Title: People v. Johnson
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 85134
State: Illinois
Issuer: Illinois Supreme Court
Date: May 29, 2002

Docket No. 85134-Agenda 1-January 2002.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Appellee, v. 								MILTON JOHNSON, Appellant.

  
	JUSTICE FITZGERALD delivered the opinion of the court:
	The defendant, Milton Johnson, appeals a Will County circuit
court order dismissing his first amended post-conviction petition
without an evidentiary hearing. Because the defendant was
sentenced to death, his appeal lies directly to this court. See 134
Ill. 2d R. 651(a). We now affirm in part, reverse in part, and
remand for further proceedings.

BACKGROUND
	On July 16, 1983, Patricia Payne and her boyfriend, Anthony
Hackett, drove from their hometown of Emden, Illinois, and spent
the day at Great America Amusement Park in Gurnee, Illinois.
That day, Hackett bought a stuffed doll depicting the popular
Tasmanian Devil character; he placed the receipt for the doll in his
wallet. Around 10 p.m., Payne and Hackett left the park and, on
the way home, they stopped Hackett's car along Interstate 55 in
Will County to sleep. Hackett slept in the front seat; Payne slept
in the back.
	Around 1:30 a.m. on July 17, Payne awoke to tapping on the
passenger-side window followed by gunshots which struck and
killed Hackett. The assailant opened the passenger-side door and
ordered Payne to give him Hackett's wallet and her purse. He then
ordered Payne to crawl from the car and into a pickup truck parked
nearby. The assailant climbed into the truck and drove down the
interstate. While driving, the assailant sexually assaulted Payne;
after exiting the interstate and stopping the truck, he raped her.
The assailant again started to drive, but pulled the truck onto the
shoulder of the road 10 minutes later. The assailant then stabbed
Payne in the chest and dumped her from the truck. Payne was
found on the grassy median an hour later at 5:30 a.m. by a passing
motorist. She had no pulse or blood pressure, and she was rushed
to a Joliet hospital, where doctors performed emergency surgery.
Payne survived.
	Later that morning, Special Agent John Meduga of the Illinois
Department of Law Enforcement (now known as the Illinois State
Police) spoke with Payne. Payne indicated to Meduga that her
assailant was an African American man with no observable facial
hair. Eight days later, Payne looked through approximately 1,500
mugshots and selected 42 photographs of persons with facial
characteristics similar to her assailant, 34 of whom had facial hair.
The record does not reveal whether the defendant's photograph
was chosen by Payne. More than a month later, Payne looked
through 137 mugshots, including one of the defendant, and
selected four photographs of persons with facial hair and facial
characteristics similar to her assailant. Payne did not choose the
defendant's photograph.
	The police investigation into these crimes stalled until Ann
Shoemaker telephoned the Will County sheriff's office in February
1984. Shoemaker described an incident in which a dark pickup
truck had passed her several times while she was driving one night
in July 1983. She and a friend followed the truck and recorded its
licence plate number. On March 6, 1984, she gave this number to
the police, who traced it to a truck owned by Sam Myers, the
defendant's stepfather. After Myers signed a consent form, the
police searched the truck and found Caucasian head hairs similar
to Payne's hair, bloodstains, a steak knife, reddish brown fibers,
and a sales receipt for a Tasmanian Devil stuffed doll. Based on
these items, the police obtained a search warrant for Myers'
residence, where the defendant lived. The police seized three .357
Magnum cartridges from a dresser in Myers' bedroom.
	Also on March 6, 1984, Payne looked at five mugshots. The
defendant's photograph was the only one among the five which
Payne had seen on September 6, 1983. After several minutes,
Payne tentatively identified the defendant as her assailant. On
March 9, Payne viewed a six-person lineup. After each person in
the lineup repeated commands that the assailant had given Payne
on the night of her ordeal, Payne unmistakably identified the
defendant as her assailant.
	Initially, the Will County public defender was appointed to
represent the defendant. On June 1, 1984, the day before the
scheduled trial date, William Swano entered his appearance as the
defendant's retained attorney. The trial court granted Swano three
continuances, totaling 55 days, and set the trial date for July 26,
1984. The defendant moved for a change of venue, citing negative
pretrial publicity in Will County, and the trial court transferred the
case to Iroquois County. Following a jury trial, the defendant was
convicted of the first degree murder of Hackett, as well as the
aggravated kidnapping, deviate sexual assault, rape, and attempted
murder of Payne. The defendant waived his right to a sentencing
jury, and the trial court found the defendant eligible for the death
penalty. The trial court further found no mitigating circumstances
sufficient to preclude the death penalty and sentenced the
defendant to death for Hackett's murder and to concurrent terms
of 40 years' imprisonment for deviate sexual assault, rape, and
attempted murder. On direct appeal, this court affirmed the
defendant's convictions and sentences. See People v. Johnson, 114 Ill. 2d 170 (1986).
	The defendant then filed a pro se post-conviction petition in
the Will County circuit court, alleging that he received ineffective
assistance of counsel on direct appeal and in post-conviction
proceedings. The trial court granted the State's motion to dismiss
the petition. On appeal, we affirmed in part, reversed in part, and
remanded. We held that the trial court properly dismissed the
defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel,
but that the trial court improperly dismissed the defendant's claim
relating to his post-conviction attorney's performance. See People
v. Johnson, 154 Ill. 2d 227 (1993).
	On remand, the defendant filed a nine-count first amended
post-conviction petition, which is the subject of this appeal. The
State filed a motion dismiss, and, in a written order, the trial court
dismissed the defendant's amended petition without an evidentiary
hearing. This appeal followed.

ANALYSIS
	On appeal, the defendant has shuffled and refashioned the
claims raised in his amended petition. He essentially raises seven
issues: (1) whether his pending execution is unconstitutional
because the State possesses forensic evidence which would help
establish his innocence through DNA testing; (2) whether he was
denied due process because the trial court refused to grant Swano
sufficient time to prepare the defendant's case for trial and
sentencing; (3) whether he was denied effective assistance of trial
counsel because of several alleged shortcomings by Swano before
trial, during trial and sentencing, and after trial; (4) whether he was
denied effective assistance of trial counsel because of several
alleged shortcomings by the public defender; (5) whether he was
denied effective assistance of appellate counsel because appellate
counsel failed to raise several issues on his direct appeal; (6)
whether he was denied due process by the State's concealment of
a hypnotic interview session with Payne; and (7) whether he was
denied due process because the trial court refused to grant
discovery on his post-conviction claims.
	The Illinois Post-Conviction Hearing Act provides a
procedural mechanism through which a criminal defendant can
assert "that in the proceedings which resulted in his or her
conviction there was a substantial denial of his or her rights under
the Constitution of the United States or of the State of Illinois or
both." 725 ILCS 5/122-1 (West 1998); see People v. Coleman,
183 Ill. 2d 366, 378-79 (1998). In a post-conviction proceeding,
the trial court does not redetermine a defendant's innocence or
guilt, but instead examines constitutional issues which escaped
earlier review. See People v. Evans, 186 Ill. 2d 83, 89 (1999). A
post-conviction petition is a collateral attack upon a prior
conviction and sentence, not a substitute for or an addendum to a
direct appeal. People v. West, 187 Ill. 2d 418, 425 (1999).
Consequently, any issues which were decided on direct appeal are
barred by the doctrine of res judicata; any issues which could have
been raised on direct appeal are forfeited. West, 187 Ill. 2d  at 425.
	Once a capital defendant files a post-conviction petition, the
trial court examines the petition and appoints an attorney for the
defendant, if necessary. 725 ILCS 5/122-2.1(a)(1) (West 1998).
The State then must answer or move to dismiss the petition. 725
ILCS 5/122-5 (West 1998). If the State files a motion to dismiss,
the trial court must rule on the legal sufficiency of the defendant's
allegations, taking all well-pleaded facts as true. People v. Ward,
187 Ill. 2d 249, 255 (1999). A defendant is not entitled to an
evidentiary hearing unless the allegations of the petition, supported
by the trial record and any accompanying affidavits, make a
substantial showing of a constitutional violation. People v. Enis,
194 Ill. 2d 361, 376 (2000). Because a trial court's ruling on the
sufficiency of the defendant's allegations is a legal determination,
our review is de novo. Coleman, 183 Ill. 2d  at 388-89.
	Initially, we note that the trial court correctly dismissed
several of the defendant's claims.
	The defendant contends that his petition makes a substantial
showing his due process rights were violated because the trial
court refused to grant Swano sufficient time to prepare for trial and
sentencing. This issue could have been raised on direct appeal and
is forfeited.
	The defendant also contends that his petition made a
substantial showing that he received ineffective assistance of
counsel from the public defender. The defendant charges that
assistant public defenders failed to preserve his right to substitute
trial judges and failed to file a continuance motion. These issues
could have been raised on direct appeal and are forfeited. The
defendant further charges that assistant public defenders failed to
investigate trial and mitigation evidence and failed to prepare for
trial and sentencing. These claims, states the defendant, are
revealed by the record. Accordingly, they also could have been
raised on direct appeal and are forfeited.
	The defendant further contends that his petition made a
substantial showing his due process rights were violated because
the State failed to notify Swano that Payne had undergone
hypnosis. The defendant cites People v. Gibson, 117 Ill. App. 3d
270, 278 (1983), in which the appellate court held that the State
must provide notice to the defense if it intends to introduce
testimony of a previously hypnotized witness.
	Here, the State notes that it informed the public defenders
about Payne's hypnosis session. Assistant public defenders even
informed the trial court that they discussed filing a motion to
suppress Payne's identification. Though, in answers to the
defendant's post-conviction interrogatories, Swano asserted, "I
received no information regarding hypnosis of the victim Patricia
Payne," Swano also stated, "To my knowledge, [the public
defenders] turned over everything they had" when he entered his
appearance. The State also correctly notes that Payne's hypnosis
session focused only on the identification of her assailant's truck,
not on the identification of her assailant. At trial, the State did not
inquire into her identification of the truck, and Payne's testimony
was admissible. See People v. Zayas, 131 Ill. 2d 284, 295 (1989)
("a witness' hypnotically induced testimony *** is not admissible
in Illinois courts" (emphasis added)). The defendant failed to make
a substantial showing his due process rights were violated, and the
trial court correctly dismissed this claim.
	We now turn to the defendant's remaining claims.

DNA Testing
	The defendant contends that his pending execution is
unconstitutional because the State possesses forensic evidence
which would establish his innocence. He asserts that DNA testing
of a Vitullo rape kit completed at the hospital where Payne was
treated would cast doubt on whether he raped Payne and,
accordingly, whether he murdered Hackett.
	In his petition, the defendant alleged that a vaginal swab taken
during Payne's July 17, 1983, hospital examination was delivered
to and retained by the State Police Crime Lab; this swab
purportedly was never tested. The defendant claimed,
		"[This swab] will have been maintained by the lab or
evidence section in an acceptably preserved and
uncontaminated state for DNA testing. Said swab would
never be stored in a manner that would allow it to come
into contact with foreign DNA. The swab has been
subject to a chain of custody sufficient to establish that is
has not been substituted, tampered with, replaced, or
altered in any material respect."
The defendant further alleged that the only direct evidence in this
case was Payne's identification testimony; thus, the central issue
in this case was identification. The defendant then cited section
116-3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (725 ILCS
5/116-3 (West 1998)), which, he claimed, provides for such
testing upon the allegations in his amended petition.
	The defendant filed an appendix of exhibits supporting his
petition, which included a form dated July 17, 1983, and entitled
"AUTHORIZATION FOR RELEASE OF INFORMATION AND
EVIDENCE TO LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY," in which
Payne authorized St. Joseph Hospital in Joliet, Illinois, to release
"One sealed evidence kit," "Medical records,"
Slides/Smears/Specimens," and "Sealed clothing bag(s)" to
Special Agent Meduga. The appendix also contained a form
signed by Illinois Department of Law Enforcement crime scene
technician Melvin Trojanowski entitled "EVIDENCE RECEIPT,"
which lists a "Vitullo Evidence Kit, marked Patricia Earl Payne,
Received from S/A John Meduga" as agency exhibit 37. At trial,
the State stipulated that defense exhibit 14 was the kit, which was
later admitted into evidence. On the record before us, however, we
cannot discern the condition of the Vitullo kit, and we do not
know whether the kit contains any testable genetic material.
	A claim of actual innocence based on newly discovered
evidence may be raised in a post-conviction petition. See People
v. Washington, 171 Ill. 2d 475, 489 (1996); see also People v. Bull,
185 Ill. 2d 179, 212 (1998) ("An important goal of the criminal
justice process is the protection of the innocent accused against an
erroneous conviction"). The supporting evidence must be new,
material, noncumulative, and so conclusive that it would probably
change the result on retrial. See People v. Molstad, 101 Ill. 2d 128,
134 (1984), quoting People v. Baker, 16 Ill. 2d 364, 374 (1959).
The defendant has not provided evidence of his actual innocence,
instead asserting that DNA testing would provide such evidence.
Accordingly, the defendant raises the issue of whether DNA
testing can be granted as post-conviction relief when it was
unavailable at the time of his trial. The defendant contends that
under either the fourteenth amendment of the United States
Constitution or section 116-3, he may  obtain the Vitullo kit for
testing. We need not reach the constitutional issue, however,
because section 116-3 provides an answer to the defendant's
request. See People v. Dunn, 306 Ill. App. 3d 75, 80 (1999).
	Although section 116-3 was not in effect at the time the
defendant filed his amended petition, it was in effect when the trial
court entered its order. Section 116-3 provides:
			"(a) A defendant may make a motion before the trial
court that entered the judgment of conviction in his or her
case for the performance of fingerprint or forensic DNA
testing on evidence that was secured in relation to the trial
which resulted in his or her conviction, but which was not
subject to the testing which is now requested because the
technology for the testing was not available at the time of
trial. Reasonable notice of the motion shall be served
upon the State.
			(b) The defendant must present a prima facie case that:
				(1) identity was the issue in the trial which resulted
in his or her conviction; and
				(2) the evidence to be tested has been subject to a
chain of custody sufficient to establish that it has not
been substituted, tampered with, replaced, or altered in
any material aspect.
			(c) The trial court shall allow the testing under
reasonable conditions designed to protect the State's
interests in the integrity of the evidence and the testing
process upon a determination that:
				(1) the result of the testing has the scientific
potential to produce new, noncumulative evidence
materially relevant to the defendant's assertion of actual
innocence;
				(2) the testing requested employs a scientific method
generally accepted within the relevant scientific
community." 725 ILCS 5/116-3 (West 1998).
	Thus, in order to present a prima facie case for forensic
testing, the defendant must show that identity was the central issue
at trial and that the evidence to be tested was subject to a 
sufficiently secure chain of custody. The trial court then must
determine whether this testing will potentially produce new,
noncumulative evidence that is materially relevant to the
defendant's actual-innocence claim.
	We note that the State, by arguing before this court that the
defendant is not entitled to DNA testing of the Vitullo kit under
section 116-3, is attempting to argue an issue it conceded before
the trial court. In a February 16, 1996, hearing on the defendant's
motions to produce the Vitullo kit and to obtain expert witness
funds, the assistant State's Attorney stated that the Vitullo kit was
never tested at the time of the defendant's trial because the State
never found any evidence to test. The assistant State's Attorney
added, "If seminal fluid was there, we would be more than happy
to say go ahead and test it because we are confident that it would
prove that Mr. Johnson was the donor." In the December 3, 1997,
hearing on the State's motion to dismiss the defendant's petition,
the assistant State's Attorney, conceding that DNA testing was not
available to the defendant at the time of his 1984 trial, advised the
trial court:
		"[I]f we want to set part of this case over till the 1st of the
year in order for the State to do D.N.A. testing, I have no
objection to that part of it. I would ask that we do it that
way. We are close enough to the 1st of the year. I can't
see paying experts to do that when the State Police Crime
Lab will do it for free January 1st."
	Even if the State did not waive its current argument, we
conclude that the defendant's petition made a prima facie case for
DNA testing. The defendant has shown that identity was the
central issue at trial. The defendant also has shown that the Vitullo
kit was subject to a sufficiently secure chain of custody. Though
the State contends that the defendant has presented no evidence of
the kit's location since his 1984 trial, such evidence would not be
available to the defendant. The Vitullo kit, as a piece of real
evidence admitted at trial, would have remained in the custody of
the circuit court clerk after the defendant's conviction.
	The State further contends that a DNA test on the Vitullo kit
does not have the potential to produce materially relevant
evidence. We recently construed the term "materially relevant" in
People v. Savory, 197 Ill. 2d 203 (2001). In Savory, the defendant
was convicted of two murders in 1977. The appellate court held
that the defendant's confession was inadmissible, reversed the
convictions, and remanded for a new trial. At the defendant's
second trial, the State presented significant evidence of the
defendant's guilt, including a pair of the defendant's pants with a
bloodstain whose type matched that of one of the victims. The
defendant was again convicted of these murders in 1981. The
appellate court affirmed the convictions. The defendant's post-conviction and habeas corpus petitions were denied, and in 1998,
the defendant filed a motion for forensic testing under section
116-3. The defendant alleged that he did not commit the murders
and that DNA testing would reveal the blood on his pants did not
match that of one of the victims. The trial court denied this
motion, concluding that favorable test results would not materially
advance the defendant's actual-innocence claim. Even if the blood
on the defendant's pants did not belong to the victim, the State's
case would not be affected. The appellate court affirmed on
different grounds, holding that the remedy under section 116-3 is
available only in cases where a favorable test result would, by
itself, completely vindicate the defendant.
	After reviewing the language of section 116-3, we rejected
the appellate court's restrictive reading of the term "materially
relevant." Savory, 197 Ill. 2d  at 213. Instead, we held that evidence
which is "materially relevant" to a defendant's actual-innocence
claim need not, standing alone, exonerate the defendant; rather, it
must tend to "significantly advance" his claim of actual innocence.
Savory, 197 Ill. 2d  at 213. We stated, "if the legislature had
intended to limit application of the statute to the instances in
which a test result favorable to the defendant would, standing
alone, lead to his complete vindication, it would have chosen a
different way of expressing the statutory requirements." Savory,
197 Ill. 2d  at 213; accord People v. Hockenberry, 316 Ill. App. 3d
752, 758-59 (2000) ("the application of the statute is not limited
to those situations where additional scientific testing would result
in total vindication"); People v. Rokita, 316 Ill. App. 3d 292, 301-02 (2000) ("the plain and unambiguous language [of section
116-3] evinces no legislative intent to limit the use of scientific
testing only to situations where the testing will result in total
vindication or has the potential to exonerate the defendant").
	We held that the determination of whether the forensic
evidence is "materially relevant" to the defendant's actual-innocence claim requires an evaluation of the evidence introduced
at trial, as well as the evidence the defendant seeks to test. Savory,
197 Ill. 2d  at 214. After reviewing the record, we found that
testimony about the source of the bloodstain, which the State did
not present until rebuttal argument, was only a minor part of its
strong evidence against the defendant. Savory, 197 Ill. 2d  at 215.
"Under these circumstances, a test result favorable to defendant
would not significantly advance his claim of actual innocence, but
would only exclude one relatively minor item from the evidence
of guilt marshaled against him by the State." Savory, 197 Ill. 2d  at
215. See People v. Urioste, 316 Ill. App. 3d 307, 312 (2000) ("had
the legislature intended the overwhelming nature of other evidence
to be a factor in granting a motion filed pursuant to section 116-3,
it would have said so").
	Unlike evidence about the source of the bloodstain in Savory,
evidence about the source of genetic material in the Vitullo kit was
never presented at trial. That is, the defendant here does not seek
merely to impeach the State's evidence. Instead, he seeks to
present, for the first time, evidence about the genetic identity of
Payne's assailant. Further, unlike the defendant in Savory, the
defendant here never made damning admissions placing himself
at the crime scene. The State presented a strong, but largely
circumstantial, case; the only direct evidence of the defendant's
guilt came from Payne's identification. A favorable result on a
DNA test of the Vitullo kit would significantly advance the
defendant's claim that he did not rape Payne, which, in turn,
would significantly advance his claim that he did not murder
Hackett. "If the available DNA evidence is capable of supporting
such determination, there is no valid justification to withhold such
relief if requested on postconviction review." Dunn, 306 Ill. App.
3d at 81. The trial court erred in refusing to allow DNA testing of
any testable genetic material in the Vitullo kit pursuant to section
116-3.


Ineffective Assistance of Trial Counsel William Swano
	The defendant contends that his petition made a substantial
showing that he received ineffective assistance of counsel from
Swano. In the introduction to his petition, the defendant charged:
		"Milton Johnson had the extreme misfortune of placing
his trust in a drug-abusing, corrupt, unethical, and
incompetent 'attorney'-a man who is now a convicted
felon and who has repeatedly testified to bribing judges,
witnesses, and otherwise fixing murder cases (as opposed
to providing effective ethical assistance of counsel). The
attorney, William Swano, *** took $15,000 from Milton
Johnson's family and promised them a proper defense for
their son; he told them that he would use some of the
money to retain experts to counter the State's case.
Swano, however, did no investigation into either trial
evidence or mitigation, presented no expert rebuttal
evidence, and based his defense primarily on material that
was ultimately not allowed into evidence."
	The defendant's petition provided specifics. First, the
defendant asserted that Swano should not have entered his
appearance because the trial court refused to grant him sufficient
time to prepare for trial and sentencing and because he was
operating under a conflict of interest due to personal and financial
problems. Second, the defendant asserted that Swano was
otherwise ineffective in numerous ways: (1) he lied to the trial
court about his trial preparation while attempting to obtain
continuances on June 25 and July 16, 1984; (2) he failed to review
the discovery material tendered by the State; (3) he failed to
interview prosecution witness Shoemaker before trial and failed to
introduce available evidence in support a motion in limine to bar
her testimony; (4) he failed to investigate the police discovery of
the Great America receipt in the assailant's truck; (5) he failed to
interview parole officers who would have provided testimony in
support of a motion to quash the defendant's arrest; (6) he failed
to engage expert forensic witnesses to examine the rape kit and the
fiber evidence and to debunk the State's Neutron Activation
Analysis (NAA) evidence, and he failed to file a motion to bar
NAA evidence; (7) he failed to present available evidence in
support of a motion in limine to bar Payne's in-court
identification; (8) he failed to file a motion to bar Payne's
testimony based on hypnosis; and (9) he failed to litigate properly
the defendant's post-trial motion. Third, the defendant asserted
that Swano failed to prepare or investigate aggravation and
mitigation evidence.
	The defendant's ineffective-assistance claims against Swano
can be distilled into a single contention. The defendant argues that
Swano's mounting personal problems led him to neglect the
defendant's case while attempting to keep the defendant's fee. As
the defendant states in his petition: "Once in the case, Swano's
concern became avoiding the ire of the court and any situation
where his withdrawal (and refund of unearned money already
deposited in his own account ***) might be ordered or
demanded." Swano's lack of preparation infected the defendant's
entire trial and sentencing proceedings. The adversarial system
broke down, and the defendant was denied effective assistance of
trial counsel. Because the basis for this contention-Swano's
personal problems-is dehors the trial record, this claim is not
forfeited. People v. Orange, 168 Ill. 2d 138, 149 (1995).
	Initially, we note that the defendant characterizes Swano's
conduct as a conflict of interest, arguing that Swano's pecuniary
obligations outweighed his ethical obligations to the defendant.
We reject this argument: such conflict-of-interest claims must be
analyzed as claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. See People
v. Titone, 151 Ill. 2d 19, 31-32 (1992). Claims of ineffective
assistance of counsel are analyzed under the two-prong,
performance-prejudice test established in Strickland v.
Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674, 104 S. Ct. 2052
(1984). People v. Albanese, 104 Ill. 2d 504, 526-27 (1984). Under
Strickland, a defendant must prove that defense counsel's
performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness
and that this substandard performance prejudiced the defendant by
creating a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's errors, the
trial result would have been different. People v. Alvine, 173 Ill. 2d 273, 293 (1996). A reasonable probability is a probability
sufficient to undermine confidence in the result of the trial-that is,
to indicate that defense counsel's deficient performance rendered
the result of the trial unreliable or the proceeding fundamentally
unfair. Enis, 194 Ill. 2d  at 376. Unless the defendant makes both
showings, we cannot conclude that his conviction or death
sentence resulted from a breakdown of the adversarial process. See
People v. Munson, 171 Ill. 2d 158, 184 (1996).
	On June 19, 1991, almost seven years after the defendant's
conviction, Swano was indicted on federal racketeering charges
relating to his representation of various gang members. The
indictment specified that Swano repeatedly bribed judges,
presented perjured evidence, and received cocaine in exchange for
his legal services. Swano agreed to cooperate with federal
authorities and was reindicted for explicit judicial corruption
between 1980 and 1990. He pleaded guilty and is currently
incarcerated.
	The defendant's post-conviction attorney summarized
Swano's testimony in the trial of former Cook County Circuit
Judge Thomas Maloney. See generally United States v. Maloney,
71 F.3d 645, 650-52 (7th Cir. 1995). According to the defendant's
attorney, Swano's testimony established that in 1984, while
representing the defendant in this case, Swano was engaged in a
demanding law practice, was using drugs, was defending
foreclosure proceedings on various properties, and was forced to
file personal bankruptcy. In his testimony, Swano stated, "I did
illegal criminal activities [from 1975 though 1990]. I was an
unethical lawyer. *** Part of the unethical part of what I did was
lie." Lies, according to the defendant, were a serious problem in
this case.
	In his first appearance before the trial court on June 1, 1984,
Swano asked for a continuance. He indicated to the trial court that
he would not be prepared for trial scheduled the next day because
he had received no police reports and no discovery, and he had
interviewed the defendant for only one hour. The trial court
reluctantly reset the trial date to July 1, 1984. Swano vowed to
prepare diligently the defendant's case.
	On June 25, 1984, Swano presented a motion for a
continuance. Swano stated that he and co-counsel had made this
case their priority, but had not completed their review of over
5,000 pages of discovery. Swano mentioned that he intended to
hire a forensic fiber expert to review the report of the State's fiber
expert. He also asserted, "There are hundreds of other pages of
scientific evidence, specific ballistics, fingerprints, hair, blood,
other types of evidence that has [sic] to be digested by the Defense
and has [sic] to explored to be retained by the Defense ***."
Denying a continuance, in Swano's words, would subject the
defendant to "an unfair, ill-prepared, ineffective assistance of
counsel." Swano also told the court that he had interviewed
approximately 10 witnesses since he entered his appearance. When
asked by the court whether he had hired his forensic scientist yet,
Swano answered, "He apparently was out of town last week, and
I have not even personally spoken with him. It's not one forensic
person, Judge. There are many experts to be retained. *** I'm not
sure [how many] at this time. I have to interview the State forensic
people to determine what their testimony will be." When asked by
the court what the defense had done in the last 30 days, Swano
answered:
		"[W]e have been collating, organizing, researching all the
material received as well as the continued discovery that
we receive in our office every day.
			Every day I get another piece of discovery, another
piece of police reports in my office, and what we have
been doing is organizing the case and putting it together
to see what we are up against."
The trial court granted a continuance until July 23, 1984.
	On July 16, 1984, Swano presented another motion for a
continuance. In support of this motion, Swano stated:
			"Two weeks ago, approximately two weeks ago, this
Court on a similar motion granted us a two week
continuance.
			Since that time, myself, [co-counsel], [a student law
clerk] and other persons associated with the defense of
this trial, have worked diligently to go through the
voluminous material that we had received from the Public
Defender's office, and also to digest documents that we
have received during that time from the State's Attorney's
office.
			We have interviewed approximately forty to fifty
witnesses in the last two weeks and have made every
diligent effort [ ] [w]e feel necessary to defend Mr.
Johnson and prepare.
			At this point in time, it is-it is our contention that we
need more time. And I can't specifically point to the
things that have to be done, because there's a lot of things
that have to be done.
			There's more witnesses to interview. There's physical
evidence that has yet to have been seen by the staff.
			There is further discovery matters that have to be
resolved between [State's Attorney's office
representatives] and our staff here.
			There is a lot more research to be done for issues that
we have identified, that willcome [sic] up during the
course of the trial.
			Quite frankly, what we are asking for is some more
time to-to more adequately prepare, more time to more
adequately research the various legal issues involved in
this case."
The trial court denied this motion, and the defendant's case
proceeded to trial 10 days later.
	According to the defendant, Swano lied when he told the
court on June 25 that he had interviewed 10 witnesses because, at
that time, he had not yet interviewed Payne, Shoemaker, the
defendant's family, or police officers involved in the investigation
of these crimes. Further, Swano admitted that he had not
interviewed any forensic experts. According to the defendant,
Swano also lied when he told the court on July 16 that he had
interviewed 40 to 50 witnesses, because only a full investigation
of trial and sentencing evidence would have uncovered this
number of witnesses. Swano's statement defies credibility in light
of the fact that he presented no mitigation evidence at sentencing.
	The defendant's allegations concerning Swano's lies about his
lack of preparation are more troubling in light of his answers to the
defendant's post-conviction interrogatories. In response to the
defendant's interrogatory asking whether Swano hired an expert
to evaluate the fiber evidence in this case, Swano answered,
"Don't remember." In response to the defendant's interrogatories
asking whether Swano hired experts to evaluate the bullet
composition, NAA, or ballistic evidence in this case, Swano
answered no. Swano also admitted that he hired no mitigating or
sentencing experts in this case. When asked whether he received
any fiber, bullet composition, NAA, or ballistic evidence reports
from the Will County public defender when he entered this case,
Swano stated, "Don't remember. I do remember that when I
accepted this case the P.D.'s office had not prepared the matter for
trial and the discovery process was just beginning." When asked
whether he received any investigation reports, witness interviews,
or evidence evaluation from the public defender, Swano stated,
"Don't remember anything other than some discovery." He added
that, to his knowledge, the public defender "turned over everything
they had." According to Swano, the only mitigation witness whom
he remembered interviewing was the defendant's father. In an
affidavit, the defendant's post-conviction attorney described a
November 22, 1997, meeting with Swano, in which Swano also
stated that "he definitely did not hire or engage any experts in the
instant case and also did not recall consulting any experts, and that
he thought he intended to hire a NAA expert but did not have
enough time."
	Swano's conduct previously has come before this court in an
unrelated case. In People v. Smith, 177 Ill. 2d 53 (1997), a capital
defendant asserted that she received ineffective assistance of
counsel because Swano's knowledge of an impending federal
indictment on racketeering charges prevented him from giving full
attention to her trial. Relying upon People v. Williams, 93 Ill. 2d 309 (1982), the defendant asked for a new trial. In Williams, a
capital defendant alleged that he received ineffective assistance of
trial counsel because his attorney was defending himself against
a disciplinary complaint at the same time he was representing the
defendant. Considering the unique circumstances of this capital
case, we declined to apply established tests for claims of
ineffective assistance of trial counsel and, instead, ordered a new
trial in "the interests of justice." Williams, 93 Ill. 2d  at 325.
	Holding that the "unique circumstances" in Williams were not
present in Smith, we rejected the defendant's argument that
Swano's misconduct entitled her to a new trial. Smith, 177 Ill. 2d 
at 88-89 (citing People v. Franklin, 167 Ill. 2d 1, 18 (1995), and
People v. Szabo, 144 Ill. 2d 525, 529 (1991)). Swano did not
appear before the ARDC during the defendant's trial, and he was
not indicted until four months after his representation of the
defendant ended. Smith, 177 Ill. 2d  at 89. Further, Swano
represented only the defendant in this case, and he was assisted by
another attorney. Smith, 177 Ill. 2d  at 90. Finally, the defendant
pointed only to a single instance at trial-Swano's failure to cross-examine a prosecution witness about inducements to testify-when
she purportedly received ineffective assistance of counsel. Smith,
177 Ill. 2d  at 90. Instead, we held that Strickland governed the
defendant's ineffective-assistance claims. Smith, 177 Ill. 2d  at 90.
Analyzing this claim under Strickland, we concluded that Swano's
decision not to cross-examine was a strategic decision, insulated
from constitutional attack. Smith, 177 Ill. 2d  at 93.
	Unlike Swano's failure to cross-examine a prosecution
witness in Smith, Swano's alleged failures in this case are much
more pervasive. The defendant claims that Swano failed to
interview witnesses, failed to review the discovery material which
he received from the State, and failed to investigate and present
crucial evidence at trial and sentencing. The defendant also claims,
and Swano concedes, that he failed to hire any expert forensic
witnesses. These allegations against Swano do not involve mere
strategic decisions; they involve decisions which go to the core of
the defendant's constitutional guarantee of effective assistance at
trial. The defendant's allegations make a substantial showing that
Swano's performance was substandard.
	Further, the defendant's allegations make a substantial
showing that this substandard performance caused prejudice. As
we have noted, the State presented a strong, but largely
circumstantial, case against the defendant. Swano's defense was
limited to attacking the identification evidence and to filing
motions in limine to exclude portions of the State's evidence.
Because Swano was unprepared, he never subjected the State's
case to meaningful adversarial testing. Additional preparation by
Swano, especially with regard to expert forensic testimony, may
have yielded a different result.
	We conclude that the defendant made a substantial showing
that Swano's representation so undermined the proper function of
the adversarial system that the defendant's trial cannot be relied
upon to have produced a just result. Because the defendant's
allegations meet the benchmark for Strickland claims, these
allegations are consequently subject to further investigation. See
725 ILCS 5/122-6 (West 1998). The trial court erred in dismissing
the defendant's ineffective-assistance claims against Swano
without an evidentiary hearing.

Ineffective Assistance of Appellate Counsel
	The defendant contends that his attorney in his direct appeal
was ineffective for failing to raise several issues: (1) whether the
defendant was denied due process because the trial court refused
to grant sufficient time for Swano to prepare the defendant's case
for trial and sentencing; (2) whether the defendant's appointed
attorneys were ineffective for failing to remove Judge Orenic by
automatic substitution and failing to prepare the defendant's case
for trial; and (3) whether Swano was ineffective for a variety of
reasons, all related to his personal problems and lack of trial
preparation.
	The Strickland test applies to claims of ineffective appellate
counsel. People v. Caballero, 126 Ill. 2d 248, 269-70 (1989). A
defendant who claims that appellate counsel was ineffective must
show that the failure to raise an issue on appeal was objectively
unreasonable and this decision prejudiced the defendant. Enis, 194 Ill. 2d  at 377; People v. Flores, 153 Ill. 2d 264, 283 (1992).
Normally, appellate counsel's choices concerning which issues to
pursue are entitled to substantial deference. People v. Mack, 167 Ill. 2d 525, 532-33 (1995). Appellate counsel need not brief every
conceivable issue and may refrain from developing nonmeritorious
issues without violating Strickland (People v. Simms, 192 Ill. 2d 348, 362 (2000)), because the defendant suffered no prejudice
unless the underlying issue is meritorious (People v. Easley, 192 Ill. 2d 307, 329 (2000)). Consequently, the prejudice inquiry
requires us to examine the merits of the claims not raised by
appellate counsel.
	The defendant's first claim is nonmeritorious. Granting a
continuance lies within the sound discretion of the trial court.
People v. Williams, 173 Ill. 2d 48, 92 (1996); People v. Sanchez,
115 Ill. 2d 238, 262 (1986). On a charge of capital murder, the
defendant should be given every opportunity to investigate
witnesses and prepare his defense. See People v. Crump, 5 Ill. 2d 251, 263 (1955) (denying a continuance was an abuse of discretion
where the defense had a mere 10 to 11 days to interview 48
witnesses). However, "[j]udicial patience need not be infinite"
(People v. Williams, 92 Ill. 2d 109, 116 (1982)), and the
defendant's right to counsel of his choice cannot be employed as
a shield against an inevitable trial (People v. Solomon, 24 Ill. 2d 586, 590 (1962)). See People v. West, 137 Ill. 2d 558, 588 (1990).
	Here, Swano entered his appearance on the eve of trial, and
the trial court granted three continuances, giving Swano 55 days
to prepare for trial. This amount of time is not exceedingly long;
similarly, it is not exceedingly short, considering that, prior to
Swano's appearance, the public defender had more than three
months to prepare the defendant's case. The trial court did not
abuse its discretion, and appellate counsel was not ineffective for
failing to raise this issue.
	The defendant's second claim is also nonmeritorious.
Strategic decisions, such as pretrial motion practice, are insulated
from Strickland challenges. See People v. Pecoraro, 144 Ill. 2d 1,
13 (1991); People v. Bryant, 128 Ill. 2d 448, 459 (1989). Here, the
defendant's substitution of judge motion may have been handled
differently, but we cannot say the public defender's decisions
constituted substandard representation. Additionally, after
reviewing the record, we cannot say the public defender failed to
prepare the defendant's case. Appellate counsel was not
ineffective for failing to raise the issue of appointed counsel's
effectiveness.
	Finally, the issues related to Swano's personal problems and
lack of trial preparation were outside the record and not fully
developed when the defendant's case was on direct appeal. The
defendant's appellate counsel was not ineffective for failing to
raise claims that did not yet exist.

Discovery
	Finally, the defendant asserts that the trial court abused its
discretion when it failed to allow discovery on the allegations in
his post-conviction petition.
	The defendant initially made numerous discovery requests.
The trial court denied the majority of these requests, but entered
an order to have Swano transported from federal prison in
Greenville, Illinois, to the Will County courthouse, giving the
defendant's attorney an opportunity to speak with him. Once
Swano arrived in Joliet, however, he refused to be deposed and
insisted that his cooperation would be limited to answering written
interrogatories. Swano's interrogatory answers were summarily
brief, and, on the final page of the defendant's interrogatories,
Swano added, "I refuse to answer any other questions relating to
my personal case or conduct other than matters regarding Milton
Johnson and my role as his attorney."
	A trial court has inherent discretionary authority to order
discovery in post-conviction proceedings. See People ex rel. Daley
v. Fitzgerald, 123 Ill. 2d 175, 183 (1988); People v. Rose, 48 Ill. 2d 300, 302 (1971). A court must exercise this authority with
caution, however, because a defendant may attempt to divert
attention away from constitutional issues which escaped earlier
review by requesting discovery. People v. Hickey, No. 87286
(September 27, 2001); Enis, 194 Ill. 2d  at 415. Accordingly, the
trial court should allow discovery only if the defendant has shown
"good cause," considering the issues presented in the petition, the
scope of the requested discovery, the length of time between the
conviction and the post-conviction proceeding, the burden of
discovery on the State and on any witnesses, and the availability
of the evidence through other sources. Daley, 123 Ill. 2d at 183-84; see People v. Fair, 193 Ill. 2d 256, 264-65 (2000). We will
reverse a trial court's denial of a post-conviction discovery request
only for an abuse of discretion. Fair, 193 Ill. 2d  at 265. A trial
court does not abuse its discretion in denying a discovery request
which ranges beyond the limited scope of a post-conviction
proceeding and amounts to a "fishing expedition." Enis, 194 Ill. 2d 
at 415.
	In People v. Fair, 193 Ill. 2d 256 (2000), the defendant was
convicted of two murders and sentenced to death. Following his
conviction, the defendant learned that the judge who presided over
his trial had engaged in an extensive pattern of judicial corruption
in the time before and after the trial. We held that the defendant
was entitled to discovery of evidence obtained by the Cook County
State's Attorney's office in its investigation of the judge in order
to establish a nexus between the judge's corruption and the
defendant's trial. Fair, 193 Ill. 2d  at 267. Because the judge had
pleaded guilty, all the evidence concerning his criminal conduct
remained in the State's control. Fair, 193 Ill. 2d  at 266. We
reasoned the defendant could not establish a nexus between this
conduct and his conviction without access to that evidence. Fair,
193 Ill. 2d  at 266. See also Bracy v. Gramley, 520 U.S. 899, 908,
138 L. Ed. 2d 97, 106, 117 S. Ct. 1793, 1799 (1997) (holding that
allegations of judicial corruption against the judge who presided
over the defendant's trial established "good cause" for the
defendant's discovery request); cf. 188 Ill. 2d R. 416(e)
("Discovery Depositions in Capital Cases").
	Like the evidence in Fair, the evidence of Swano's
misconduct was unknown during the defendant's trial. Because
Swano refused to cooperate with the defendant, the trial court
abused its discretion by refusing to order his evidence deposition.

CONCLUSION
	The trial court erred in refusing to allow DNA testing of the
Vitullo kit pursuant to section 116-3. The trial court also erred in
dismissing without an evidentiary hearing the defendant's post-conviction claim that he received ineffective assistance from
retained trial counsel William Swano. Finally, the trial court
abused its discretion in refusing to order Swano's evidence
deposition. The trial court properly dismissed the defendant's
other post-conviction claims. For these reasons, we affirm in part,
reverse in part, and remand to the circuit court for further
proceedings.
Affirmed in part and
reversed in part;
cause remanded.
	CHIEF JUSTICE HARRISON, specially concurring:
	I agree with the majority's analysis and its conclusion that the
circuit court erred in refusing to allow DNA testing of the Vitullo
kit. I also agree that the circuit court abused its discretion when it
refused to order Swano's evidence deposition and that the court
should not have dismissed, without an evidentiary hearing,
Johnson's claim that Swano had provided ineffective assistance of
counsel.
	I write separately because I would go beyond the majority's
disposition and hold that Johnson is entitled to immediate post-conviction relief. Regardless of the outcome of any further
proceedings on remand, Johnson's convictions and sentences
cannot stand. That is so because Johnson was tried, convicted and
sentenced under a death penalty law that violates the eighth and
fourteenth amendments to the United States Constitution (U.S.
Const., amends. VIII, XIV) and article I, section 2, of the Illinois
Constitution (Ill. Const. 1970, art. I, §2). People v. Bull, 185 Ill. 2d 179, 225-29 (1998) (Harrison, J., concurring in part and dissenting
in part).
	Our court has now adopted a comprehensive set of new rules
governing the conduct of cases in which the State is seeking the
death penalty. For the reasons set forth in my dissenting opinion
in People v. Hickey, No. 87286, slip op. at 35 (September 27,
2001) (Harrison, C.J., dissenting), the procedures contained in
those rules are indispensable for achieving an accurate
determination of innocence or guilt and are applicable to all capital
cases now coming before us on review. Whether the new rules will
be sufficient to place this state's capital punishment system within
the tolerances permitted by the state and federal constitutions is a
question we cannot yet answer. It is clear, however, that no
proceeding conducted without the benefit of those rules can be
deemed reliable. I would therefore reverse the circuit court's
judgment in full, set aside Johnson's convictions and sentences,
and order that he be granted a new trial.


	JUSTICE KILBRIDE, concurring in part and dissenting in
part:
	I concur in part with the majority's judgment concerning the
lack of DNA testing of the Vitullo kit, the failure to allow Swano's
evidence deposition, and the improper dismissal of Johnson's
ineffective assistance of counsel claim. Nevertheless, I agree with
Chief Justice Harrison that defendant's convictions and sentence
should be set aside because the trial proceedings were not
conducted in accordance with the new supreme court rules
governing capital cases. As I stated in my dissents in People v.
Hickey, No. 87286, slip op. at 39 (September 27, 2001) (Kilbride,
J., dissenting), and People v. Simpson, No. 85084, slip op. at 35
(September 27, 2001) (Kilbride, J., dissenting), I believe that the
new rules should be applied retroactively. See People v. Caballero,
179 Ill. 2d 205, 220-21 (1997). Thus, this cause should be
remanded for a new trial conducted in compliance with the new
rules.