shawn Armburst, Syandene Rhodes-Pitts and Cara Rubinsky testified before the Grand Jury (The transcripts of their testimony of Protess is attached as Exhibit 21; McCann is attached as Exhibit 22; Armburst is attached as Exhibit 23; Rhodes-Pitts is attached as Exhibit 24; and Rubinsky is attached as Exhibit 25).
48. On September 7, 1999 Simon plead guilty to the murder of Green and the voluntary manslaughter of Hillard. He was sentenced to concurrent sentences of thirty-seven (37) years for murder and fifteen years (15) for voluntary manslaughter. (A copy of the transcript of proceedings is attached as Exhibit 27).
49. On July 3, 2001 Simon filed a pro-se post conviction relief petition which was summarily dismissed by the Honorable Judge Evelyn Clay without a hearing or appointment of counsel for the petitioner, Alstory Simon.
50. Simon remains incarcerated in the Danville Correctional Center.
5. After first talking to Walter Jackson, Protess then sent the journalism students to see Walter Jackson with a statement for him to sign. Jackson signed the statement (See Exhibit 11) wherein Jackson claimed that Simon had admitted to him that he shot Hillard and Green.
9. It was after Inez Jackson Simon was first contacted by Walter Jackson, who asked her to help free Porter, that Protess, Ciolino and several of the students went to visit Inez on January 29, 1999.
10. On January 29, 1999 Inez Jackson Simon claimed both in a written statement and on video tape that she was in Washington Park with Hillard, Green and her husband, Alstory Simon, drinking in the bleachers. She claimed that Simon then fired two shots and both Hillard and Green immediately slumped over on the bleachers. Inez claimed that Simon immediately grabbed her by the arm and pulled her out of the park. After first stopping for a banana split at a local ice cream shop Inez claimed that they returned to their apartment. Inez is claiming that after observing a violent double homicide involving her best friend, which occurred after 1:00 a.m., she and the killer went out for ice cream. Inez admits that she never told anyone that she had witnessed these murders for seventeen (17) years.
11. Inez Jackson Simon now admits that this entire story was false.
12. On November 10, 2005 Inez Jackson Simon provided both a signed affidavit (attached as Exhibit 29) and a video taped statement to Private Investigators James Delorto and John Mazzola . On November 11, 2005 she was asked additional follow-up questions on video-tape by the same investigators (the video taped statements of November 10th and 11th 2005 are attached as Exhibit 30).
13. Inez Jackson Simon now admits that she was not present in Washington Park when Hillard and Green were killed. She has no knowledge of who killed the victims and no knowledge as to the involvement of Alstory Simon.
14. Inez Jackson Simon has admitted that the reason she gave the false statement to Protess and Ciolino was in an effort to help her nephew, Walter Jackson, and son, Sonny Jackson, get out of jail. She admits that Walter Jackson called her and told her that if she helped Protess free Porter that Protess was going to help him get out of jail. Inez also received a letter from her son, Sonny Jackson, who was also incarcerated, telling her that it would help him if she helped get Porter out of jail by claiming that Alstory Simon killed Hillard and Green.
15. Inez also states in her video-taped statements (See Exhibit 30) that Protess promised her money if she helped him free Porter. She states that Protess repeatedly told her that she would get a big check.
Attorney Martin Abrams called her sister and agreed to represent Inez at no cost.
That she and her sister, Rita Carlisle met in the office of Martin Abrams along with Protess and Ciolino. She was told in this meeting that if she testified to anything different than what was contained in her statement to Protess and Ciolino that she could go to jail.
The next time she traveled to Chicago a limousine was sent to pick her up and take her to a downtown Chicago hotel. She does not know who paid for the hotel or the food and alcohol all of which were provided to her at no charge.
During a trip to Chicago she and her attorney, Martin Abrams met with Protess at which time Abrams told Protess that Inez could not accept less than $10,000 for her book rights. Inez stated that Protess told her that he would get in touch with her when he got ready to write the book. She has never heard from him in this regard.
In the presence of Protess, Inez states that Abrams told her that when Anthony Porter wins his civil case that Porter would take care of her by giving her at least $500,000 out of the millions he would collect. She has never received any money from Porter or from anyone on his behalf.
Her mother, Inez, has serious alcohol and drug problems.
She first met David Protess when he drove her and her mother to Chicago where they were lodged in a hotel. Large amounts of alcohol were provided to her mother.
Her mother told her that she was helping to free Anthony Porter because Professor Protess was going to help get Walter Jackson out of jail.
Inez told her that Protess had promised her she would receive money off book rights.
Walter Jackson called her at home looking for Inez and Walter told Tiffany that Anthony Porter had kept him from being “shanked” (stabbed) in prison and that he appreciated what Porter had done for him and that he was going to look out for Porter.
She has a close relationship with her mother who never told her that she had been present when Hillard and Green were killed.
Simon and at no time did Inez ever tell her that she had been present in Washington Park when Hillard and Green were killed.
Walter Jackson called her home and told her that Anthony Porter had saved his life and now he was going to save Porter’s. Walter Jackson told her the reason he had talked to Professor Protess was because Porter had saved his life and he was going to help save Porter.
Inez told her that she had been promised cash and money from book and movie deals by David Protess.
Protess arranged for Inez to be represented by attorney Martin Abrams.
She was present when Abrams told Inez that if she did not continue to say the things contained in her statement to Protess that she could go to jail.
She had a phone conversation with Martin Abrams after Inez Jackson Simon’s daughter, Tiffany Jackson, had made a public statement that she did not believe that Alstory Simon had killed Hillard and Green.
Mr. Abrams told Rita that Tiffany should keep her mouth shut.
19. Ciolino prepared a statement (see Exhibit10) which purported to be a recantation of the testimony Taylor provided in the trial of Anthony Porter. In this statement Taylor states that on the night of the murders of Hillard and Green that he “did not see Porter with a gun or shoot anyone”.
23. Next Professor Protess went to talk to Taylor on December 14, 1998. Protess admits that this interview took several hours during which Taylor was drinking wine. (See pages 36 and 45 of the Grand Jury testimony of Protess attached as Exhibit 21). Protess admits that Taylor told him that the man who ran past him immediately after the murders in the bleachers looked like Anthony Porter and that he thought it was Anthony Porter. (See page 39 of Protess Grand Jury testimony attached as Exhibit 21). As was the case with the written statement prepared by Ciolino on December 11, 1998, this important observation by Taylor does not appear in Taylor’s written statement obtained by Protess on December 14, 1998.
He was frightened of Porter because Porter knew where he lived with his 95 year old grandmother.
He admitted that the reason he signed the statement at the request of Ciolino on December 11, 1998 was because he wanted to get Ciolino to leave his house and that he was tired of people hounding him for years to change his identification. (Pg. 77 of Exhibit 35).
9. Within twenty-four (24) hours of Simon providing Ciolino with a video-taped statement admitting to having killed Hillard and Green, attorney Jack Rimland was hired by Paul Ciolino to represent Simon.
10. On February 4, 1999 Rimland stated publicly that “obviously if he (Simon) is charged, he’s looking at the death penalty”. (See Chicago Tribune article from February 4, 1999 attached as Exhibit 42).
12. On information and belief Rimland and Ciolino had a close personal and professional relationship which included Rimland representing Ciolino on a criminal charge of Assault filed in case #00-5-005307 in the Fifth District Circuit Court of Cook County.
14. In 1999 Jack Rimland was the President of the Illinois Attorneys for Criminal Justice. On May 7, 1999, while purporting to be representing Alstory Simon, he presented awards to David Protess, Paul Ciolino and five (5) students for their actions in freeing Anthony Porter and developing evidence against his client. Rimland, in presenting these awards stated: “David Protess and his students utilized their talents as investigative journalists and successfully uncovered crucial evidence resulting in the freeing of Anthony Porter”. (See May 21, 1999 Inside Medill News attached as Exhibit 43).
15. On November 29, 2005 Rev. Robert Braun executed an affidavit (attached as Exhibit 44) where he makes the following statements of fact regarding Alstory Simon and attorney, Jack Rimland.
Simon told him after his arrest that he was innocent of the murders of Hillard and Green but that he was going to plead guilty because he had made a deal with the investigator working for the professor from Northwestern.
Simon told him that the investigator (Ciolino) had offered him a lot of money from a movie and book deal if he plead guilty and that he had been promised that the professor would get him out of jail after two years.
Simon told him that his attorney, Jack Rimland, told him that he should go along with the deal and plead guilty and that Rimland told him that it did not make any difference if he didn’t commit the murders.
16. Rev. Braun states in his affidavit (Exhibit 44) that he called Rimland personally and told Rimland he thought it was wrong for Simon to plead guilty to a crime he did not commit. Rimland told him that it did not make any difference if Simon did not commit the murders because it he went to trial he would get convicted and then would get the death penalty.
Rev. Braun asked Rimland about whether Simon had a deal with Ciolino and Protess and would only do two (2) years in jail. Rimland told him that he could trust both Protess and Ciolino and that they were friends of his and that he did a lot of work with them.
Rimland also told Braun that he did not have a conflict of interest in representing Simon despite his relationship with Protess and Ciolino.
1. I was at Washington Park on August 15, 1982, the day of the Bud Billiken day parade, with several people, including my wife Inez Jackson, and Jerry Hillard and Marilyn Green.
2. Inez got drunk, and we left early in the evening to check on the kids. When we left the park Hillard and Green were alive. We stopped for some ice cream and went home.
3. The next day Chicago police officers came to our place at 5323 S. Federal in the projects, and showed us pictures of Jerry and Marilyn. Inez took the police to Marilyn’s parents place.
4. One night, a week or two after the murders, gang bangers fired gunshots into our apartment and I told Inez that we had to leave. We moved to Roosevelt and Racine and stayed with a friend of mine for a couple of months, and then moved to Milwaukee around the end of 1982 or beginning of 1983.
5. I lived and worked in Milwaukee for 17 years until 1999. I never had any trouble with the law except for one charge of possession of cocaine in the 1990's and a couple of arrests for problems I had with Inez.
11. Ciolino then made me watch a videotape of a black male person stating that he was a witness to the murders and that he actually saw me shoot the two victims. At this point I became angry, repeated that I knew nothing about the murders, told them that the witness in the videotape was a liar, and again told the men to leave my house.
12. They refused to leave. They showed me a statement from Inez’s nephew, Walter Jackson, stating that I told him on the day of the murders that I killed the victims. I continued to tell the men that I didn’t kill anybody, that this was all crazy, and that they should leave right then.
13. During this whole time, Ciolino kept telling me that they had all the evidence they needed to convict me, that I was going to go down for these murders and end up on death row, and there was nothing I could do about it. After showing me the videotape and the affidavits, Ciolino said I want you to see something, and they tuned the TV to a station that was doing a story about the murders. The TV story presented the same professor who had previously come to my house with the girls, saying Anthony Porter was innocent, and the story also included a video tape of Inez saying that she saw me shoot the victims. Ciolino also showed me a signed statement where Inez said she saw me shoot Jerry Hillard and Marilyn Green.
14. After seeing this story on TV, I was no longer just angry. I was scared to death. For the first time I believed that I was actually going to be charged with committing the murders. One of the men then turned the TV off and Ciolino said that he was going to level with me. He said that the men were not “police” investigators”, but actually, were “private” investigators who worked for the professor who they had just shown me on television. He said they had all the evidence they needed to put me on death row, and that the Chicago police were on their way to arrest me right then. He said that once the police get to my house there would be nothing more he could do for me, and this was my one and only chance to help myself by giving a statement saying that I shot the two victims in self-defense.
15. Ciolino said that he and the professor wanted to free Anthony Porter, that when he got out, millions of dollars were going to be made on movies and book deals, that I would be entitled to a lot of the money, and that they were not concerned with hurting me. He convinced me that he was actually trying to help me by giving me a way out before the police got to my house to arrest me. He said that if I gave a statement saying I did the crimes in self-defense, that he would get me a free lawyer, that the professor could make it so that I only had to serve a short time in prison, and that when I got out, I’d be taken care of financially, and would not have to work again. I told Ciolino that this was all crazy, that I did not kill anyone, and that I could not believe they were doing this. At one point, Ciolino put his hand on his gun and said that we could do this the easy way, or we could do it the hard way, but either way, I was going to give a statement. I even attempted to get to the phone to call the Milwaukee police, at which time the other investigator, who was also armed, stood in front of the phone and blocked me from getting to it. Ciolino told me that people have accidents in their homes all the time, and that we could even have an accident right now.
16. By this time, I was convinced that if I did not say I shot the two victims in self-defense, that they had enough evidence to convict me of murder and that I would end up on death row. Ciolino asked me if I could read, and when I said that I could, he told me to read what was in the papers he had. He wrote on a pad of paper and said that we would practice my statement until I memorized it well enough to say on videotape. I then read the affidavits Ciolino gave me, and he told me to just say that I only shot Jerry because I thought he was going for a weapon, and that Marilyn getting shot was just an accident because she just got in the way. Ciolino emphasized to me that it was important for me to say when I shot them that I was in fear for my life and that shooting Marilyn was just an accident. He said that he would make sure that it was a self defense case.
17. After we practiced the statement several times, Ciolino had me say the statement on the videotape. I had the papers he showed me next to me when I was giving the statement so I could remind myself of things if I forgot what he wanted me to say. At some point, Ciolino made a phone call and told me that attorney Jack Rimland would be representing me. He assured me that, just as he was doing with Anthony Porter, Professor Protess would be able to pull the strings necessary to have me released from prison after a short time.
18. At various times, attorney Rimland also told me I could face the death penalty, that the prosecution had a strong case against me, and that I needed to make a deal so that I could avoid death row or life in prison. He never told me that the person in Ciolino’s videotape was an actor, that several people had identified Anthony Porter as either the shooter or being at the scene of the crimes when they occurred, that Porter had denied being at the park that night, that Inez Jackson’s statement about me was obviously untrue, or that the tactics Ciolino used to get me to make a statement were illegal.
19. Rimland never told me that I had a right to file a motion in court for a judge to determine whether the statement I gave to Ciolino was admissible against me in light of the tactics used by Ciolino. In short, he never told me that I had any sensible alternative other than to plead guilty and to take the deal the prosecution was offering. Rimland also never told me that he shared Protess and Ciolino were not going to take steps to have me released from prison, and that I was not going to receive any money. As a result, I began my own efforts to secure my freedom by filing a pro-se post-conviction petition. In preparing my pro-se post-conviction petition, I did not have access to the materials and witnesses necessary to adequately set forth all of the facts and circumstances involved in the denial of my constitutional rights.
23. I had no involvement in the murders of Jerry Hillard and Marilyn Green. I only gave the statement to Ciolino because he had convinced me that if I did not say that I killed these people in self-defense I was gong to death row and there was nothing I could do about it. He also convinced me that if I did say I killed them in self-defense I would serve just a couple of years in prison and that I would benefit from movie and book deals when Protess got me released.
Petitioner’s rights under the Constitutions of the United States and the State of Illinois were substantially violated during the pendency of this case. Newly discovered evidence has revealed that Petitioner was denied (1) his due process rights and (2) his right to effective assistance of counsel. This newly discovered evidence was neither available to Petitioner immediately after his guilty plea or during his first Post-Conviction Petition.
Further, Petitioner was unable to gather this newly discovered evidence until recently due to his current incarceration. This newly discovered evidence only came to light recently during a civil lawsuit filed by the original suspect, Anthony Porter.
Accordingly, the matters raised in this Post-Conviction Petition could not have been raised in the previous petition because the supporting facts were unknown to Petitioner. See People v. Flores, 153 Ill. 2d 264, 274, 606 N.E.2d 1078, 1083 (1993). Here, the newly discovered evidence supporting either of these constitutional violations requires this Court to grant Petitioner’s Post-Conviction Petition and conduct an evidentiary hearing concerning the violation of Petitioner’s constitutional rights.
Actual innocence based solely on newly discovered evidence may be raised in a post-conviction petition as a violation of a defendant’s due process rights. However, the supporting evidence must be new, material, noncumulative, and so conclusive that it would probably change the result on retrial. People v. Johnson, 205 Ill. 2d 381, 392, 793 N.E.2d 591, 598-99 (2002).
Here, the newly discovered evidence establishes that the factual basis upon which Petitioner pleaded guilty and was convicted was fabricated using threats, promises, and coercion, and has since been recanted in its entirety.
As such, no credible evidence remains inculpating Petitioner in the murders.
The only evidence implicating Petitioner, other than his coerced confession, was the statements of Walter Jackson and Inez Jackson. However, the newly discovered evidence establishes that these statements were obtained through promises of money and of getting Walter out of prison. These statements have since been recanted in toto.
falsely telling Petitioner that he would be taken care of financially if he agreed to give a statement that he shot the victims in self-defense.
Accordingly, when the evidence used to coerce Petitioner’s confession is recanted, the confession itself becomes unreliable, leaving absolutely no evidence, either witnesses or physical evidence, that Petitioner committed the murders.
Further, it is well settled that a coerced guilty plea deprives a defendant of liberty without due process of law.
As such, an allegation that a guilty plea was coerced raises a substantial constitutional issue and clears the way for a collateral attack on the conviction. People v. Crislip, 20 Ill. App. 3d 175, 178, 312 N.E.2d 830, 833 (5th Dist. 1974), citing Machibroada v. United States, 368 U.S. 487, 82 S. Ct. 510 (1962).
Moreover, a coerced guilty plea raises matters outside the record. As such, these claims cannot be adjudicated on the pleadings and record alone, and the petition is entitled to a hearing. See Crislip, 20 Ill.App.3d at 178, 312 N.E.2d at 833, citing People v. Thomas, 38 Ill. 2d 321, 324-25, 231 N.E.2d 436, 437-38 (1967).
Thus, on this basis alone, an evidentiary hearing must be conducted.
Moreover, the newly discovered evidence establishes that Petitioner was coerced by his own attorney to plead guilty to the alleged crimes, even though he was innocent.
The new evidence establishes that Petitioner’s attorney, Jack Rimland, represented Petitioner pro-bono (as promised by Ciolino), previously worked with Ciolino on similar cases, and shared an office with Ciolino.
the police had evidence that Petitioner was involved in a murder in Milwaukee and if he did not agree to plead guilty, he would be prosecuted for that case.
Now, the newly discovered evidence indicates that Petitioner was coerced by attorney Rimland into pleading guilty based on fabricated evidence of his guilt.
counsel guaranteed under the 6th Amendment. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2064 (1984).
Petitioner must establish that the deficient performance resulted in prejudice, which requires a showing that there is reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s performance, the results of the trial would have been different. “Reasonable probability” equates to a probability sufficient to undermine the confidence in the outcome. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694, 104 S. Ct. at 2068; People v. Haynes,192 Ill. 2d 437, 472-73, 737 N.E.2d 169, 189 (2000).
Furthermore, “[t]he Illinois Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized that waiver or procedural default may not preclude an ineffective assistance claim for what trial or appellate counsel allegedly ought to have done in representing a criminal defendant.” People v. Makiel, 358 Ill.App. 3d 102, 105, 830 N.E.2d 731, 737 (1st Dist. 2005).
Besides establishing that attorney Rimland wrongfully coerced Petitioner into pleading, the newly discovered evidence establishes that Rimland also failed to investigate the legitimacy of the evidence against Petitioner, but rather took it at faced value based on his own incompetence or his conflict of interest due to his relationship with Investigator Ciolino and Professor Protess.
Either way, attorney Rimland provided ineffective assistance of counsel in violation of the 6th Amendment.
Attorneys have an obligation to explore all readily available sources of evidence that might benefit their clients. Defense counsel has a professional obligation, both legal and ethical, to explore and investigate a client’s case.
Failure to conduct an investigation and develop a defense has been found to be ineffective assistance. See Makiel, 358 Ill. App. 3d at 107, 830 N.E.2d at 739.
Here, within 6 months of representing Petitioner, attorney Rimland allowed Petitioner to plead guilty when conflicting evidence as to his guilt existed, which in fact was presented to the grand jury.
Clearly, Rimland could not investigate both the evidence implicating and exculpating Petitioner within this 6-month time frame. In fact, Rimland stated that it did not make any difference if Petitioner did not commit the murders because the evidence (which we now know was fabricated) was sufficient to convict him and he would get the death penalty. (See Affidavit of Reverend Braun Exhibit 44).
Moreover, attorney Rimland’s failure to investigate the Petitioner’s case and develop a defense is explained by his close relationship with Ciolino and Investigator Protess. The newly discovered evidence establishes that Rimland and Ciolino share an office, and on May 7, 1999, while purportedly representing Petitioner and before Petitioner pleaded guilty, Rimland presented awards to Protess and Ciolino for their actions in freeing Anthony Porter, and in so doing, gathering evidence against Petitioner.
Clearly, any evidence negating Petitioner’s guilt would question the legitimacy of the evidence gathered against him, and in turn, supporting Porter’s release. As such, Rimland had, at the very least, a conflict of interest based on his relationship with those investigating the case against Petitioner, and at the very worst, a motive to not investigate the inculpatory evidence and quickly coerce Petitioner to plead to the alleged murders in order to preserve the legitimacy of Porter’s release.
Rimland’s actions evidence an absolute absence of objectivity in his representation of Petitioner related to these murders. As such, an evidentiary hearing must be conducted concerning Rimland’s ineffective assistance during his representation of Petitioner.
388-89, 566 N.E.2d 259, 288-89 (1990).
Connolly, Ekl & Williams, P.C.
No wonder the cops and the judges get jaded.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.